Why the Libertarian Party is Different… and how it gets in the way of winning elections for us
“One love, one life, one too many victims. Republicrat, Democran, one party system.” —Sage Francis, Slow Down Gandhi
For the two sides of the uniparty coin, the party itself is the terminal objective. In other words, there is nothing bigger or greater than the party, and winning is all that matters. Neither party adheres to some underlying principle. They have platforms built around nebulous concepts that they call principles, sure, but those change on a whim, even on core issues.
Derived from their platforms, each party has a set of policies and related messaging that exists—and changes—for the sole purpose of getting that party’s members elected. Just in the last few years, both parties have dramatically shifted their positions on things like tariffs and free trade, government surveillance, free speech, undeclared war, and so much more.
For example, Democrats claim to be pro-bodily autonomy as a core principle, but they loved those jab mandates (that appears to have been the wrong choice, now, huh?). And the Republicans say they want freedom and small government as part of who they are, but they also want to put people in cages for smoking pot and they valiantly defend criminals when those criminals are wearing a badge and a uniform.
The uniparty, both sides, is publicly for or against whatever they need to be according to internal polls and focus group feedback and all sorts of other inputs they use to (they hope) drive voters to the polls to pull the lever in the party’s favor. Then they go and pass laws that in no way reflect the will or good of the people, but benefit their big donors. The parties want power because they can cater to the people who make them rich and help them buy ever more power. This is demonstrably true and ubiquitous to almost all elected officials (Thomas Massie is a shining beacon of hope), regardless of party. We call them the uniparty because there is no difference between them, except maybe what culture war issues they use to drive their base into a frenzy.
The platform changes, the messaging changes, the focus changes, and the rationalization continues. …The whole point is electoral success, and their efforts to demonize the “other” side in pursuit of that goal is a big part of why we are so polarized as a country (but that is a separate conversation). The only thing they cannot tolerate is a challenge to their power.
Most importantly, by the very nature of being solely constructed to pursue power, both parties are inherently and utterly anti-Liberty, because, for the most part, the members of each major party are unable to separate their desire to enforce their respective morality on others from any fealty to the principles of Liberty and self-ownership.
You can back the uniparty or you can back a principle. You cannot back both.
This is where the Libertarian Party (LP) differs from the uniparty. The LP exists not as its own terminal objective, but as a piece (a major piece, but a piece nonetheless) of the broader Liberty movement.
Libertarians (small “l” in this case) exist with the purpose of spreading Liberty, generally speaking. “A world set free in our lifetimes” is a platitude, for sure, but not a meaningless one. How individual libertarians spread Liberty varies widely. Some post memes and start podcasts, for example, while others go all the way to dedicated activism or engaging in the electoral and political process.
For those who are working through the electoral process to try and promote Liberty, the LP and its affiliates comprise the vehicle for furthering that goal, at the federal, state, and local levels. There is room for political work outside of just electoral campaigns, such as building coalitions and influencing legislation (#DefendtheGuard), and that work is a critical part of how the LP and state and local affiliates succeed. Nevertheless, the LP’s ultimate purpose is advancing Liberty through winning elections.
However, the LP is still a piece of the broader movement and thus must always act in the interests of advancing the principles and practices of Liberty. The structural difference is subtle, but it is massively consequential in terms of how the LP operates and why electoral success is rare.
If we act as if the Liberty movement exists to win elections and the Party should only think about winning elections, then members will necessarily follow the incentive structures inherent to that paradigm, meaning they will do what it takes to win elections. This approach is the hallmark of the uniparty—no principles, no scruples, just your team winning or losing so you can try and force your morality on someone else and mock them for disagreeing, then thinking your life is over a few years later when the pendulum ultimately swings the other way.
Of course, people with money want to buy power, and, since we Libertarians are interested in taking that power and giving it back to the people, we don’t attract the self-serving big money that the others do. This, more than anything else, is the biggest single roadblock to Libertarian electoral success. Money buys ads, volunteers, infrastructure, media, signs, mailers, events, attention, and souls. The last major election cycle generated about the same net revenue as the entire Marvel movie franchise and more than one NFL season.
Further, libertarian principles are sacrosanct, which leads to an absurd amount of internal gatekeeping and infighting. “Don’t hurt people and don’t take their stuff” is an easy message to convey at a high level. Application gets trickier, and, because of our allegiance to our principles, proposing approaches to social and political problems generates a lot of “you’re not a real Libertarian” nonsense. We spend a preternatural amount of energy infighting over the 5 percent of stuff where we disagree, instead of focusing on how to unite around the 95 percent of stuff where we agree completely, and ultimately, we aren’t focused on how to win.
There are a myriad other minor factors that play into the Libertarian Party’s difficulties in making major headway at the ballot box, with impact that varies by candidate, election season, political climate, region, and more. I am not going to analyze them here because all of them could be overcome if we could unite around common purpose and find innovative ways to push back against the machine.
We are facing a behemoth that has unlimited funds, holds all the levers of power, changes the rules to its benefit but uses them against us, and has no scruples or restraints when it comes to pursuing its objectives. Resistance should be our only objective. Fixating on that which divides us assures nothing but a Sisyphean fate of increasing irrelevance. By the time people realize we were right all along, it will be too late, and our small pittance will be saying “we told you so” as the world burns.
Not that we are at lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch’intrate levels yet. The uniparty machine was built by humans and relies on predictable patterns of human behavior. Duverger is not invincible. We have the most powerful weapon there is on the ideological battlefield—the truth. How we write our future story will be determined by our ability to work together to wield it.
To write for The Torch, please join https://discord.gg/lp-alliance and submit a pitch and/or draft (as a Word file or Google docs link) to Amanda G. via direct message.
