“Power wears out those who can’t handle it.” – The Godfather, Part III
The Fakes vs. the Flakes
Notes Toward a Reconstruction of Libertarian Politics
Austin Dispatches
No. 99
Aug. 10, 2007

The party formerly known as Libertarian couldn't even wait for the next election cycle to confirm my predictions
At least two candidates in Texas discarded their nominal libertarian identities during the 2006 races. Travis County residents had to endure the disgraceful televised spectacles of a U.S. Senate candidate who supports the continued U.S. occupation of Iraq and advocated mandatory universal health insurance;[1] and a state Senate candidate who declared his support for "programs that have radically improved schools in Texas."[2]  As a friend asked, what programs are those?[3]
Perhaps next election, they can claim that the right computer algorithms will make it possible to centrally plan prices.[4]  I've met them both and wouldn't hire them to scrub toilets.

Some minor acquaintance, a former party apparatchik, actually had the audacity to chide me for calling attention to these candidates' public positions, although he allowed as how I was "personally quite upset ....”[5] 

Gee, that was big of him. “Upset?” I thought I was communicating with a Libertarian. Instead, I got a response from the Lifetime channel.[6]  That dumb motherfucker doesn’t know what the fuck he’s talking about, to put it politely.
Everything I’ve just described is a synecdoche of the post-Portland LP.


Similarly, much of what I’ll describe happens in every other party, in other political organizations, and even non-political organizations.  Also, many of my examples are from the Travis County and Texas affiliates. I’m most familiar with them, and I think they’re sufficiently representative of various mindsets within the LP.

The Fallout
For the record, I voted for every libertarian on the ballot in my precinct. Which I intended to do even as I severed my main political agent in a calculated, cold-blooded mood. I've dismissed banks, ISPs and doctors for less.[7]  I granted the LP more leeway because a political party confronts more variables in its quest for power. I regretted eliminating an entire network, my oldest in Austin, and probably some friendships.[8]  Nevertheless, post-Portland, my decision to fire the LP was inevitable, for reason I summarized prior.[9] Not, as friends and readers asked afterward, for ulterior motives.[10]  An issue of Austin Dispatches, if done properly, is dense, ironic, multilayered, and often facetious,[11]  but the purely political issues are sincere attempts to explain this mess we're in and how we got there.[12]  Work demands and other time constraints, plus the struggle to craft a message worthy of its intended audience, delayed my dismissing the LP.[13]
No, what happened was the national LP ratcheted up its quotient of big mistakes, in rather nonincremental fashion, past the threshold I set around early 1989, when I self-identified as a libertarian but hadn't changed party registration. Then, I decided I'd switch if the GOP made colossal mistakes or if the LP won something big. I also decided I'd leave the LP if I determined it wasn't serious about political victory as a necessary precondition to rolling back the size and scope of the State. I re-registered the same day in the summer of 1990 that the Republican leadership declared support for Gulf War I and the income tax hike.[14] 
Now the LP has met my threshold for departure, so for the foreseeable future I will no longer participate in any activity supportive of the "Libertarian" Party, except voting for particular candidates at the ballot box and in writing about the party in Austin Dispatches and elsewhere.[15] 

The LP is formally no longer libertarian. Based on the recent actions and rhetoric of the two most active factions, which I’ll address below, it isn't even really a political party anymore. A dozen years of painstaking gains were wiped out by 155 fools in one long weekend.

Moreover, the post-Portland turmoil helped undermine the most promising congressional candidates – Michael Badnarik and Bob Smither in Texas, and Phil Maymin in Connecticut.[18]  Maymin’s witty advertisement notwithstanding, officially, the Libertarian Party doesn’t stand forthrightly for smaller government, fewer taxes, more freedom, and getting out of Iraq.[19] You certainly couldn’t prove it by the national platform, or the behavior of its apparatchiks since the convention.

At Portland, the LP lost its focus, and its nerve.[20]

The fact that so many party members still think Portland’s results were good only underscores my point. These people are digging themselves and the party into an inescapable hole, and they think the problem is they don't have a backhoe to finish the job. Tellingly, no one has asked the preconditions for the LP becoming my political agent again. Even the most incompetent insurance company asks that.

The Platform, Again

A platform is a party’s official position on the issues. Based on the post-Portland platform, such as it is, the LP is at best insufficiently, indistinctively libertarian compared to other parties, which have a comparative advantage in quantifiable matters, such as ballot access, total number of candidates, total number of electoral victories, and fundraising.[21] 

At worst, the “Libertarian” Party stands for nothing. Effectively, it’s another party that supports big government. To slow, not stop, Leviathan, we're left to rely on partisan and interest-group gridlock, governmental inter- and intrabranch turf disputes, inertia, and incompetence to protect our lives, liberties and properties.[22] 

We Americans deserve better.

Furthermore, another, lesser-known purpose of the platform is to keep candidates in line. Candidates who represent a party ostensibly dedicated to limited government while espousing mandatory health insurance and praising government schools on the campaign trail are likely to evade their party obligations in office. That’s an attitude shared by Dick Cheney (“Platforms don’t mean anything.”).[23]

Ironically, the platform was generally, correctly settled as issue before the “reformers” gutted it. Libertarians were beginning to focus on the challenging task of becoming the dominant party to turn those principles into public policy. Now the gutting has revived old debate about the issues, and reopened old intraparty divisions that had been finally healed by the 2002 convention. The intraparty struggles in the LP have focused on the platform to the detriment of everything else.[24] 

Beyond the Headlines
Post-Portland debate has focused on the platform from convenience. It’s an easy angle to work. And everyone agrees at least that the previous and new platforms read differently. But the gutting of the platform is just a symptom of deeper problems afflicting the LP.

What really hasn’t been said, what even the most partisan may dare not utter, is that most of the people running the LP, now and in recent years, can't be trusted. They aren’t competent enough to run things, even if they had the party’s best interest at heart, which they probably don’t. They don’t even serve their own, narrower self-interests competently. 

Particularly, the contemporary platform problem began with the national staff’s Iraq Exit Strategy in 2005.[25]  The staff bungled a good idea, bringing further discredit to the Libertarian Party and perpetuating the defensiveness and factionalism within the party since 9/11.[26]

National’s staffers pride themselves on being "pragmatic." To that end, they concocted a position paper poorly researched and argued.[27]  Is it really too much to expect them to be familiar with libertarianism? And for a document supposed to be "realistic," it neglected a plethora of reporting, often in book form, on the actual situation abroad that would’ve buttressed the plan.[28] 

Moreover, the plan misjudged public sentiment, which was much more favorable to the LP’s noninterventionist plank. A paper that took a stronger, compatible position could’ve positioned Libertarians to dominate antiwar efforts and turn it into a reinvigorated, patriotic popular front for the first time in about 65 years.[29]  Instead, the plan resembled something written by junior high students for the Pentagon’s Office of Special Plans.[30]

Subsequently, the national staff issued the IES without a review by the Libertarian National Committee, antagonized a vast segment of the party’s rank and file, and expressed considerably more self-satisfaction about its work than results warranted.[31]  By the way, this is the same staff that stalled my membership renewal, because it forgot to deposit my check for membership dues in 2004. The matter wasn’t straightened out until national committeeman Rick McGinnis intervened on my behalf.[32] 

The LP should’ve thoroughly, immediately repudiated the plan. Then, the national headquarters apparatchiks should've been fired and replaced with cheap foreign day labor. The replacements probably would’ve served the LP better. Instead, the apparatchiks stayed on; gutted the platform to conform to their imitative schemes, in collaboration with the Libertarian Reform Caucus; and otherwise attempted to strip an ideologically based party of its ideology. Only recently has the IES even been removed from the party’s Web site.[33]

Since the convention, much commentary has tried to define the conflict between “left” and “right.” However, “left-libertarian” is a term that doesn’t apply to anything real, and based on the convention results, isn’t ever likely to, according to pinko sympathizer Roderick Long.[34]  Usually, the self-proclaimed “left-libertarians,” when pushed, actually turn out to be apologists for the corporatist managerial-therapeutic, warfare-welfare state who gripe about taxes (when they can be bothered to think clearly about the topic), and hold half-digested notions that social disapproval of various practices of sex, drugs and death is some sort of residual defect propagated by yokels and their cynical minders.[35] 

Nevertheless, during my time in the Libertarian Party – back when it was libertarian – I witnessed constant fretting by an intraparty faction, particularly among the meathead Boomer types, about altering the platform or bylaws that could ease the way for a takeover by "conservative Christians" or some other boogeyman they scare themselves with.[36]  Now the platform has been altered and some high-profile Republicans immigrated. Most notably, former U.S. Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga., joined the LNC, apparently without actually changing his unlibertarian views on various social issues.[37]  So where's the left-libertarian opposition within the party to Barr? They folded like used underwear.

More recently, an overwhelming majority of the LP's remaining rank and file favored Ron Paul for president in a credible online poll.[38]  They joined top-level party officials,[39]  past and even current contenders for the LP presidential nomination.[40]  An easy choice, since his is the most sophisticated understanding of libertarianism of any past LP presidential nominee,[41]  better even than John Hospers.[42] 

Of course, this also reflects on the party’s pathetic choice of candidates.[43]  Fittingly, the pinkest contender is a mentally unbalanced ex-con: just read his Web site's biography.[44] Even the Democrats have somebody better: Mike Gravel.[45] 

Among the LP contenders: several newcomers who decided to run for the nomination without feeling the need to even familiarize themselves with libertarian principles, let alone fake affinity for them at party gatherings.[46] 

In fairness, these candidates aren’t showing any less mental rigor or commitment than the majority of delegates at the Portland convention. Since the LRC succeeded in eliminating what made the LP distinguishable, it’s hard to muster outrage at these presidential contenders for ignoring the ideas. Given what's happened in the last two years, these aspirants can hardly be faulted for thinking that the LP is dumb enough and desperate enough to nominate any warm body that shows up at party events. How do you think the Texas LP nominated Scott Jameson for U.S. Senate?

And despite Barr's deviations from libertarian principle, he's far more radical than the LRC morons who made his entry possible, or the self-proclaimed "left-libertarians" I personally heard praising the gutting of the platform.[47]

More frequently, commentators describe the intraparty conflict as “pragmatists vs. purists.” Again, this inaccurately reflects the factions and the conflict.

For one thing, the pragmatists aren't that pragmatic. Otherwise, they wouldn't have done what they did at the convention, the way they did it, and then been surprised at the reactions. They compromised what, where and when they didn’t have to.

For another, the purists couldn’t bother to master the politics necessary to keep the party pure, such as strengthening the cadre of activists,[48]  to prevent Portland-style takeovers, because that would’ve required actual engagement in … politics.[49]  In practice, this aversion leaves the political arena to those who do believe that politics is the way to solve problems.[50]  One suspects their emphasis on "purity" is a misplaced reaction to the degradation that dominates other aspect of their lives.[51]  Often, this means some anarchist smugly declaiming his purity while he’s collecting a paycheck as a government employee.[52] Above all, their notion of libertarian purity rests on a weak understanding of the theory and the literature.[53] 

Thirdly, “purist” and “pragmatist” describe broad tendencies, not mutually exclusive, more so than these small groups of party members.

No, the situation is really best described as a match between the fakes and the flakes, respectively.

The Fakes and the Flakes

Politically, the fakes undermined the party and themselves – at their moment of triumph. They blathered about incrementalism, then used an unincremental method to gut the platform.[54]  They disregarded the platform, and the ideas contained therein, as the party's distinguishing comparative advantage to its rivals, perhaps because they really regard libertarianism as a liability.

Even elsewhere, on technical matters, the fakes fumbled once in control. They could've demonstrated the superiority of their approach by applying their technical and administrative skills to political mechanics (e.g., fundraising, ballot access, etc.), thereby strengthening the LP's position. Instead, the fakes in charge have devoted themselves to irrelevant math-major fantasies, such as changing American voting arrangements, and to strenuously denying that the LP's massive problems are worsening under their management.[55]

The fake-caused national problems also undercut the party’s progress among the state affiliates. For example, much of the progress in the Texas LP comes from a few people practicing the sort of competence in administrative matters that should've been routine within the party no later than about mid-1973.[56]  Of course, the state affiliates could perform the political mechanics perfectly and still lose operating on flawed assumptions such as thinking an ideological organization can function without ideology.

It's always about increments.[57]  The idea's to make them as large as possible. A deliberately incrementalist approach tends to psychologically deflate the activists and supporters, resulting in infinitesimal incremental gains. The truly pragmatic approach is to seek total victory, with a predetermined incremental result as an acceptable alternate goal (e.g., 5 percent to stay on the ballot for the next election).

At worst, the fakes are what Saul Alinsky called "the Do-Nothings," who

profess a commitment to social change for ideals of justice, equality, and opportunity, and then abstain from and discourage all effective action for change. They are known by their brand, “I agree with your ends but not your means.” They function as blankets ... smoldering sparks of dissension that promise to flare up into the fire of action. These Do-Nothings appear publicly as good men, humanitarian, concerned with justice and dignity. In practice they are invidious.[58] 

The only thing likely to prevent the fakes from being routed at next year's convention is their best-organized intraparty rivals, the flakes.

The flakes still haven’t overcome a trap of their own making, one of several. By definition, strengthening a political party makes it more successful in all the standard measurements of success, but the more successful it becomes, the more the personality type associated with the flake stance will recede. On the other hand, by their neglect of political mechanics, externally, they lose and discredit themselves and their ideas; internally, the flakes handed ambitious fakes an opening to take over the party.[59] Still, a Chicago Polack with a fifth-grade education working for the Daley Machine understands more about political mechanics than most any gathering of Libertarians.[60]

The flakes’ flawed framework stretches into theory. The flakes confuse a heuristic for a telos, and anarchy for libertarianism.[61]  Besides, "men will not live under anarchy."[62]  This makes the flakes “dogmatists of social impotence.”[63]

One example of how inept the flakes can be in applied politics: A flake subset, the Grassroots Caucus, actually asserts on the home page of its Yahoo! discussion forum that it wants for the LP “a culture … that is bolder, more irreverent, more free-spirited, more creative, and more fun-loving" and “…whose style, structure, culture, and materials speak first and foremost to the younger generations who hold the future in their hands.”[64] In other words, the Grassroots Caucus thinks the dorks in junior high should ape the cool kids, with predictably disastrous results. In practice, this meant running for Alabama governor some trailer park pothead who castigated the voters for racism. That'll win the LP support. Think of a better idea, Grassroots Caucus.[65]  As a friend has pointed out, Ron Paul did not get where he is doing the “groovy hippie thing."[66] 

Still, the Grassroots Caucus’ strategy could work, if its members had better senses of timing, trends and fashions. Except flakes hate those elements even more than they hate engaging in politics itself.

In fact, despite all the obvious differences, both factions fundamentally share more in common with each other than with the bulk of the party. That’s because the fakes and the flakes are really just subsets of the same political segment.[67]  Neither group represents anything but a small number of party members. Combined, neither faction represents anything but a slightly larger number of party members. Of course, this being the LP, both factions share their flaws more commonly than their strengths. In addition, many members of either faction often combine the mindset of both factions, and the mastermind behind the Portland convention, Carl Milstead, self-described "holistic politician" (translation: “pretentious douche bag”), manages to combine the worst features of each faction.[68]

The fakes lack confidence in the libertarian message, which is reflected in their watered-down approach that they lose elections with. The flakes also lack confidence in the libertarian message, which is why they always sneer at the “normals,” which they lose elections with. Their pessimism derives from the bad results from their faulty conceptual frameworks. Rather than reassess those frameworks, they blame it on the voters. Both factions' faulty frameworks also lead them astray on outreach efforts – when they can be bothered. Only the details differ.

Their respective yet similar frameworks prevent them from connecting with a broader base of support. Moreover, their frameworks spur them to attempt alliances with groups demonstrably incompatible. The fakes try to appeal to beneficiaries of the status quo; the flakes, soft socialists and others implacably hostile to liberty and its underpinnings.[69]

The fakes try to connect with people in power, the ruling elite and the managerial class of the corporatist, managerial-therapeutic, warfare-welfare state. Those same people won’t adopt libertarianism just because their belief system has been proved wrong. The current system benefits them. When they do take the fakes seriously, it’s as a threat. Candidates like the aforementioned Texas nominees, who adopted the discourse of the establishment parties’ candidates, allowed their opponents to frame the issues and terms, and thus the whole election-season debate, and thus the outcome. Even if those candidates truly believed in a different, freer version of society – which they don’t – they forfeited their ability to articulate such a version because they let their opponents frame their respective races.[70] 

At least the fakes have more sense than the flakes, who try to connect with asocial freaks. Both are hostile to bourgeois norms and social forces, but the freaks have generally decided they're better off with the State, because it crushes the mediating social forces they oppose, and aids them in imposing their alien values upon us.[71] If the flakes had their way, the LP would be a yammering antibourgeois freak show. Liberty is not really, and never has been, about cosseting freaks. As a social trope, it’s despicable, and worse, clichéd.[72] As a political stance, it’s a guarantee of defeat, and has been for decades.[73] By definition, “freaks” are a minority. That’s why everyone else considers them “freaks” in the first place.[74] 

Notice who gets snubbed in the outreach efforts? Their intellectual frameworks and actions over the years have alienated them from the majority of the LP’s membership, and also a larger base of support currently outside the party. And these are supposed to be smart people?[75]

These ignored supporters are no mere Nockian remnant.[76] They includes most of the major libertarian theorists, and have produced most of the past presidential nominees.[77] Unfortunately, many of its members lack the time, money, or both to attend national conventions. Otherwise, recent events would’ve turned out differently, and this issue might be unnecessary.

Yet this group is the one that can connect with the public at large. Few fakes or flakes could articulate a compelling telos the way a friend did, for:

… America the way it should be: constitutionally centered, limited government, capitalist, largely
prosperous, with strong families, strong communities, but tolerant of progress and accepting of diversity.[78]

Ideas do have consequences, but some ideas have more consequences than others, and which consequences ensue from which ideas is settled not simply because the ideas serve human reason through their logical implications but also because some ideas serve human interests and emotions through their attachment to drives for political, economic, and social power, while other ideas do not.[79]

In other words, constituencies win elections for parties, but the ideas identify and attract a party’s constituencies in the first place.[80] Without a significant cultural base, political efforts are bound to fail and also will draw the LP into the institutional and conceptual framework of the existing regime. Political maneuver by its nature is a process of bargaining, and the more the LP engages in political action, the more it’ll find itself bargaining and compromising with its opponents, who often don’t need to bargain at all.[81]  

Bring Me the Head of Carl Milstead
Some people are too content to grumble in their chains. Therefore, the party must quickly accomplish several tasks to arrest its downward spiral and recover its momentum toward political power.
First, the pre-Portland party platform must be restored. For good measure, the foreign policy and national security planks Steve Givot succeeded in repealing must also be restored.
Next, those responsible for this debacle – everyone active in the LP knows who they are – must be stripped of their party positions, expelled, publicly repudiated, and blacklisted for life. In short, the LP must make examples of them, so everyone else gets the lesson drummed in. When a dog craps on your carpet, you don't applaud it. Instead, you smack it a couple of times with a rolled-up newspaper, then rub its snout in the crap so that doesn't happen again.[82]
Third, identifiable fakes and flakes must refrain from seeking intraparty or public office and accept a diminished status within party ranks. They're welcome to contribute money, volunteers and votes. They're just not suited to run things, and they need to realize that.
Fourth, real libertarians will have to subject the fakes and flakes to close questioning. ("Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Libertarian Reform Caucus?") Confession is good for the soul. Not to mention the kneecaps. Anyone interested in the LP ought to grill its officials and would-be officials as to whether they really intend to win, or whether they're just playing at politics and therefore wasting your time and money. For that matter, the LP rank and file might be interested to know whether Libertarian (or "Libertarian") officialdom is just interested in collected sinecures while disdaining the rough and tumble of electoral politics.
Finally, too many in the party, especially in leadership positions, can’t articulate or even conceive the point of the party. Furthermore, the metrics usually bruited about in the annual reports often don’t connect with a clear goal. Indeed, too many people express obvious distaste at engaging in activity befitting a political party. “Education?”[83] Americans will accept a lot, but not the prospect of being lectured to by their social inferiors. Besides, the LP is, once again, a political party. Therefore, its goal is to win elections, so its officeholders can implement the libertarian agenda.[84]  The main approach for this goal is to field candidates for office.[85] No victory, no power. No power, no implementation.[86]  All else is detail.[87]

Until the members of these two factions acknowledge, confront, and alter their frameworks, progress within the LP is impossible. Furthermore, progress with the LP as the vehicle for political change is impossible.

Anyone want to take the Vegas odds on any of this happening?
Nevertheless, if these real reforms – to the workings of the LP and in its members' mindsets – aren't made, the LP faces the remaining lifespan of an average Elizabeth Taylor marriage.[88] 

An organization – and a movement – can fumble away opportunities only so many times before its record of failure become too well known for it to change its chances.[89] 

[1] U.S. Senate candidate debate, KLRN-TV, San Antonio 19 Oct. 2006.
     Scott Jameson's most egregious remarks are at 6:13 and 47:24.
[2] Vargas, Hermelinda. "Libertarians Looking for Votes, Press." WEAN-TV, Austin, Texas 17 Oct. 2006.
     Rock Howard's statist comments are from 1:05 to 1:34 in the news clip.
[3] Lucey, Dennis. "Re: The Dummest Man Alive, on Local TV." E-mail to Dan Eisler, 25 Oct. 2006.
[4] Rothbard, Murray N. "The End of Socialism and the Calculation Debate." Review of Austrian Economics, Vol. V(2) (1991): 71-72. Rpt. The Logic of Action, Vol. I: Method, Money, and the Austrian School. Cheltenham, U.K.: Edward Elgar, 1997: 428-429.
[5] Steele, R. Anthony. "Re: The Dumbest Man Alive, on Local TV" E-mail to D. Eisler, 26 Oct. 2006.
[6] Stuttaford, Andrew. “Cable Gal.” NR 4 May 1998: 56+.
[7] AD No. 50 (May 14, 2003); AD No. 84 (Oct. 10, 2005); AD No. 92 (Sep. 27, 2006).
[8] AD No. 73 (Nov. 8, 2004); AD No. 75 (Dec. 5, 2004).
[9] D. Eisler. “You Can’t Beat Something With Nothing.” E-mail to TCLPActive, 4 Sep. 2006.
[10] Ruliffson, Bob. “Your Farewell.” E-mail to D. Eisler, 6 Sep. 2006.
[11] Eisler, Mike. “Gifts.” E-mail to D. Eisler, 1 Dec. 2006.
[12] AD No. 19 (July 2000), AD No. 31 (Nov. 17, 2001); AD No. 47 (Feb. 15, 2003).
[13] AD No. 89 (Mar. 29, 2006); AD No. 91 (July 2, 2006); AD No. 94 (Nov. 25, 2006).
[14] Magnuson, Ed, Dan Gooddame, and Hays Gorey. “Back to the Other War.” Time 10 Sep. 1990: 42.
[15] D. Eisler. “Re: Your Farewell.” E-mail to Ruliffson, 6 Sep. 2006.
[18] AD No. 91n3, op. cit.; Doherty, Brian. “Campaign Wishes and Libertarian Dreams.” Reasononline 25 Aug. 2006 <http://www.reason.com/news/show/36961.html>; Doherty. “Making Bank Over a Dime’s Worth of Difference.”  Idem., 6 Nov. 2006 < http://reason.com/news/show/116496.html>; Ramsey, Bruce. “The Blue Tide – the Wreckage and the Lifeboats.” Liberty Jan. 2007: 18.
[19] Phil Maymin for U.S. Congress. “I Approve This Massage.” TV advertisement, 25 Oct. 2006 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0DM72Nb_SA>.
[20] Ries, Al. Focus: The Future of Your Company Depends on It. New York City: HarperBusiness, 1996: Ch. 15. 
[21] Viguerie Richard A., and David Franke. America’s Right Turn: How Conservatives Used New and Alternative Media to Take Power. Chicago: Bonus Books, 2004: 95; Winger, Richard. “National Vote Totals for Each Party, for Top Office.” 24 Nov. 2006 Ballot Access News <http://www.ballot-access.org/2006/11/24/national-vote-totals-for-each-party-for-top-office/#comments>.
[22] Higgs, Robert. "War and Leviathan: Conscription as the Keystone." The Costs of War: America’s Pyrrhic Victories, rev ed. Ed. John V. Denson. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction, 1999: 386-387.
[23] Nessen, Ron. It Sure Looks Different From the Inside. Chicago: Playboy Press, 1978: 230.
[24] Gregory, Anthony. “Real World Politics and Radical Libertarianism.” Speech, Libertarian Party of California convention, San Ramon, Calif. 22 Apr. 2007; Keaton, Angela. “Sleep Deprived Rambles on Life After the Hammer.” 14 Mar. 2007 Liberated Space <http://www.liberatedspace.com/phorum/read.php?f=7&i=2773&t=2773>.
[25] “LP Exit Plan for Iraq Released.” Libertarian Party News Aug. 2005: 1+.
[26] Fukuyama, Francis. “The Fall of the Libertarians.” Wall Street Journal 2 May 2002: A14.
[27] “Exit Plan for Iraq: A Commonsense Solution From the Libertarian Party.” Libertarian Party News, op. cit., 10-11.
[28] Crawford, John. The Last True Story I’ll Ever Tell: An Accidental Soldier’s Account of the War in Iraq. New York City: Riverhead Books, 2005; Glantz, Aaron. How America Lost Iraq. New York City: Jeremy P. Tarcher/Penguin, 2005; Hersh, Seymour M. Chain of Command: The Road From 9/11 to Abu Ghraib. New York City: HarperCollins Publishers, 2004; Prados, John. Hoodwinked: The Documents That Reveal How Bush Sold Us a War. New York City: The New Press, 2004; Scheuer, Michael F. Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror, rev. ed. Dulles, Va.: Potomac Books, 2005; Sperry, Paul. Crude Politics: How Bush’s Oil Cronies Hijacked the War on Terrorism. Nashville, Tenn.: WND Books, 2003; The Torture Papers: The Road to Abu Ghraib. Ed. Karen J. Greenberg and Joshua L. Dratel. New York City: Cambridge UP, 2005; Wilson, Joseph C. IV. The Politics of Truth: Inside the Lies That Led to War and Betrayed My Wife's CIA Identity: A Diplomat's Memoir. New York City: Carroll & Graf Publishers, 2004: Ch. 15-20; Woodward, Bob. Plan of Attack. New York City: Simon & Schuster, 2004.
[29] Doenecke, Justus D. Not to the Swift: The Old Isolationists in the Cold War Era. Lewisburg, Pa.: Bucknell UP, 1979: Ch. 1; Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace: A Critical Examination of the Foreign Policy of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Its Aftermath. Ed. Harry Elmer Barnes. Caldwell, Idaho: Caxton Printers, 1953; Raimondo, Justin. Reclaiming the American Right: the Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement. Burlingame, Calif: Center for Libertarian Studies, 1993; Rothbard, Murray N. "Life in the Old Right." 1994. Rpt. The Paleoconservatives: New Voices of the Old Right. Ed. Joseph Scotchie. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 1999: Ch. 1.
[30] Lang, W. Patrick. “Drinking the Kool-Aid.” Middle East Policy Journal Summer 2004: 39-60.
[31] Gordon, Stephen. “The Libertarian Solution to Iraq.” LP Blog 29 June 2005. Libertarian Party <http://www.lp.org/yourturn/archives/000034.shtml>.
[32] D. Eisler. “Membership Renewal Follow-Up.” E-mail to Rick McGinnis, 28 Nov. 2004; Taylor, Margaret. “LP Membership.” E-mail to D. Eisler, 9 Dec. 2004.
[33] Benedict, Wes. “Iraq Withdrawl – Proposed LNC Resolution for Pittsburgh Meeting.” 29 June 2007 Wes Benedict for LNC <http://wesbenedictforlnc.blogspot.com/2007/06/iraq-withdrawal-proposed-lnc-resolution.html>.
[34] Long, Roderick. “Proletarian Blues.” Austro-Athenian Empire 25 Nov. 2006 <http://praxeology.net/blog/2006/11/25/proletarian-blues>.
[35] AD No. 50, op. cit.; Doherty. Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement. New York City: PublicAffairs, 2007: 520-523, 598, 709-710n82; Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. Democracy – the God That Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy, and Natural Order. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 2001: 204-210; Mitchell, Brian Patrick. Eight Ways to Run the Country: A New and Revealing Look at Left and Right. Wesport, Conn.: Praeger, 2007: 64-66, 69-70; Rothbard. “Why Paleo?” Rothbard-Rockwell Report May 1990: 4-5.
[36] Dentinger, John. “Strange Bedfellows: The Libertarian/Conservative Misalliance.” Liberty Mar. 1987: 37-42; Elliot, Bruce. “All in the Family.” Retro Hell, 5; Strauss, William, and Neil Howe. Generations: The History of America 's Future, 1584-2069. New York City: William Morrow, 1991: 299-316.
[37] Bank, Ken. “Bob Barr and the Futility of Libertarian Politics.”  4 Jan. 2007 Strike the Root <http://www.strike-the-root.com/71/bank/bank1.html>; Hogarth, Susan. “Bob Barr Appointed to LNC.” 17 Dec. 2006 Colliething <http://www.colliething.com/2006/12/bob-barr-appointed-to-lnc.html>; Weigel, David. “Bob Barr and the Libertarians.” Reason Mar. 2007: 14-15.
[38] Gordon, Stephen. “Ron Paul the Big Winner in the Libertarian Survey.” 12 July 2007. GordonUnleashed <http://gordonunleashed.com/blog/2007/07/12/ron-paul-the-big-winner-in-the-libertarian-survey/>; Gordon. “Ron Paul’s Lead Increases Among Libertarians.” 25 July 2007. Idem. <http://gordonunleashed.com/blog/2007/07/25/ron-pauls-lead-increases-among-libertarians/>.
[39] Benedict. “My $600 Says the Ron Paul Presidential Campaign Benefits the Libertarian Party.” 3 May 2007 Wes Benedict for LNC <http://wesbenedictforlnc.blogspot.com/2007/05/my-600-says-ron-paul-presidential.html>.
[40] “All Together Now – Kubby Endorses Paul.” Kubby for President 19 July 2007 <http://www.kubby2008.com/node/54>; Hampton, Michael. “Badnarik Answers Charges of Abandoning Party.” Homeland Stupidity 25 Feb. 2007 < http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2007/02/25/badnarik-answers-charge-of-abandoning-party/>.
[41] Paul, Ron. “The End of Dollar Hegemony.” Speech, U.S. House of Representatives, 15 Feb. 2006.
[42] Hospers, John. Libertarianism: A Political Philosophy for Tomorrow. Los Angeles: Nash Publishing, 1971.
[43] Passey, Jacqueline. “Two Whackjobs, a Convicted Felon, and George Phillies.” The Bildungsroman of Jacqueline Mackie Paisley Passey 12 Feb. 2007 < http://www.jacquelinepassey.com/blog/2007/02/two_whackjobs_a_convicted_felon_and_george_phillies.html>.
[44] Robert Milnes for President 2008 < http://robertmilnes4president2008.com/>.
[45] Lauria, Joe. “Maverick Mike Gravel.” Progressive June 2007: 30-32.
[46] Greenhut, Steven. “Libertarian Candidate’s Foolish Attack on Ron Paul.” 24 July 2007 Orange Punch: A Liberty Blog <http://orangepunch.freedomblogging.com/2007/07/24/libertarian-candidates-foolish-attack-on-ron-paul/>.
[47] Howard, Rock. Comments at the Travis County Libertarian Party monthly business meeting, Mekong River Restaurant, 11 July 2006; Smith, Jordan. “Bob Barr vs. Bob Barr.” Austin Chronicle 6 Apr. 2007: 24.
[48] Rothbard. “The Menace of Opportunism.” LF Nov./Dec. 1979: 2.
[49] Lynch, Michael. “No Escape.” Reason Aug./Sep. 1999: 20; “On Resisting Evil.” 1993. Rpt. The Irrepressible Rothbard: The Rothbard-Rockwell Report Essays of Murray N. Rothbard. Ed. Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr. Auburn, Ala.: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2000: Ch. 44.
[50] North, Gary. Political Polytheism: The Myth of Pluralism. Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989: 88.
[51] Acree, Michael. “Who’s Your Daddy?” Liberty April 2005: 26.
[52] Acree, op. cit.; Hoppe, op. cit., 204-206; Rothbard, “Why Paleo?,” op. cit.
[53] Doherty, Radicals, op. cit., 586-587, 593; Hoppe, op. cit., 204-205.
[54] AD No. 93n8 (Oct. 15, 2006).
[55] “Our Interview With Shane Cory.” 5 Jan. 2007 Third Party Watch < http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/01/05/our-interview-with-shane-cory-2/>; Winger. “New Libertarian Party National Chair Is a Strong Supporter of Proportional Representation.” 3 July 2006 Ballot Access News < http://www.ballot-access.org/2006/07/03/new-libertarian-party-national-chair-is-a-strong-supporter-of-proportional-represenatation/>.
[56] Bauer, A.J. “Third Party Builds a Future.” AAS 23 Oct. 2006: B1; Benedict, and Arthur DiBianca. 2006 Executive Director’s Report. Austin, Texas: Libertarian Party of Texas, 13 Jan. 2007.
[57] Milstead, Carl. “What It Takes to Win.” LPN Feb. 2005: 12-13.
[58] Alinsky, Saul. Rules for Radicals: A Practical Primer for Realistic Radicals. 1971. Rpt. New York City: Vintage Books, 1989: 20.
[59] Acree, op. cit.
[60] Kelly, Michael. “Richard Daley Jr. Gets the Last Laugh.” Things Worth Fighting For: Collected Writings. New York City: The Penguin Press, 2004: 109-123; Rakove, Milton L. Don’t Make No Waves – Don’t Back No Losers: An Insider’s Analysis of the Daley Machine. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana UP, 1975; Royko, Mike. Boss: Richard J. Daley of Chicago. New York City: E.P. Dutton & Co., 1971.
[61] Hospers, op. cit., 417-464; Mises, Ludwig von. Liberalism: The Classical Tradition, 2nd rev. ed. Ed. Bettina Bien Greaves. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2005: 17, 19-20, 35-36.
[62] North. An Economic Commentary on the Bible, Vol. III: The Sinai Strategy: Economics and the Ten Commandments, rev. ed. Harrisonburg, Va.: Dominion Educational Ministries, 2006: 30.
[63] Ibid., 294.
[64] AD No. 98n20 (June 11, 2007).
[65] Cox, Stephen. “The LP and the Booboisie.” Liberty Jan. 2007: 29.
[66] Hernandez, KT. “Re: Thanks Again.” E-mail to D. Eisler, 1 Sep. 2002.
[67] Mitchell, op. cit., Ch. 6.
[68] Milstead. “Holistic Politics.” 2003. Holistic Politics < http://www.holisticpolitics.org/>.
[69] Day, Aaron. “Libertarians Must Work With Greens.” Libertarian Party News July 2002: 24-25; Mitchell, op. cit., Ch. 5.
[70] Lakoff, George. Don’t Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate: The Essential Guide for Progressives, rev. ed. White River Junction, Vt.: Chelsea Green Publishing, 2004: Ch. 1.
[71] Acree, op. cit.; Francis, Samuel. “The Other Face of Multiculturalism.” Chronicles Apr. 1998: 37; Mitchell, op. cit., Ch. 5.
[72] “Blowhard, Michael.” “Weirdoes and Culture.” 2 Blowhards 3 May 2005 <http://www.2blowhards.com/archives/2005/05/weirdos_and_culture_1.html>.
[73] Kelley, John L. Bringing the Market Back in: The Political Revitalization of Market Liberalism. New York City: New York UP, 1997: 97-99, 105-106; Paul, Mark. “Seducing the Left.” Mother Jones May 1980: 47.
[74] The notion that freaks represent the authentic strain of libertarianism is perhaps Doherty's biggest conceptual flaw, one that he views through the haze of Burning Man, in his generally excellent history of the American libertarian movement: AD No. 77 (Mar. 3, 2005); Doherty, Radicals, op. cit., 8 and passim.
[75] D. Eisler. “Re: You Can’t Beat Something With Nothing.” E-mail to Lucey, 9 Sep. 2006; Rothbard. “A Strategy for Victory.” Speech, John Randolph Club, San Mateo , Calif. Oct. 1993 < http://wconger.blogspot.com/2006/06/rothbard-strategy-for-victory.html>.
[76] Doherty, Radicals, op. cit., 55-56.
[77] Hoppe, op. cit., 202-203; Mitchell, op. cit., Ch. 7.
[78] Friedman, Jeffrey. “Culture versus Politics: Cards on the Table.” The Exchange Winter 1993: 37; Hernandez. “Re: Enforced Beliefs.” Liberty List 15 Dec. 2001.
[79] Francis, Samuel. Beautiful Losers: Essays on the Failure of American Conservatism. Columbia, Mo.: U of Missouri P, 1993: 3.
[80] Cox. “Politics vs. Ideology: How Elections Are Won.” Liberty Feb. 2005: 19.
[81] Francis, ibid., 228.
[82] North. An Economic Commentary on the Bible, Vol. XIII: Inheritance and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Deuteronomy,  2nd rev. ed. Harrisonburg , Va.: Dominion Educational Ministries, 2005: IV, 1400.
[83] Acree, op. cit.; Horton, Scott. “Tomorrow’s Liberated Space.” Stress: Scott Horton’s Blog. 2 May 2007 < http://thestressblog.com/2007/05/02/tomorrows-liberated-space/#comments>.
[84] Rothbard et al. “The Space War.” Libertarian Forum Jan./Feb. 1979: 1-5+.
[85] Knapp, Thomas. “Our Interview With Shane Cory,” op. cit. <http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/01/05/our-interview-with-shane-cory-2/#comment-88971>.
[86] Alinsky, Saul. Rules for Radicals: A Practical Primer for Realistic Radicals. 1971. Rpt. New York City: Vintage Books, 1989: 113; Bradford , M.E. “The Lasting Lesson of Southern Politics.” Remembering Who We Are: Observations of a Southern Conservative. Athens, Ga.: U of Georgia P, 1985: 61; Friedman, David. The Machinery of Freedom: Guide to a Radical Capitalism, 2nd rev. ed. La Salle , Ill.: Open Court, 1989: 44, 226-229; Korda, Michael. Power! How to Get It, How to Use It. New York City: Random House, 1975: 3-5, 8, 50, 56, 58-59; North. An Economic Commentary on the Bible, Vol. XIII: Inheritance and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Deuteronomy,  2nd rev. ed. Harrisonburg , Va.: Dominion Educational Ministries, 2005: IV, 1235, 1286, 1395.
[87] Goldratt, Eliyahu M., Jeff Cox, and David Whitford. The Goal: A Process of Ongoing Improvement, 3rd rev. ed. Great Barrington , Mass: North River Press, 2004: 32-35, 37-41.
[88] Taraborelli, J. Randy. Elizabeth. New York City: Warner Books, 2006: 101ff.
[89] Viguerie and Franke, op. cit., 69-72.

E-mail: austindispatches -at- swbell net