Serving Our Cuase--Responsible Leadership
The Libertarian Party of Wisconsin like any successful enterprise will only succeed or fail on the vision, competence, eloquence, and example of its leaders. Some people lead naturally, born to it. Some learn through doing it and lead just as well. Either way, the quality of any business comes from people willing to take charge, work as part of a team, share credit for success and accept the ultimate responsibility if anything goes wrong. Leaders lead by learning, both the positive and the negative lessons.
Party members often tell a joke that goes, “Leading libertarians is like herding cats.” The punch line, as we know, is the impossible effort to give cats direction, unless they are following their hunger. For anti-statist individuals, participation in an institution contradicts an instinct of many libertarians who believe in a natural law of liberty and want to live free of coercion or a collective consent of others, particularly from institutions over which she or he has diminishing control (government, of course, being the prime example). That even brings another joke about the philosophy of libertarianism and the state of liberty in society. “How many libertarians does it take to change a light bulb?” Answer: “None. They think it will be done by an unseen hand.”
The problem with leadership in the libertarianism starts in a “pure ideal” of why we need a world of liberty, one where any institution or even a libertarian party slows a natural existence of individual freedom and personal responsibility. Also, the pure philosophy might abhor the practical reason of why we have a political party based on individual liberty and personal responsibility. We join for different reasons, but a libertarian party fights for the conditions where free minds and free-markets can naturally create peace and prosperity.
For forty years in its existence the Libertarian Party shows only marginal success at the election polls, with the possible exception of local community, county, cooperative and school boards. On a positive note, the Libertarian Party keeps our common cause alive, keeps voters and office holders at all levels of government office more honest to liberty in the republic than otherwise could be the case. And, the Libertarian Party chips away little by little at the wall of ignorance and apathy in people who by preoccupation with family, work, etc. forget that they ARE citizens and that they must be responsible more than anyone for keeping their own liberty and freedom intact.
For the lack of full pews, however, the Libertarian Party cannot always preach to the choir and keep the faith in the faithful. Despair comes to those who wait for answers. In politics, as in life, one has to know the right question(s) to ask. Sometimes, a “Gospel of Liberty” must be shown, and not told, to others on outside afraid to look inward. The question could be in our case, “How would a Libertarian Party function best to remain pure in principle while achieving practical results of restoring a republic of liberty?”
There might be a mistake in libertarian organizations copying the successful political parties who themselves became the corruption they sought to replace. Merely copying the structures, hierarchies, methods, and forms of the ruling mega-party do not fit what a libertarian organization could, should and would ideally become in order to remain pure in its essence and successful toward its goals. Whether libertarian organizations peel into mass marketing, death by committee, stove piping lines of accountability and responsibility, or puts ambition before performance in rank, these old ways do not really fit what a party of individuals, and smarter than average individuals, can create that effectively runs a party less like a government bureaucracy and more like a profitable and reasonably efficient enterprise.
Libertarians need to create a participatory party system with less rigid procedures while keeping the accountability and guidance intact. A libertarian society would empower individual citizens taking initiative to care for their own interest best, mostly empowering by not killing positive initiative and enthusiasm. The flexible “almost non-organization” that can spread the gospel of liberty works with all the membership, the officers, the representatives, the committees, the volunteers and the affiliates and their supporters, becoming the leaders among family and friends, co-workers and neighbors by showing, not preaching, how libertarianism is lived.
LIBERTY MUST BE LIVED TO BE KEPT ALIVE. In that way, liberty as practice and libertarianism as philosophy grow stronger, in all ways—in members, resources, volunteers AND VOTES. With that example, in the home, at work, among friends, or by acts of leadership through voluntary choice in their community, libertarianism stays pure and becomes practical politics as well, if directed toward supporting Libertarian Party candidates and supporting libertarian positions on legislation and policy.
As said in the beginning, some naturally lead well; others learn from the pain of wisdom. Most often, those paths cross. Managing things in an organization (the business details for example) are simple. It just takes the minimum commitment to perform the necessary duties. Success in any enterprise comes from maximum effort used smart and with experience.
Leading in the way described, if not natural, can be nurtured. Everyone can lead somehow if trained and empowered by the identification of talent, teaching skill sets, finding the tools, and given guidance and initiative to pursue their enthusiasm. Leadership is easy to understand. At a minimum, and as always done best by example in new enterprises, the minimum requirement necessary for success is to DO THE WORK. Liberty in the world depends on it. It depends on you!
It might be necessary to look at some important, broader issues a libertarian party should consider before going further toward the goal (whatever the goal is set to be). Unfortunately, some of this gets a little sad and negative but informs better the need for a positive solution stated above. If, as libertarian political parties adopt the trappings, systems, work methods, and even political fund raising like the major parties, (albeit donations are still important; but money equaling the Megaparty treasuries is not as important if libertarians function with the leadership strengths as explained), the Libertarian Party and the liberty movement in general would repeat the cycle it is trying to break.
The very real practical fear for a party based on purist philosophy OR uncompromising pragmatism, is that an ideological revolution, inside or outside the organization, eats its own children as surely as the French and Russian revolutions destroyed those people that started them (and other ones as well). It would happen no less to or within a libertarian party or organization as it did happen to France's Third Estate or Russia's Left SRs.
The Founding Fathers of America, with time to make the right choices in a period of relative calm and settling, understood the need for limited, but stable government. Hence a loyal opposition needed opportunity to achieve power by some set of normative, acceptable, non-violent rules that all must follow. Even in the Federalists writings, while not described as parties, “factions” of different interests were expected, and in ways even encouraged, in the new American Republic. The factions were meant to provide a balance between and within the various governmental and non-governmental institutions in the Union. A fact in point, Hamilton, the primary real leader of the constitutional revolution, who wrote most eloquently about factions, was himself murdered by a leader of the opposing faction.
These examples take extreme ends but the lessons should nonetheless be generally instructive. Division in purpose or personality in any organization breeds pessimism and discontent. Negativity and non-cooperation destroys enthusiasm. Worst of all for any libertarian organization, arguments between purity and pragmatism defeat the means before the ends ever become reality.
The true lesson here? It is right to be principled, but pragmatism is acceptable and can be practical to the extent of reaching the common good for the common cause. Implacable, hostile, or resentful resistance to other views, even to the less pure ideas or more pragmatic ones on any side, leave no room for compromise. The general point can be summed up with the phrase: “Mutually assured destruction” if either of the extremes, purism or pragmatism, do not meet in the middle. And compromise between individuals within civilization, no less than within a political party or a mass organization, is necessary to prevent the inevitable end of all fanaticism with power: The destruction of both self and others.
In a society that seeks to maintain peace and prosperity for all, the loyal opposition, on both sides of the divide, must be kept satisfied with the trappings of power, namely respect and dignity for their beliefs to be voiced (even if wrong), and especially an opportunity within an agreed set of limited rules to achieve the “shackles of power.” Without the necessary conditions for both peace and prosperity to benefit from the balance of power provided by the factions of interest and factions of influence, politics fails to perform its absolute function in Natural Law: The guarantee of individual and collective liberty, freedom, justice, and citizenship for everyone and anyone, in peace with plenty.
Without the minimum guarantee existing for practical compromise, extremist tendencies for suicidal and homicidal solutions will destroy everyone in the name of purity or pragmatism. In that case, there is no hope on earth for a libertarian society to exist for anyone. The guiding principle for libertarianism must be: Liberty and justice for all, for the minority and the majority, and all the dissidents on every extreme.
Party members often tell a joke that goes, “Leading libertarians is like herding cats.” The punch line, as we know, is the impossible effort to give cats direction, unless they are following their hunger. For anti-statist individuals, participation in an institution contradicts an instinct of many libertarians who believe in a natural law of liberty and want to live free of coercion or a collective consent of others, particularly from institutions over which she or he has diminishing control (government, of course, being the prime example). That even brings another joke about the philosophy of libertarianism and the state of liberty in society. “How many libertarians does it take to change a light bulb?” Answer: “None. They think it will be done by an unseen hand.”
The problem with leadership in the libertarianism starts in a “pure ideal” of why we need a world of liberty, one where any institution or even a libertarian party slows a natural existence of individual freedom and personal responsibility. Also, the pure philosophy might abhor the practical reason of why we have a political party based on individual liberty and personal responsibility. We join for different reasons, but a libertarian party fights for the conditions where free minds and free-markets can naturally create peace and prosperity.
For forty years in its existence the Libertarian Party shows only marginal success at the election polls, with the possible exception of local community, county, cooperative and school boards. On a positive note, the Libertarian Party keeps our common cause alive, keeps voters and office holders at all levels of government office more honest to liberty in the republic than otherwise could be the case. And, the Libertarian Party chips away little by little at the wall of ignorance and apathy in people who by preoccupation with family, work, etc. forget that they ARE citizens and that they must be responsible more than anyone for keeping their own liberty and freedom intact.
For the lack of full pews, however, the Libertarian Party cannot always preach to the choir and keep the faith in the faithful. Despair comes to those who wait for answers. In politics, as in life, one has to know the right question(s) to ask. Sometimes, a “Gospel of Liberty” must be shown, and not told, to others on outside afraid to look inward. The question could be in our case, “How would a Libertarian Party function best to remain pure in principle while achieving practical results of restoring a republic of liberty?”
There might be a mistake in libertarian organizations copying the successful political parties who themselves became the corruption they sought to replace. Merely copying the structures, hierarchies, methods, and forms of the ruling mega-party do not fit what a libertarian organization could, should and would ideally become in order to remain pure in its essence and successful toward its goals. Whether libertarian organizations peel into mass marketing, death by committee, stove piping lines of accountability and responsibility, or puts ambition before performance in rank, these old ways do not really fit what a party of individuals, and smarter than average individuals, can create that effectively runs a party less like a government bureaucracy and more like a profitable and reasonably efficient enterprise.
Libertarians need to create a participatory party system with less rigid procedures while keeping the accountability and guidance intact. A libertarian society would empower individual citizens taking initiative to care for their own interest best, mostly empowering by not killing positive initiative and enthusiasm. The flexible “almost non-organization” that can spread the gospel of liberty works with all the membership, the officers, the representatives, the committees, the volunteers and the affiliates and their supporters, becoming the leaders among family and friends, co-workers and neighbors by showing, not preaching, how libertarianism is lived.
LIBERTY MUST BE LIVED TO BE KEPT ALIVE. In that way, liberty as practice and libertarianism as philosophy grow stronger, in all ways—in members, resources, volunteers AND VOTES. With that example, in the home, at work, among friends, or by acts of leadership through voluntary choice in their community, libertarianism stays pure and becomes practical politics as well, if directed toward supporting Libertarian Party candidates and supporting libertarian positions on legislation and policy.
As said in the beginning, some naturally lead well; others learn from the pain of wisdom. Most often, those paths cross. Managing things in an organization (the business details for example) are simple. It just takes the minimum commitment to perform the necessary duties. Success in any enterprise comes from maximum effort used smart and with experience.
Leading in the way described, if not natural, can be nurtured. Everyone can lead somehow if trained and empowered by the identification of talent, teaching skill sets, finding the tools, and given guidance and initiative to pursue their enthusiasm. Leadership is easy to understand. At a minimum, and as always done best by example in new enterprises, the minimum requirement necessary for success is to DO THE WORK. Liberty in the world depends on it. It depends on you!
It might be necessary to look at some important, broader issues a libertarian party should consider before going further toward the goal (whatever the goal is set to be). Unfortunately, some of this gets a little sad and negative but informs better the need for a positive solution stated above. If, as libertarian political parties adopt the trappings, systems, work methods, and even political fund raising like the major parties, (albeit donations are still important; but money equaling the Megaparty treasuries is not as important if libertarians function with the leadership strengths as explained), the Libertarian Party and the liberty movement in general would repeat the cycle it is trying to break.
The very real practical fear for a party based on purist philosophy OR uncompromising pragmatism, is that an ideological revolution, inside or outside the organization, eats its own children as surely as the French and Russian revolutions destroyed those people that started them (and other ones as well). It would happen no less to or within a libertarian party or organization as it did happen to France's Third Estate or Russia's Left SRs.
The Founding Fathers of America, with time to make the right choices in a period of relative calm and settling, understood the need for limited, but stable government. Hence a loyal opposition needed opportunity to achieve power by some set of normative, acceptable, non-violent rules that all must follow. Even in the Federalists writings, while not described as parties, “factions” of different interests were expected, and in ways even encouraged, in the new American Republic. The factions were meant to provide a balance between and within the various governmental and non-governmental institutions in the Union. A fact in point, Hamilton, the primary real leader of the constitutional revolution, who wrote most eloquently about factions, was himself murdered by a leader of the opposing faction.
These examples take extreme ends but the lessons should nonetheless be generally instructive. Division in purpose or personality in any organization breeds pessimism and discontent. Negativity and non-cooperation destroys enthusiasm. Worst of all for any libertarian organization, arguments between purity and pragmatism defeat the means before the ends ever become reality.
The true lesson here? It is right to be principled, but pragmatism is acceptable and can be practical to the extent of reaching the common good for the common cause. Implacable, hostile, or resentful resistance to other views, even to the less pure ideas or more pragmatic ones on any side, leave no room for compromise. The general point can be summed up with the phrase: “Mutually assured destruction” if either of the extremes, purism or pragmatism, do not meet in the middle. And compromise between individuals within civilization, no less than within a political party or a mass organization, is necessary to prevent the inevitable end of all fanaticism with power: The destruction of both self and others.
In a society that seeks to maintain peace and prosperity for all, the loyal opposition, on both sides of the divide, must be kept satisfied with the trappings of power, namely respect and dignity for their beliefs to be voiced (even if wrong), and especially an opportunity within an agreed set of limited rules to achieve the “shackles of power.” Without the necessary conditions for both peace and prosperity to benefit from the balance of power provided by the factions of interest and factions of influence, politics fails to perform its absolute function in Natural Law: The guarantee of individual and collective liberty, freedom, justice, and citizenship for everyone and anyone, in peace with plenty.
Without the minimum guarantee existing for practical compromise, extremist tendencies for suicidal and homicidal solutions will destroy everyone in the name of purity or pragmatism. In that case, there is no hope on earth for a libertarian society to exist for anyone. The guiding principle for libertarianism must be: Liberty and justice for all, for the minority and the majority, and all the dissidents on every extreme.
posted by Scipio Cepicanus @ 12:31 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home