Roderick Long and Partyarchy: More Critique Than Condemnation
It is with some sadness that I note that Professor Roderick Long is running for chair of the Libertarian Party of Alabama. While I don’t see partyarchs as deserving of strong moral condemnation in quite the same way that Konkin or voluntaryists like George Donnelly might, some strategies can be so wasteful or counter-productive that we might draw ancillary, “second order” moral conclusions about them based on their results rather than the methods themselves. But, then, my own political history includes many years with the Libertarian Party during which I wish I had been more resolute and not so easily pressured by older activists into seeking the false respectability of supposed “moderation”. So, surrounded by glass, I won’t be throwing to many stones, I suppose. But I won’t entirely avoid these topics either.
Like Long, I haven’t quite wholly bought the argument that the electoral politics approach to libertarian activism is, in and of itself, evil. I’m somewhat sympathetic to such arguments. I’m aware that it can draw the libertarian into evil political acts and believe that there is no “libertarian” way to rule in terms of overall state policy. Personally, though, I’ve found it more compelling to note that electoral politics is principally a grave strategic error because it disguises the task before us. As I see it, the task of the radical libertarian (i.e. agorist) revolutionary is not to shape state policy but to combat the illusory moral legitimacy of the state — and in doing so to build a revolutionary class consciousness of the productive class (i.e. workers and entrepreneurs) that can result in snowballing peaceful and productive disobedience ultimately capable of displacing the state.
Long and I share thinking that, in some ways, isn’t terribly far apart on these matters — except on some rather crucial points. Where he says the following:
The objection that activism via a political party will mistakenly encourage people to focus on political campaigns rather than on building alternative institutions is, I think, well-taken; but that danger has to be balanced against the party’s usefulness as a tool of education.
…I find myself agreeing with the form of the statement itself. If it were a mathematical formula (a + b = c), I would say my objection isn’t to the formula, but the values Long is plugging into it. Simply put, the party isn’t all that useful as a tool of political education. The nature of partisan politics is that efforts and resources that could get used for political education get used up on the “political overhead” endemic to political parties. How Professor Long proposes to “balance” a Volkswagen and a feather duster is beyond me.
Now, the advocates of using partisan politics for purposes of political education will typically, at this point, reply with some statement like “But look at how many people discovered libertarianism through the Libertarian Party! How can you say the Party isn’t useful in that regard?”
Very simply, such objections are just Bastiat’s broken window fallacy all over again. One must, as Bastiat would, examine what is seen and what is not seen. The role of the Libertarian Party in the discovery of libertarianism for many people does not mean it’s well suited for the purpose of promoting libertarianism (rightly understood). Rather, that simply means it has been the most common choice among the prior existing base of libertarian activists. It is as if one were to contend that a dentist’s pick is a useful tool for plowing a field, because you’ve been plowing this field with a dentists pick for 30 years and most of the dirt that’s been moved so far has been moved with your dentist’s pick. That’s simply reflective of your own choices. Pointing to the overhead involved in partisan politics is what indicates those choices were poor choices.
Some recent remarks by Rad Geek seem applicable here:
I’d just want to stress, in addition to what Brad has to say, that the kind of co-optation and self-vitiation that Brad talks about aren’t just tendencies, and they aren’t just the work of some clever set of minimal-statist manipulators. I think that they are built in to the electoral-reformist project itself, necessarily and always — that they are structural limitations that you will always face if your politics is hitched primarily to influence the state or trying to gain a base of power within the state. The process itself only admits of certain outcomes, and the process itself also tends to consume those who put themselves into it.
Let me close by suggesting that perhaps those of us that consider Long a friend might wish to go in together on buying him a Statism Offset.
Share This
I think it is important to separate the collective question of whether the continued existence of the LP is beneficial to the cause of liberty from the individual decision Long is making about how to devote a small portion of his overall time. As LPA Chair, he gains a forum for expressing libertarian ideas to the press and, more importantly in my mind, to members of the LP who can only become more radical and knowledgeable by listening to him, and whose friendship will reap rewards regardless of the future of the LP.
27 years ago, I debated George Smith about the practicality of the LP. I said, and still say, that I probably wouldn’t have supported devoting all the resources that had gone into creating the LP, but that this was NOT the choice we each face. The only decision we make individually is, given the existence of the LP, are there activities we can engage in within it that will improve the prospects for liberty enough to justify the personal time we devote to it? I think the answer is clearly no for some people and yes for others.
I believe Roderick is speculating that the time he ALREADY devotes to speaking and writing about libertarian ideas will be made more valuable by having a distribution channel which, however, overpriced, exists independent of his personal decisions. I participate in the LP for many of the same reasons, and think people such as Ruwart, Knapp, and myself do help keep bridges open between the pro- and anti-LP movements that are important to maintain.
No, actually I’m just power hungry.
Install solar panels.
I don’t participate in the LP. I have, over the years, given up (since 1998) paying dues to the national LP on the grounds that it was corrupt and not working for liberty; worked in various state LP groups, contributing time and money to their efforts; been attacked by various nerf libertarians and LINOs on the grounds that radicalism was unacceptable; left a large number of LP related groups. I’m convinced that the LP is, on the whole, a poor use of my time.
Given that Rod seems destined to pursue this mad dream of controlling the Alabama LP, I wonder if he might like to reach out to the Boston Tea Party of Alabama which is managed by my friend Darryl W. Perry. Darryl has ambition to run for president in 2016. Judging by the book he just published, he’s become very radical indeed. (It includes selections from Emma Goldman and Voltairine de Cleyre (sp?) among many others.)
For my part, I don’t think the LP has been particularly effective at anything in the last 40 or so years. It has been a mess. If Rod thinks he can lend some clarity and leadership where it is needed, great. I expect, however, that it will be yet another case of casting pearls of wisdom before swine. Chomp-chomp-chomp.
this mad dream of controlling the Alabama LP
Well, I’m not out to control the LP. As I’ve mentioned elsewhere — see here and here — the plan is to decouple the roles of chief ideological blatherer (me) and chief administrator/manager.
Also, in partial mitigation of my sins, the slate I’m running with favours expanding the focus of the LPA from electoral success to other forms of activism. (I realise that from your perspective this is an improvement only in whatever sense “arsenic and peanut butter” is an improvement over “arsenic,” but insofar as the total amount of arsenic decreases in favour of peanut butter, it’s something.)