The Little Brown Reader

Knapp (and me) on Party Loyalty and the California Recall

In this article, Tom Knapp makes what seem to me to be contrasting points: that he's not a stickler for "party loyalty at any cost", and that Libertarian leaders who support non-Libertarian candidates -- specifically, those Libertarians who supported Republican Tom McClintock in the California recall election -- should be booted from their leadership positions.

You can see the contrast yourself, in just a few excerpts:

I've never been a stickler for "Party loyalty at any cost." The proof of a political party is found in various puddings -- electoral viability among them -- and it doesn't surprise or, usually, offend me, to see Libertarian activists go "off the reservation" in support of a non-LP candidate.

Unlike some, I'm not inclined to question the libertarian credentials of those who choose to endorse conservative candidates like McClintock or Campbell. I can understand the reasons why one might be moved to do so, even if I disagree with those reasons.

Then the contrast:

However, I am moved to point out that the Libertarian Party is a political organization, distinct from other such organizations, with a mission that includes running its own candidates for office rather than endorsing the candidates of other parties. And I'm also inclined to a certain, very specific sentiment: those "Libertarian leaders" who do choose to go around endorsing non-LP candidates in races where the LP has a non-repugnant candidate should never, ever, ever, under any circumstances, be considered by the membership of the LP for election to Party office or nomination as candidates for public office under the LP banner. They've established that their loyalties are not to the LP, but to another party (or, alternatively, that they can't be relied on to have any loyalties at all).

So, he's not usually offended by Libertarians who support non-Libertarian candidates, and he doesn't question their libertarian credentials, but he does hold "Libertarian leaders" to a standard such that they shouldn't be permitted to be such leaders if they go off the reservation in races "where the LP has a non-repugnant candidate".

I think his case is complicated by the fact that the candidate who was endorsed by the California LP was plenty repugnant -- running a ridiculous, embarrassing "smoker's candidate" campaign (including having his website at SmokersParty.com -- speaking of "party loyalty"), and, it's largely believed, running more to promote his chain of cigarette stores than to win votes or bring in new Libertarians. Practically nobody supported his campaign, despite the party's endorsement, and personally I think it's good that they didn't. Ned Roscoe was a net negative candidate -- doing more harm than good for the LPC. A vote for him was sending a message to him and to the LPC that his campaign, and his endorsement, were good ideas. They were not good ideas.

Which leaves Jack Hickey, the other Libertarian candidate on the ballot. (The third "Libertarian" was only that because of his registration, and said he was not really a libertarian.) There was nothing particularly wrong with Jack, but there was also little to no point in working to advance his campaign. It was clear that he would only earn a handful of votes -- particularly without the party's endorsement -- and that he would have absolutely no effective impact whatsoever on the election. I voted for Jack Hickey, but I didn't see the point in actively supporting him. It's one thing when there are 5 or 6 candidates, and only the one Libertarian, and the goal is to make that person have the best showing possible. It's another thing entirely when there are 135 candidates, and the main/endorsed Libertarian is a joke who is damaging the party, and it's quite obvious that the two in-party candidates are simply not going to have a notable impact on the election. He wasn't "repugnant", to use Tom's term, but neither was he in any real way distinguished above the other 100-plus random folks on the ballot. With the party's endorsement (or at least, without the party dissing him as they did by endorsing the smoker's joker), he probably would have amounted to a more worthwhile candidate -- even though he wasn't a viable one, under any circumstances. Any way you slice it, he was hard to get fired up about.

I was all-but frothing at the mouth to actively support a candidate in this election, and frankly I just determined it would simply be a waste of time (in the case of Jack Hickey), or damaging to the cause (in the case of Ned Roscoe).

In such a situation, I can certainly see where some libertarians would come to believe that they would serve liberty, and even the Libertarian Party, best by supporting the visible candidate who has strong libertarian leanings, and who has long been friendly to the LPC itself -- in this case, Tom McClintock. I also agree with those that said it was only worth doing so if he had a real chance of winning, but I'll give those who did support him the benefit of the doubt and assume that they thought that he had that real chance. Even I went so far as to basically say that McClintock would be the best choice (of the front-runners) for Governor, but I didn't endorse him, and I didn't vote for him, because I refuse to support the Republican Party (or Democratic Party) in any way.

However -- and this might be the most important point -- there is nothing in my official responsibilities as a regional Chairman for the Libertarian Party that prohibited me from endorsing or supporting McClintock. There are rules about such things, and in this case the rule is that Libertarian Party leadership organizations aren't allowed to endorse or materially support candidates from other parties. Meaning, me and the Nevada County Libertarian Party executive board couldn't vote to endorse him, or use our resources to support him. There is no such prohibition on individual leaders, and since the regional bylaws are modeled after the state bylaws, I presume the same is true at the statewide level.

Why does that matter? Because in Tom Knapp's column, he asserts that these folks who supported McClintock are betraying the trust that goes with their elected leadership positions within the LP organization. And I'm saying that it's only his opinion that that's the case -- that the official rules don't make any such stipulation. They do make stipulations about such situations, but not with the restrictions that Tom is looking to have party members enforce.

He even goes so far as to include Steve Kubby, the 1998 LP gubernatorial candidate in California, in the group of "Libertarian leaders" who broke the faith -- seemingly implying that if someone was nominated to an office 5 years ago, that they still operate under some sort of party-based strictures on their political conduct. I think that's quite a stretch. Steve Kubby doesn't even live in California now, and as far as I'm concerned, he has more than fulfilled the obligation that he took on by being the 1998 nominee. Steve Kubby has done a great deal for liberty and for the Libertarian Party in the past 5 years, and I think he has long been off the hook in terms of his obligation from 1998.

To be fair, Knapp is not suggesting an outright purge of these disloyalists, he simply thinks they should be removed from their offices of trust at the next opportunity to do so, and that they should never again be entrusted with such positions.

Maybe that's so. But he states it as if they broke some hard and fast rule -- and I don't think he properly takes into account the unique nature of this recall election, nor the unique dismalness of the LPC's slate of candidates.

Sure, it's fair to question the party loyalty (and the good sense) of the folks who chose to actively support a Republican in this recent election -- but I don't think it was nearly as cut-and-dry as Tom Knapp was making it out to be.

That said, I believe that the Republican and Democratic parties are hopelessly corrupted and immoral institutions, and that to provide material support for them or their candidates is a bad thing for this country (and in this case, for the state of California). Not because it's an indicator of disloyalty to your "home party", if you're a Libertarian, or Green, or whatever -- but because they are organizations that are making things worse, and supporting them amounts to helping to make things worse. That's the reason I didn't vote for or endorse Tom McClintock -- because he is an agent of an organization that is harming individuals, communities, and whole nations. And if I was going to hold a grudge toward those who did support him, that would be the reason I would hold the grudge. The party loyalty issue pales in comparison, I think. What matters is what will make things better -- what will increase individual liberty. And providing support to Republican Party candidates or loyalists will not.

Tom's column:
Californication, LP-style:
The Life of the Party, part 9
By Thomas L. Knapp

Read It Rating: 7.5
Left/Right Rating: 0
Freedom Rating: 1.5
Learning Percentage: 20%