| Libertarian Essays -- Speak Now or Forever Hold Your Peace |
Speak Now or Forever Hold Your Peace
by Jim Lesczynski
Perhaps you noticed this is the first issue of THE VILLAGE CHOICE to show up in your inbox in three months. Perhaps you didn't notice, or didn't care. I've received a few emails since January asking what happened to our weekly publication, but for the most part people seem to be getting along well enough without it. For those who do care, as I've mentioned in past issues, I simply don't have time in my schedule anymore to put this out on a weekly basis. Anyone interested in assuming the reins of THE VILLAGE CHOICE should drop me an email, but until that happens, assume that this publication will appear infrequently at best.
But that's not what I want to write about today. I want to discuss the top item in the news clips above. As has been rumored in Libertarian circles for some time now, former Massachusetts Governor Bill Weld, the leading candidate for the Republican nomination for New York governor, is seeking cross-endorsement by the Libertarian Party.
This is big stuff. Weld would be by far the most serious, experienced candidate the Libertarian Party of New York has ever endorsed. Even if Weld didn't win, it's almost a lock that he could pull 50,000 votes on the Libertarian line, something no other Libertarian candidate for governor has managed in our 32-year history. If we hit the magical 50k, it means that the Libertarian Party is an officially recognized big-time party with permanent ballot status for the next four years. No more sweating it out on the streets in the dead of summer, expending massive amounts of time and energy collecting signatures just to get our candidates on the ballot. Instead of 3,500 signatures to run a candidate for Congress, it would be more like 1 or 2 signatures, depending on party enrollment levels. Even in areas where we didn't run a candidate, the Libertarian Party would still own a column on every ballot.
Sounds great, doesn't it? Ah, but there's a catch. There's always a catch. See, Weld isn't a purist Libertarian. He isn't even a moderate Libertarian. Weld is more, shall we say, libertarian-leaning. A fellow traveler of the freedom movement, if you will. While he peppers his interviews with wonderful sound bites like, "I want to get the government out your pocketbook and out of your bedroom," when the rubber hits the road, Weld often comes up short. He's for medical marijuana, but opposes drug re-legalization. He's opposed to eminent domain abuse, but supports Bruce Ratner's Atlantic Yards scheme. He's a card-carrying member of the NRA, but signed a massive gun control law while governor of Massachusetts. (His defense is that it wasn't as bad as the gun control Pataki signed in New York.) And so on.
So now we face a serious dilemma in the Party of Principle. Do we set our principles aside, "just this once," and go with a kinda-sorta Libertarian in order to get major party status and be on easy street for the next four years? Or do we go with Plan B, which is to once again nominate an earnest but invisible hardcore Libertarian and be content with the same result we have always gotten?
Weld wouldn't be the first controversial candidate we've ever nominated -- controversial within the party, that is. Party in-fighting usually happens whenever we consider a candidate outside the rank and file of the LP. We have a strong preference for inbreeding; the Libertarian Party is like the Romanovs of New York politics in that respect. In some cases, particularly during the Howard Stern episode, I thought the criticism of outsider candidates was entirely justified. In other cases, as with the great Audrey Silk, leader of C.L.A.S.H. and our recent candidate for mayor, I thought the intramural potshots were entirely unfounded.
Regardless of my feelings on any particular candidate, one thing I believe firmly is that there is a right time and place for internal criticism and debate. That time is BEFORE we give them the nomination. Unfortunately, all too often it seems some of us don't begin the serious debate over a candidate's qualifications until after the horse has left the barn. Or, maybe there are a few socially dysfunctional spoilsports in the party who just care nothing for the good of the party or the advancement of liberty, and who are content to get their jollies by tearing down our candidates throughout the course of the campaign season.
I'm about as purist of a Libertarian as you can find, and I can find plenty to nitpick about any campaign, but I guarantee that you will never find me publicly knocking a Libertarian candidate between nomination and election day. And publicly includes on those infamous wastes of time, the Yahoo Groups.
If you want to criticize a candidate for being insufficiently libertarian, please do so. Personally, I think now is the time for our candidates to be more libertarian, not less. But let's hear it now, before the nomination. Or if a promising candidate disappoints during the course of the campaign, save it for after election day, when we can do a post mortem and hopefully learn from our mistakes. Trashing a candidates while he or she is our nominee does the campaign no good, it does the party no good, and it does the cause of freedom no good.
And spare me the childish whining about free speech and "constructive criticism." A private email to the candidate is constructive. If the candidate rejects your advice, there is absolutely nothing constructive about taking your gripe public. It just pisses off the candidate and demoralizes the troops. Yes, you have a right to free speech. You have an absolute right to speech that damages the Libertarian cause. But let's not have any delusions about what it is you're really doing.
If you find you just can't stomach a nominated candidate, then by all means don't support him or her. Go find something else to do for freedom, and sit out this election. There are plenty of ways you can advance the cause without involvement in electoral politics.
Weld isn't the only quasi-libertarian seeking our nomination this year. There is also Steve Greenfield, a Green Party activist from New Paltz who is seeking our Senate nomination. As far as I can tell, he's even less of a libertarian than Weld. In all likelihood, I will vote for Jeff Russell, a long-time true-blue Libertarian, for Senate at our statewide nominating convention in Albany. Still, if Greenfield somehow gets the nod, I will either find a way to support his campaign, or I will simply find something else to do for freedom over the next seven months. The same goes for Weld.
Fellow Libertarians, come to the convention in Albany on April 29. Make your voices heard. Starting April 30, I don't want to hear them.
| LPNY Home -- Libertarian Essays |