Schism in Movimiento Libertario

Like many US Libertarians, I have been a huge fan of Movimiento Libertario (ML). They basically took all the positive lessons of the US Libertarian Party (LP), stripped away the ideological shoegazing, set themselves to the real work of politics and elected real live Libertarians to their national assembly.

Now comes sad news of a schism over the latest slate of candidates. So far I've only been able to find the opinion of one side of this dispute, so reasonable conclusions are hard to come by. It seems that the faction led by Otto Guevarra was narrowly successful in recruiting and nominating candidates that in one estimation are "only 70% Libertarian" and in another are simply politicians of all ideologies who simply wish to avoid the taint of corruption that other party labels carry in Costa Rica.

The blog of Jacqueline Mackie Paisley Passey has the most complete news on this I could find. Apparently she is in regular contact with many of the folks involved. There you can also find further illumination on the statements of Jorge Cordina and Ricardo Mendez, and much more material if you can read Spanish.

Without knowing much more, I can still relate much of this to our own experience. The struggle between so-called "pragmatists" and "purists" is endemic to any movement. The crying shame of this is that the conflict is unnecessary. It is most practical to stick to your guns, or as we say in NC, you dance with what brung you. The fact that we have principles is precisely what makes us appealing to voters, and we must maintain them in order to set ourselves apart from our opponents and give voters a reason to switch from more popular parties to our side. If we want to actually bring about real Libertarian solutions, it is self defeating to stop talking about them.

And yet it seems to be human nature that the greatest temptation to sell out to "real world libertarianism" or whatever it is called today comes just at the point where you are beginning to taste success. The danger of losing one's way is greatest at this point. Sorry folks, but success on our terms takes hard work and perseverance, and some apparent short cut to success not on our terms is no success at all.

And yet we must make choices. As I said two posts below, there are times when we have to stand with non-Libertarians. These situations need to be well defined. It is always right to support anyone while they are doing the right thing, but it is always a bad idea to unquestionably support someone just because sometimes they do right. We have to draw the lines when we select our candidates. Obviously, you don't have to be in 100% ideological lockstep with the Platform or the collected wisdom of Murray Rothbard or some other detailed litmus test to be a great Libertarian candidate. You can even disagree on some relatively major points, as long as you run on Libertarian issues. So the debate within ML seems natural on the surface.

But we have received plenty of comeuppance when we have been overeager to embrace non-Libertarians as our own. I personally supported a Republican candidate for Congress in 2004 who I thought was one of those 70% Libertarians, but he turned out to be just another hard right Christian conservative in his campaigning. I still am honored to know the guy, and he does have a lot of Liberty in his heart for sure, but backing him was a mistake I won't repeat.

I have found I am much happier when non-Libertarian candidates come crawling to me hat in hand for our help, while trying to latch onto a non-Libertarian candidate in a quest for relevance only leads to not respecting yourself in the morning.

Opening up our process so that people can run as Libertarians from a variety of views is healthy for the party. Opening it up so much that people who couldn't reasonably be described as Libertarians can claim our banner is doom. From the reports I've read, it appears that ML has chosen the later course.

I'll also point out from our own experience that schism is not necessarily a bad thing. It all depends on whether Liberty burns enough in your heart that you will not give up, no matter what comes. The largest schism in the LP was when a bunch of so-called pragmatists left and founded CATO Institute, which is clearly one of the greatest things that ever happened to the American Libertarian movement. I thank God for that schism every time I think about it. I would urge the losers in ML's fight to look to CATO's example and find a way to keep expressing their view in Costa Rican public policy.

All is not lost for ML either. This is but one event, one swing of the pendulum, and that by a narrow vote. The party is not over, it never is unless you let it die. I have provided a blueprint for taking back your party in my article When State Parties Attack. I would urge people who want to keep ML truly Libertarian to keep their memberships and not give up. This is but one battle.