La última convención nacional del Libertarian Party(LP) en Portland, Oregon, ha sido una bomba que puede significar un giro importante en la ideología liberal del partido. Normalmente los partidos políticos pierden su ideología y se vuelven “pragmáticos” al llegar al poder; pero el LP no ha podido esperar y va a dar, probablemente, un giro importante al neoconservadurismo para poder conseguir más votos y dominar así la maquinaria coactiva del gobierno para hacer lo mismo que ya aplica el Partido Republicano.
Si se deshace ahora de todos sus ideales, ¿hasta dónde llegará si alcanza el poder? Varios miembros del partido ya se han quejado de esta situación, el más claro ha sido L.K. Samuels en un artículo llamado Evicting Libertarian Party Principles: The Portland Purge:
So what are some of the principles that must go? First and foremost is the non-aggression principle, which is considered the main threat to an election-oriented populism. If libertarians would simply throw away this ideal, explaining LP policies on taxation, the drug war, foreign policy and military intervention would no longer be a campaign embarrassment…
The reformers even want to dumb down the drug issue. One member of the Reform Caucus suggested that if they could not get rid of the drug war plank, which survived the Portland purge, it could be watered down to “drug laws can hurt minorities and low income citizens.” This would eliminate any suggestion that individuals have a right to drug use — such an honest consistency would obviously frighten voters.
These reformers are attempting to make the LP more palatable to the vote-getting political mainstream. And yet, the founder of the Libertarian Party, David Noland, has repeatedly said that he and the early founders were more interested in the educational opportunities available through a campaign for office. To them, actually winning an election was secondary.
Should the Libertarian Party base its success solely on achieving political power? Should we seek political power as the end-all? One Reform Caucus leader echoed this sentiment by arguing that the LP must “win elections at any cost,” which comes close to the Machiavellian notion that the “ends justify the means.” To him libertarian principles were an impediment to greater LP election victories.
What will happen to the Libertarian Party if it attempts to fool voters about what libertarians really believe? Will voters reward our deceptive campaigning with more elected candidates? Will diluting and hiding our message increase membership? Or will it open the floodgates to more conservative, religious and pragmatic members who have little understanding of our philosophy? And what will happen if other reformers in later years pressure the LP to dilute our message again to gain an even a greater share of the popular vote? Where does this erosion of principles end? Más>>
(Las negritas son mías)
Los medios políticos nunca han sido una herramienta real para alcanzar la libertad. Ésta, la más alta de los fines, sólo puede ser alcanzado mediante el desprendimiento individual frente al estado.
“You can’t fight the State effectively through political means, friends. Not without compromising your principles. You just can’t.”