I’ll never forget the time I became a member of the Libertarian Party. Back in 1990, I was contacted by a L.P. member who was serving on the L.P. Platform Committee. He was inviting me to serve on that committee. I initially said no. I said that I had no interest in joining a political party that compromised libertarian principles in order to get votes. I said that the only way we libertarians were ever going to achieve a genuinely free society was by strictly adhering to our principles. He persisted and sent me a copy of the L.P. platform, which, I discovered much to my surprise, was extremely close to a pure libertarian manifesto.
I changed my mind and ended up serving three terms on the platform committee. I didn’t ask how many votes the L.P. presidential candidate got in the last election. I didn’t ask how much money the L.P. had. I didn’t ask how many L.P. members there were. None of that mattered to me. What mattered was that this was a political party that adhered strictly to principle and that rightly earned its self-imposed label as “the Party of Principle.” I knew that I wanted to be part of it.
Today’s Libertarian Party
But that was then, and this is now. It’s safe to say that today’s Libertarian Party — 30 years later — is not your parents’ Libertarian Party. Under the leadership of the right-wing element that has come to dominate and control the party, today’s Libertarian Party has effectively been converted into an adjunct of the Republican Party. The unwritten mission of the L.P. is now to promote the Donald Trump administration, cut deals with Republicans, endorse Republican candidates, and run presidential campaigns and other campaigns based on reform-oriented, Republican-lite positions, including such statist programs as immigration controls, school vouchers, and getting Libertarians elected to school boards. The immediate quest includes currying favor with Trump and other Republicans in the hope of securing a position within the Trump administration, with the aim of bringing “freedom-friendly” perspectives to the welfare-warfare state, managed-regulated economy, administrative state, drug war, and war on immigrants.
In the words of Libertarian Party chairperson Angela McArdle, working with Republicans is now considered to be “advancing freedom at the federal level.” As she put it in a post on X, “I need people who are willing to negotiate and make deals with the other two parties. Be a power broker with me.”
The agreement
That mission, needless to say, brings up the agreement that McArdle negotiated and entered into with Donald Trump prior the Libertarian Party convention last May. (See here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.) As part of that negotiated agreement, Trump agreed to do two things: (1) appoint a Libertarian to his cabinet and (2) pardon libertarian Ross Ulbricht, who is serving a life sentence without parole for a non-violent drug offense.
The question, however, is: What did McArdle agree to in exchange for those two commitments on the part of Trump?
According to an email from Aaron Harris, the chairman of the Mises Caucus, the right-wing group within the L.P. that installed McArdle into the party chairmanship, "She simply allowed Trump to address the Libertarian National Convention.”
Unfortunately, however, Harris did not reveal how he arrived at that conclusion. Moreover, his conclusion makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It’s simply not logical. To see why, let’s imagine the following imaginary conversation between Trump and McArdle as she negotiates with Donald “Art of the Deal” Trump during her trip to Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida:
*****
Trump: What is it that you want from me, Angela?
McArdle: Donald, I would like two commitments from you: (1) appoint a Libertarian to your cabinet and (2) pardon a libertarian named Ross Ulbricht.
Trump: And what will you give me in return for those two commitments?
McArdle: I will agree that you can address our national convention in May.
Trump: That’s it? That’s all I get in return for those two major commitments?
McArdle: Yes. And you should know that after the national convention, we will be running a candidate against you who is going to attack your positions and possibly cost you the election.
Trump: Angela, with all due respect, that’s just plain stupid. Given that you want a Libertarian appointed to my cabinet and given that you want your friend pardoned, I need to get elected to get you want you want. Duh! Therefore, it only stands to reason that if you want those two things, you need to help me get elected so that I can give them to you. If you run a candidate against me and cost me the election, you won’t get either of these two things that you want.
McArdle: You’ve got a good point, Donald. You’re saying that for me to get the two things I want, you need to get elected. Therefore, it’s in my interest to help you get elected.
Trump: Yes, that is precisely what I am saying. Moreover, the only way you are going to get praised and glorified by your fellow Libertarians for getting a Libertarian appointed to my cabinet and for getting a pardon for your friend is if I get elected.
McArdle: I think I see your point.
Trump: Moreover, my ultimate goal is to get elected. So, speaking at your convention is simply a means to garner your party’s support to help me get elected. Therefore, for you and me to accomplish our respective goals, you’ve got to agree that the Libertarian Party will throw its support to me in around October in the battleground states. In that way, you help me get elected and I give you the two things you want.
McArdle: I must admit, Donald, that what you say does make sense. If we run a candidate against you who is attacking you, you could lose the election, which would mean that I wouldn’t get the two things I want from you and which also means I wouldn’t get praised and glorified by my fellow L.P. members for achieving them. Okay, you’ve got a deal — the Libertarian Party will endorse you and support you down the stretch, at least in the battleground states. In return, once you win, you give us our cabinet position and our pardon of Ulbricht.
Trump: Not so fast, young lady. There is another problem — your presidential candidate. He has to come on board too. It wouldn’t do me much good if I have your support as party chairman if your presidential candidate is running against me and attacking me, even if you are supporting me sub silentio. Thus, I also need a commitment from your likely presidential candidate that he’s on board with our plan also — that he will drop out of the race and endorse my candidacy down the stretch, at least in the battleground states.
McArdle: Well, our presidential candidate is going to be Michael Rectenwald. We control the party and he’s our chosen candidate. He is a right-winger who recently came into the Libertarian Party from the conservative movement. He greatly admires you and is on your same page on immigration. He supports the completion of your border wall, even though it entails more eminent domain stealing of people’s privately owned land, and also your plan to ferret out and deport all 10-12 million illegal immigrants. I am sure he recognizes that he’s not going to get more than .1 percent of the national vote once he wins our party’s nomination, especially given his weird amalgam of positions. Imagine: he calls himself an anarchist who favors Social Security, the Pentagon, and a massive immigration police state. I am certain I will be able to induce him to come on board with our plan, especially if he thinks he’s got a chance to serve you in some role within the welfare-warfare state once you become president,
Trump: Well, let’s make sure. If I’m going to make these two promises at your convention in May, I want commitments, in advance of your national convention, that you and your presidential candidate will endorse and support me. I don’t want to be surprised come October, especially since I’ll be making my two commitments to you in May. Let’s get Michael on the phone right now and see how he feels about this.
McArdle pulls out her cell phone and calls Rectenwald.
Rectenwald: Hi, Angela.
McArdle: Hi, Michael. This is Angela. I am sitting here with Donald Trump at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida. We have negotiated and reached a deal in which he promises to appoint a Libertarian to his cabinet and to pardon Ross Ulbricht. In return, I have agreed that the Libertarian Party will throw its support to him in October in the battleground states. But he wants a commitment from you to do the same thing after you win the L.P. presidential nomination during the waning weeks of the race, at least in the battleground states. I should remind you that this would not be the first time that Libertarians throw their support to Republican candidates. It has become a rather standard thing to do.
Rectenwald: Are you kidding? I don’t even need to think about it. Count me in with your plan! Mr. President, I want you to know that while I don’t agree with you on everything, for me you are Superman. I fully realize that with my strange amalgam of positions, including a system of pro-anarchy immigration controls between the states, I’m not ever going to get more than .1 percent of the national vote. I would be proud to throw my support to you down the stretch and help you become president. Anyway, getting you elected is the only way that my friend Angela can be praised and glorified for what she has accomplished with your two commitments and it’s important to me that she received such praise and glory from the members of the Libertarian Party.
Trump: Great! It’s very nice to know that you consider me comparable to Superman. What about your vice-presidential candidate?
Rectenwald: Oh, that’s Clint Russell. He’s more rightwing than I am. I will guarantee you that he will jump onto this deal faster than a New York second. He absolutely idolizes your MAGA supporter Vivek Ramaswamy. We’ll just get Vivek to invite Russell to dinner and I will guarantee you that Russell will absolutely gush, blush, and melt and immediately join us.
Trump: Great! Then we have a deal? You help me get elected and I, in turn, will appoint a Libertarian to my cabinet and pardon your friend.
Rectenwald. Yes, sir. We have a deal. I am very proud to say that.
McArdle: Me too,Donald. I now understand what you were saying. It would be stupid for us to run a candidate against you and maybe cost you the election. To get what we want, you have to get elected. Therefore, I now see why we should help you get elected by throwing our support to you in the fall in the battleground states.
Trump: Fantastic! Now, Angela, why don’t you and your boyfriend stay a couple of extra days here at Mar-a-Lago and enjoy your luxurious room, exquisite food, fantastic drinks, pool, and golf course, compliments of Donald Trump.
*****
Doesn’t that imaginary conversation make a lot more sense than the conclusion reached by Mises Causus head Aaron Harris asserting that all that Trump accepted in return for his two big commitments was the opportunity to address the L.P. national convention?
The power of the subconscious
Moreover, consider the following intriguing — and, I think, extremely revealing — statement that McArdle recently made on X: “If Chase Oliver [who ended up defeating Rectenwald at the national nominating convention] had worked out a deal with Trump, he would be at Mar a Lago right now, negotiating cabinet picks. What a wild timeline that would have been.”
Why is that so revealing? Because, one, it expresses regret and lamentation for what could have been and, two, it is entirely consistent with the imaginary conversation I set forth above.
The question naturally arises: If such an agreement really was entered into, why wouldn’t McArdle own up to it? Indeed, if Rectenwald was part of it, why wouldn’t he own up to it? Indeed, if Rectenwald’s campaign manager, Michael Heiss, was aware of the agreement, why wouldn’t he own up to it? After all, don’t forget that it was Heiss who, on the eve of the presidential election, issued a full-throated endorsement of Republican Trump while serving in a salaried position on the Libertarian Party staff.
My hunch: Shame. I think that they might feel ashamed of the agreement and that they simply cannot bring themselves to acknowledge it. I am certainly no psychiatrist, but I have read a bit of pop psychology. It is my hunch that McArdle’s statement about Chase Oliver, where she rues that he didn’t strike a deal with Trump, could possibly be her subconscious screaming to her: “Acknowledge the truth, Angela. Tell people about the actual terms of the agreement that you entered into with Donald Trump.” But my hunch is that it’s possible that the subconscious shame she possibly feels for possibly having entered into such an agreement trumps (sorry!) the power of her subconscious.
LINO
It will be interesting in the months and perhaps years ahead to see how many people the new right-wing Libertarian Party attracts with its aim of supporting and participating in the Trump administration, propounding a reform-oriented, Republican-lite message, and brokering deals with Republicans. I have never heard of anyone in history going to the barricades for that type of thing, but I could be proven wrong. One thing is for sure: This is not the Libertarian Party that attracted me back in 1990. This new, modern-day, right-wing political party is what might be called the LINO Libertarian Party — Libertarian In Name Only.