The Libertarian Party (LP) claims to be “the Party of Principle.” As someone who has subscribed to the political philosophy of libertarianism for close to ten years (my entire adult life) and cares for it deeply, I am often put off by the shenanigans of the official LP which contradict those very principles. I do think that libertarianism is founded on some very strong principles. I'd say that those principles are more solid than any other political philosophy or party. I think those principles are important and must be maintained for social progress. It is for these reasons that I feel that libertarians must strictly hold the LP to high standards – to those very principles. If we sacrifice those principles in our attempt gain office we won't have them once we're in office; we'll be just like the Democrat or Republican candidates – telling it's followers what they want to hear to gain voter support while playing cut-throat politics to maintain power.
So, what in blazes
am I talking about?
On September 29,
2015 the LP filed a lawsuit (not the first of it's kind which the
party has filed) alongside the Green Party against the Commission on
Presidential Debates (CPD) arguing that the requirements the
organization set up for presidential candidates to participate in its
debate events keep third parties from being eligible year after
year.i
I won't discuss what those requirements are, or what the lawsuit
wants them to be changed to because it's completely beside the point.
Well, isn't the LP
being discriminated against along with other third parties? Isn't
there a conflict of interest since the CPD was created by just the
Democratic and Republican parties? Didn't then (1987) co-chairman for
the CPD Paul G. Kirk, Jr. say he believed that third party candidates
should be outright excluded from the panel?ii
Doesn't the LP have a right to that stage to give the people a third
option?
To answer my own
questions: yes, yes, yes, no.
I'll repeat this
unpopular opinion: No, the LP does not have a right to the CPD
debate.
The fact of the
matter is, the official sounding CPD is actually a private
corporation, founded jointly by the Democratic and Republican
parties, also private institutions which, to the best of my
knowledge, receive no government subsidies. The CPD is completely
privately funded, the debate events it holds are private events, and
the rules they create are legally sanctioned by the foundational
principles of private property over which they have ownership. The
presidential debates is a product disguised as a public service. The
LP has no more right to demand participation in it (let alone it
changing the rules of this private organization) than the Raiders
have a right to demand participation in the Super Bowl without
qualifying by the NFL's rules.
Do they have a
monopoly on something that has much influence over the election?
Arguably you could say that they do, but that is only because of a
combination of a lack of conscientious consumerism and competition.
It's only because so many people watch the CPD debates exclusively
that they have said “monopoly.” That is completely at the fault
of the American collective. If there was enough demand otherwise,
things would change very quickly. Anybody can hold a presidential
debate. After all, before the CPD there were other independent
presidential debates. Quite frankly, there were years in which no
presidential debates were even held (i.e. 1964, 1968, & 1972).iii
The CPD dominance can be largely attributed to the lack of supply
within a marketplace where there was clearly demand. The Libertarian
Party did host a “Third Party Presidential Debate” in 2012, but
ultimately that didn't directly compete with the event which included
the two largest presidential candidates.iv
The way I see it,
the only three outcomes that would favor third parties such as the LP
that don't violate libertarian principles are if a third party meets
the CPD requirements to participate (15% voter support), the CPD
voluntarily changes it's own rules to include third party
presidential candidates more easily, or if a different event holds a
presidential debate including the Democratic and Republican nominees
alongside third party candidates due to enough demand (much of which
would have to come from within each of the two major parties) for
such an event. As a supporter of competition within the marketplace,
I'm holding out for the third option.
Is it deplorable
that we're in the situation we're in right now? Yes, it is. I don't
like it. I'm not saying that libertarians should lay back and accept
the situation for what it is. We have to work towards change to
achieve any of our social goals. I don't like the CPD. I don't like
the power it holds over public opinion on the presidential elections
or how it uses that power. I don't like that year after year the LP
is kept as much in the dark as the Democrats and Republicans can keep
it in. But, it's the people who subscribe to the CPD events. It's the
people who give the two major parties the support they have. It's the
people who complain that both choices are corrupt or inadequate but
choose not to look at alternatives. The CPD is a private corporation.
They have every right over their product – the presidential debates
they hold. They have every right to make whatever rules they wish for
the event. The LP has no right to bust in and tell them to change a
thing.
You've all heard the
phrase, “I don't agree with what you're saying but I'll fight for
your right to say it.” I think that hits home to a lot of
libertarians. What of property rights? Are you going to violate them
just because you don't like the product? Are your actions going to be
determined by an emotional outrage due to injustice or will they be
founded by principle?
No comments:
Post a Comment