Thursday, May 22, 2008

LP Convention Begins, War Continues

I notice one of the leading non-Barr contenders for the Libertarian Party prez nomination at the LP convention that starts today in Denver, Colorado’s own Christine Smith, who’s about forty, says the fight for liberty has to start with first “cleaning house” within the LP itself — which she says has become “overrun” by “warmongers and statists.” Perhaps a few of my friends share this fear.

In fact, most LP members, according to Reason’s David Weigel, want an immediate Iraq withdrawal — which I only now realize means literally immediate, with many of them objecting, apparently, to out-in-six-months plans from people like (statist warmonger) Barr.

Needless to say, I think that’s a bit extreme. At the risk of being labeled a McCain-like warmonger, if I were running for LP nominee, I’d tell those peacenik extremists that we owe it to the Iraqi people to stick it out over there even if it takes A HUNDRED DAYS!


Eric Dondero said...

If Barr gets too influenced by the leftwingers in the Party, and moves too far into the End the War camp, he’ll lose his Pro-Defense Libertarian supporters.

So far, he’s done a good job at the balancing act.

This is why he’ll make the perfect LP Presidential Nominee for 2008.

Let’s hope the LP delegates are smart enough to nominate him. If not, it’s on to Libertarians for McCain.

Perry E. Metzger said...

There are no actual libertarians who are interested in continuing the war — only pseudolibertarians like Mr. Dondero think that the traditional libertarian position is “left-wing”.

Todd Seavey said...

Well, as I’ve said repeatedly, I think people can disagree drastically (and still rationally) on military policy but that attempts to “define” people out of the tribe in order to win the argument are time-wasting and petty. You don’t own the word _libertarian_, and while I don’t know how many of them remain hawkish, people like Glenn Reynolds et al have obviously always framed their arguments in pro-individual-liberty terms perfectly consistent with the basic principles of the philosophy.

As I once told Brian Doherty, the whole reason I signed up with this movement was in hopes of toppling tyrannical governments — and efforts to do so overseas will sometimes go badly, as no doubt would attempts at either violent revolution or (more advisable) peaceful legal change here at home.

Don’t go making your anti-interventionist stuff part of the fundamental definition of the philosophy pal — or you may find that when people refuse to use a common lexicon, they get ignored (and rightly so) rather than civilly argued with, since people babbling in their own private language are, as Wittgenstein taught us, a waste of time.

Luckily, the aforementioned Weigel will be blogging at from the LP convention, so we can see where at least one subset of the movement is headed next.

jenny said...

“literally immediate” withdrawal from iraq? does the LP membership have any concept of the logistics involved in moving more than 160 thousand troops, plus equipment? it took more than a month to coordinate the airlift of approx. 2000 kurds from iraq to guam in 1996, and that was just civilians with a small number of personal belongings and using commercial aircraft.

Jason Bontrager said...

I find it amusing that the LP keeps trying to capture the Oval Office without bothering to build a Congressional or State-based presence. One or two State Congresscritters here and there does not a serious political party make.

The LP really needs to work on its grass-roots support at the local and State level before trying for Federal office. Trying it the other way around amounts to an attempt to force Libertarianism down the country’s throat from the top. Which would seem contrary to LP philosophy.