The Pragmatists Are Responsible for the Rise of the L.P. Right-wing
When a longtime Libertarian Party activist contacted me in 1990 and asked me to serve on the national L.P.’s Platform Committee, I thanked him but said no. When he asked why, I said that I believed that the only way that we were going to achieve freedom in America was by adhering strictly to libertarian principles. I said that since the Libertarian Party was a political party, I was confident that it was compromising libertarian principles in the hopes of garnering votes and winning elections. That compromising methodology didn’t interest me at all, I said, given my conviction that it couldn’t and wouldn’t lead toward a genuinely free society.
My activist friend asked me if I had ever read the party platform. I responded, “No, and I don’t need to. I am confident it is filled with political compromises with the aim of garnering votes.” He asked me if he could send me a copy of the platform. I said yes. A few days later, I began reading it. I was stunned. Here was a pure libertarian manifesto. It wasn’t perfect but it came very close to it. It could have been written by the hard-core libertarian scholar Murray Rothbard.
I telephoned my friend and said, “If you’ll still have me, it would be an honor to serve on the Platform Committee.” I didn’t ask how many members the L.P. had. I didn’t ask how many votes we got in the last presidential election. I didn’t ask how many states in which we had ballot status. I didn’t ask how much money we had. None of that mattered to me. What mattered was the opportunity to participate in a political party, albeit small, that adhered strictly to libertarian principles.
The rise of the Pragmatists
I ended up serving three terms on the Platform Committee. I immediately recognized that there was a small faction of L.P. members who were trying to move the party in the direction of compromise, concealment, and what is called “gradualism.” They wanted the party platform to be watered down through the embrace of Republican-lite, reform-oriented positions, through the deletion of positions that could cost votes from mainstream Americans, and by supporting “gradual’ reductions in welfare-warfare state programs, all with the aim of appearing to be more “respectable and credible” among mainstream voters, particularly Republicans. Their argument was that American voters would never vote for, much less elect, Libertarians who hewed strictly to libertarian principles.
It was this group of people who ultimately became the “Pragmatists.” “What good are our principles if we never get into public office to implement them?” they asked. “We have to be practical or ‘pragmatic.’ We need to adopt ‘reasonable’ positions so that we stand a better chance of being elected. We need to delete unpopular positions from our party platform to garner votes. We need to stand for the gradual reduction of welfare-warfare state programs rather than advocate for their immediate elimination. We need to be considered respectable and credible.”
There were those of us who strongly opposed the Pragmatists. Our argument was that there needed to be a political party that stood squarely in favor of libertarian principles, regardless of the response of voters. If people rejected our principles and positions, so be it. We have no control over that. We only have control over what we do and say. We need to focus on improving our competent presentation of libertarian ideas and positions. The way we achieve freedom is by continuing to adhere to libertarian principles and communicating those principles to the American people. Compromise and concealment would prove to be a disaster. See my 1997 essay Compromise and Concealment: The Road to Defeat.”
Pragmatist compromises
The Pragmatists, however, ultimately prevailed and took control over the party, causing many Libertarian “purists” to leave. Over time and under the rubric of advancing “libertarianism,” Libertarian Party Pragmatist candidates began advocating Republican-lite, reform-oriented positions like the following:
Reforming and streamlining America’s system of immigration controls and the police state that enforces it, but “letting in” more immigrants because immigrants are good for America.
School vouchers.
Running for school boards, with the aim of improving the state’s educational system.
“Gradually” reducing Social Security over a 30-40-year period.
Reforming healthcare through the adoption of “health-savings accounts,” while leaving Medicare and Medicaid intact.
Drug-war reform, e.g., by advocating the repeal of asset-forfeiture or mandatory-minimum sentences.
Advocating for the decriminalization of marijuana but not hard drugs.
Reductions in military spending.
Regulatory reform.
CIA reform.
FBI reform.
Getting libertarians appointed to regulatory and administrative positions, such as heads of federal departments and agencies, with the aim of bringing a “libertarian” perspective to the welfare-warfare state and the administrative state.
Selective foreign interventionism.
Others.
There is an important characteristic to note about all those positions: They orient toward Republican voters, especially the first position — the embrace of immigration controls, which is extremely important to Republicans and conservatives. That’s because virtually all the Pragmatists were Republican-oriented or conservative-leaning. In fact, in the 2000s, when the Pragmatists were in complete control of the party, they succeeded in deleting two planks from the platform that were offensive to people on the Right at that time — the planks calling for the abolition of the CIA and the FBI (which I had found very attractive when I read the party platform back in 1990).
The failure of the Pragmatists
Contrary to the hopes and dreams of the Pragmatists, their compromises failed to get any Libertarians elected to Congress. In fact, no Pragmatist has ever come close to being elected to Congress. Moreover, they continued garnering around 1 percent of the national vote in the presidential race. Hoping to achieve a short-circuited success in the presidential race, in 2012 and 2016 the Pragmatists ended up settling for a “liberty-leaning” Republican candidate for president, Gary Johnson, as their own L.P presidential candidate. They simply relabeled him a Libertarian. It didn’t work. In 2012 Johnson garnered around 1 percent. In 2016, his vote total increased to around 3 percent, but it was clearly an anomaly owing, in some way, to his vice-presidential running mate, Bill Weld, another died-in-the-wool “liberty-leaning” Republican. In the 2020 race, the L.P. presidential candidate, Jo Jorgensen, was back down to the standard around 1 percent.
In the process, the American people came to believe that Republican-lite, reform-oriented positions were the same as Libertarian positions. Even worse, many Libertarians came to believe the same thing. The term “libertarian” came to be redefined to encompass Republican-lite, welfare-warfare-state reform, regulatory reform, drug-war reform, “gradualism,” and other reform measures.
If any libertarian who continued hewing to genuine libertarian principles challenged this new redefinition of “libertarianism,” he would be hit with what became a standard attack on the part of the Pragmatists: “You’re just trying to show you’re more principled or more libertarian than us.”
Pragmatist compromises attracted the Right-wing
But there was one other big problem: The Republican-lite, reform-oriented positions of the Pragmatists began attracting a large number of disgruntled Republicans into the Libertarian Party, where they felt very comfortable. And why not? They saw the Republican-lite, reform-oriented positions being taken by the Pragmatists and concluded that by joining the Libertarian Party, they too would now be “libertarians.” And that’s what they began calling themselves as soon as they joined the Libertarian Party, notwithstanding the fact that they were actually LINOs — Libertarians In Name Only.
Over time, this influx of disgruntled Republicans into the L.P. became a flood. Finally, after the dismal vote result of the 2020 L.P. presidential candidate, Jo Jorgensen, the Libertarian Party Right-wing, in what became known as the “Reno Reset,” succeeded in ousting the Pragmatists from power at the 2022 national convention and took complete control over the national Libertarian Party, including the party chairmanship and the Libertarian National Committee. Having lost the control that they had had over the L.P. for many years, many Pragmatists ended up leaving the party, which only fortified the control that the L.P. Right-wingers now wielded over the party.
The Covid controversy
One of the most fascinating parts of the war between the Right-wingers and the Pragmatists was the depth of the hatred that the Right-wingers had for the Pragmatists. It went far beyond some standard political fight.
Why the deep rage? The Right-wingers say that it is because the Pragmatists were not sufficiently harsh in their denunciation of the anti-Covid measures taken by the federal government and the state governments. What the Right-wingers are referring to, however, is not the lockdowns and the mandates. As far as I know, the 2020 presidential candidate, Jo Jorgensen, and the Pragmatists who ran the party always opposed the lockdowns and the mandates. What the Right-wingers were upset about was that Jorgensen and the Pragmatists had not fiercely condemned the Covid vaccine and the use of anti-viral masks. In fact, that’s one of the big things they were so upset about with respect to the 2024 L.P. presidential candidate, Chase Oliver. They were upset that he wore an anti-viral mask at family gatherings. They angrily claimed that it showed that Oliver was “buying into government propaganda.”
Fiercely anti-vax and anti-mask, the Right-wingers were convinced that libertarianism itself was fiercely anti-vax and anti-mask. That’s why many of them love Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Even though Kennedy is a big-government, welfare-state loving, gun-grabbing Democrat, many L.P. Right-wingers love him because he too is fiercely anti-vaccine. But the controversy only goes to show, however, how warped and perverted the Right-wing understanding of libertarianism is. Libertarianism, properly understood, is neither anti-vaccine or anti-mask nor pro-vaccine or pro-mask. Libertarianism, properly understood, is simply pro-freedom. Thus, what the Right-wingers were unable and unwilling to see was that anyone who failed to condemn vaccines or masks — or who even promoted (or opposed) vaccines and masks — was not violating libertarian principles.
In any event, the difference of opinion on vaccines and masks between the Right-wingers and the Pragmatists does not explain the depth of rage and hostility that the L.P. Right-wing has for the Pragmatists. Therefore, the question arises: What does explain that deep rage and hostility?
Similar positions between Right-wingers and Pragmatists
After all, consider that list above of Republican-lite, reform-oriented positions that Pragmatists have come to adopt over the years in the hopes of appearing more attractive to Republican voters. Notwithstanding their deep hatred for the Pragmatists, those are the same general positions held by the L.P. Right-wing.
Consider, for example, immigration. Sure, there are variations on immigration between Pragmatists and Right-wingers. For example, the Right-wingers fully support Trump’s plans for sealing the border and deporting all illegal immigrants while the Pragmatists lean toward President Biden’s policy of leaving the immigration-police state system intact but “letting in” more immigrants. But the fact is that both the Right-wingers and the Pragmatists believe in and favor the same overall Republican-lite, reform-oriented position favoring America’s system of immigration controls and the police state that comes with it.
Right-wing hatred for genuine libertarian principles
So, why the deep hatred that the Right-wingers have for the Pragmatists? The reason lies in the deep hatred and animosity that the L.P. Right-wing has for genuine libertarian principles, such as the following:
Open borders, including the immediate dismantling of ICE, the Border Patrol, and all restrictions on the free movements of goods services, and people across borders.
Immediately repealing Social Security, Medicare, and other welfare-state programs.
Immediately dismantling the Pentagon, CIA, NSA, and FBI and restoring a limited-government republic.
Separating healthcare and the state at both the federal and state levels, including the immediate abolition of the Centers for Disease Control, the FDA, and others.
Separating education and the state, including the rejection of vouchers and public schools and the rejection of running Libertarians for school boards.
Legalizing all drugs.
And others.
While the Right-wingers and the Pragmatists agree on the overall Republican-lite, reform-oriented message that has come to define the Libertarian Party and L.P. presidential campaigns, there is nonetheless a huge difference between these two groups. Here is the difference: Notwithstanding their compromises, the Pragmatists still believe in genuine libertarian principles. They sometimes refer to them as their “North Star.” They understand that they are compromising those genuine, founding principles of libertarianism as a pragmatic way to get votes. But what’s important is that they still believe in the genuine principles of libertarianism that they are compromising.
It’s totally different with the L.P. Right-wIng. Unlike the Pragmatists, they hate genuine libertarian principles with a passion. They loathe them. They want them totally eradicated from the Libertarian Party. They are fiercely committed to running out of the party anyone who advocates such principles or, absent that, silencing them in any way possible.
Mention “open borders” and the Right-wingers have an absolute conniption fit. They stand squarely with Trump and the Republicans on that issue. Mention that vouchers are nothing more than a socialist reform measure that relies in the initiation of force, and they’ll embark on a vicious attack. Mention the separation of healthcare and the state, and they go ballistic. They don’t want to get the state out of healthcare; instead, they want to serve as cabinet heads and agency heads to target people with state punishment who prescribe vaccines or advise people to use masks.
Pragmatist compromise gave rise to the L.P. Right-wing
Thus, while the compromise of principle was destructive from the start, it was the Pragmatists whose compromises attracted the Right-wingers into the Libertarian Party. And it is the Right-wingers who have succeeded in indelibly printing on the minds of the American people that the Libertarian Party is nothing more than a pro-Trump appendage of the Republican Party, one in which L.P. Right-wingers are now fighting fiercely for the opportunity to serve the welfare-warfare state and administrative state by becoming cabinet members or even just lower-level bureaucratic functionaries. Undoubtedly, there are worse things that could befall the Libertarian Party, but it would be difficult to come up with them.