Boortz and LP "Purity"
Someone mentioned yesterday that Mr. Boortz was talking about the petition on his show, and complaining about how the people supporting it were too concerned about "purity." Although I didn't hear this myself, I'm assuming that Boortz didn't specify which LP principle relative to foreign policy he believes we are overzealously trying to protect.
I'd like to know which principle that is.
I'd also like to know at what point Mr. Boortz feels that we need to let go of that principle and give our allegiance to another.
Of course the next question would be to what principle Boortz does lend his ultimate allegiance, when push comes to shove and he's past the point of throwing around cool libertarian catch phrases.
As long as Boortz thinks he has the right to extract money from those of us who oppose Bush's foreign policy, and use that money to pursue said policy against our will, you can bet that ruling principle of his ain't individualist in nature.
It's been said that everyone has a philosophy of life, some just don't know what it is.
What's yours, Mr. Boortz?
Posted by Jeff Smith at December 8, 2003 10:16 PM | TrackBackA lot of people are coming at "The Boortz Problem" from different angles. One of those angles is purity, and while I generally agree with the notion that it is possible to define "libertarianism" with reference to adherence to a general principe (specifically the Zero Aggression Principle), I have one mild area of disagreement with Mr. Smith.
This isn't about "libertarian purity." It _could_ be, but it doesn't have to be, and I don't think that we should force it to be.
Let's take it from the top:
I advocate an "open party" -- anyone who wants more freedom and less government should be welcome in the LP. Once they're there, I'll be among many attempting to persuade them to the "hard core" or "purist" positions, but the important thing is that they're headed our way. From this standpoint, Mr. Boortz is quite welcome in the LP as far as I am concerned. He's welcome to be a member. He's welcome to be a delegate. He's welcome to run for party office, whether I'd vote for him or not.
In the main, I think this is the best way to do things. Obviously, people who disagree with most of the LP's positions, or disagree vehemently with even a few of them, will probably not be comfortable in the LP, and may leave ... others who think that, on balance, the LP best represents them will stay.
However, having a party that is open to people with differing views is an entirely different thing from having a party that represents all of those differing views as _its_ views.
Libertarian Party members have views and opinions. The LP has positions, which it codifies as part of its platform. The platform does not represent the unanimous view of all LP members on every subject. It does, however, represent the position OF THE PARTY AS AN ORGANIZATION on every subject which it addresses.
The job of the LP's national committee, staff, etc. is to PROMOTE those positions. Arguing the merits of those positions and possibly changing them is the job of the members, specifically when said members serve as representative delegates at the national convention.
Here's where the problem with Mr. Boortz comes in.
Mr. Boortz is not attending the convention as a delegate, in order to persuade his fellow LP members that he is right on (for example) the war issue and that the platform should be changed. He's not attending the convention as a visitor in order to drum up support for something he wants changed.
Mr. Boortz is attending the convention as a "featured speaker" -- someone whose primary role is to represent, to the public and on behalf of the LP, what the LP is about.
Mr. Boortz is a well-known public personality, with well-known views on foreign policy. Those views happen to be severely at variance with the POSITION OF THE PARTY on the most talked about issue now before the American people. Having Mr. Boortz at the convention is tantamount to advertising to the public that the LP's position on the war in Iraq is 180 degrees opposite what it actually is.
Like I said, we could MAKE this a "purity" issue. I believe that the LP's platform on foriegn policy and military issues is, on balance, representative of the "purist" take on those issues. However, to me, the problem is not that Mr. Boortz is "impure" -- it's that his appearance is bound to be _misrepresentative_.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
Well said and on target.
Now that the issue is joined, it takes on a life of its own. It is a test of strength between the anti-war and pro-war factions of the LP, and I think most people will see that they must take a stand on that basis.
In his column for Dec. 10, which is mostly about another subject, Raimondo quotes Nancy Neale as saying anti-war libertarians are a "tiny minority" of the LP. I fear that she is right. If my local LP is representative, the overwhelming majority are apathetic about the war, and won't abject to Boortz being rammed down the party's throat. If that is so, I for one am done looking for any good from the LP.
I think the primary issue is about strategy and representation, as Tom said.
But I have a problem with Boortz that I might not necessarily have with other libertarian-leaning supporters of the war. I also have a problem with his speaking at the convention that I may not have with another prowar "libertarian" giving a talk at the convention, provided that the subject of the talk be something other than foreign policy. For all I know, Boortz might have planned to go up and talk about the drug issue. I would not oppose all warmongering neolibertarians doing this as much as I do in the case of Boortz.
Why? Because Boortz has consciously made the war *his* main issue. *He* has used it to divide America into two major political groups: the reasoned, patriotic supporters of the war and Bush's handling of it; and the leftist, commie, unAmerican opponents of war. Much of his writing pronounces the notion that opposition of the war or virtually any of its ingredients amounts to sedition and betrayal of America. (http://tinyurl.com/te4i)
An otherwise libertarian activist who believes in gun control or drug laws or national healthcare -- as problematic as this would be -- is better than an otherwise libertarian activist who considers pretty much any supporter of his anomalously unlibertarian position to be patriotic and pretty much any of its opponents to be a traitor.
The issue of war has led Boortz to support Bush, which means excusing all of Bush's warfare statism. Boortz is vocally unhappy about this, but, as far as he's concerned, Bush's handling of the War on Terrorism outweighs the evil of his other socialist policies. If Boortz were still planning to vote Libertarian, in spite of his hawkishness, I would be more forgiving of him. But if he would choose a neoconservative like Bush over a Libertarian, on the basis of foreign policy, then we should exclude him on the very same basis.
Frankly, I don't even see why he'd want to be in the party, seeing as though its platform contradicts his views on what he considers to be the most important issue of the day.
