Splinter groups and "extremism"
Watermark,
You write:
"In the 30 years the LP has existed, there has never been a splinter group, to my knowledge."
Actually, there have been several. In the late 1990s, a "new" Libertarian Party split off from the existing one in Arizona, and ended up replacing the existing one as the national party's affiliate ... but not getting the real Arizona LP's ballot line -- so while the rest of America saw Harry Browne's name on the LP's presidential ballot line, Arizonans saw L. Neil Smith's. The splinter group eventually managed to get the courts to declare them the "real" Arizona LP.
I'm pretty sure the Personal Choice Party is also an LP "splinter." They ran a 2004 presidential slate (Charles Jay for president, porn star Marilyn Chambers for VP), and routinely run candidates in Utah.
I believe there are two or three different "Libertarian Party" variants in Florida.
And so on, and so forth.
Also, the LP has existed for 35 years.
"But now that the LP has decided to allow individual members more freedom to choose policies that will actually get them to win"
I'm not sure what you mean by this. There's never been anything to prevent individual LP members from advocating whatever positions they wanted -- nor is there really much evidence yet for the proposition that the actions taken at the LP's 2006 national convention, which were the proximate cause for the founding of the Boston Tea Party, will result in any surge of electoral victories for LP candidates.
I do know a little bit about this. I've managed two winning Libertarian campaigns for local office and I'm a federal appointed officeholder myself. It may be that I know a little more than you thnk about what it takes for libertarians to win elections (oh, yeah -- I'm also the founder of the Boston Tea Party).
"a splinter group has emerged with the same unreasonable, ridiculous positions that are never going to win them anything."
If you're going to criticize a party's positions, you might want to actually look into them first. In point of fact, at least two of the five points in the Boston Tea Party's program are MORE MODERATE than the traditional, or even current, LP stance. The LP calls for the repeal of all drug laws. The BTP calls for the legalization of marijuana and hemp. The LP calls for an end to the income tax. The BTP calls for regularized "bottom up" cuts to that tax. The other three points of the BTP's program aren't especially radical by current standards: Withdrawal from Iraq, repeal of the USA PATRIOT Act, and repeal of the "REAL ID" national identification scheme.
"If the libertarian party can't survive a change to allow more moderation and diversity in the party"
Do you have any particular reason for believing that the changes which occurred happened for the purpose of "allowing more moderation and diversity in the party," or that they will have that effect?
Right now, as small as it is, the Boston Tea Party has members ranging from anarchists to left-libertarians to conservative "libertarian Republicans." Our litmus test -- endorsement of a one-sentence, means-based platform that dictates direction but not distance -- is much less restrictive than the LP's membership pledge which, read in anything resembling historical context and original intent, binds its takers to either Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism or Randian extreme minarchism.
"it doesn't exist, and these people are idiots. They could've just ran under the normal libertarian label, nothing was preventing them from it. Yet, they had to splinter off and form a stupid unwinnable party because of it."
Actually, this is a chicken and egg kind of thing. I formed the Boston Tea Party because I SAW people leaving the LP over the events in Portland -- not because I wanted to GET them to leave the LP over events in Portland. I wanted to create a place for people to go who were leaving the LP whether they had another party to go to or not. And the first thing I put on the table was the possibility of re-entering the LP as an internal caucus rather than attempting to become a full-blow political party. That resolution was rejected at our organizational convention this weekend, but it was made (by me, as a matter of fact).
A number of BTP members, myself included, remain LP members (and even LP officials). I know at least one LP congressional candidate who is also a BTP member. There may eventually be a reunion. If there's not, well, I guess that's the way it goes.
As far as "unwinnability" goes, it took five years from the founding of the LP to the first LP public official taking office. The Boston Tea Party had its first public official in office as of the instant of its founding. I'm not James Carville, but I've won elections with the LP -- and if I decide to run campaigns in the BTP, I'll win elections there, too.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
I'm guessing I disagree with most of your platform, but welcome nonetheless!
