Read on Twitter
So @MKWilson_603 raises an interesting question here: why are the Libertarian Party of NH's affiliation numbers so low when NH is considered such a libertarian state? https://mobile.twitter.com/MKWilson_603/status/1193411528755679233?p=v Rambling thread of various ideas following from here. 1/?
So, first of all, despite being relatively small in terms of numerical amounts of people, libertarianism is actually a pretty big tent in terms of the amount of ideological space it occupies. This means it intersects with plenty of the other political parties.
Thus, plenty of people can feel satisfied calling themselves "libertarians" while actually still remaining members of the bigger political parties. This happens with both the Republicans and Democrats. I have several examples to illustrate, which will follow.
So first, on the Republican side: well, actually, even on the Republican side, there's multiple subdivisions of libertarian-linked Republicans, so it doesn't even make sense to talk of a single "side" here. But anyways: let's start with the Free State Project.
Most Free State Project people are Republicans. Granite State Progress and Susan Bruce keep track of FSP people, and most of the ones they keep tabs on are Republicans. Since they have electoral success winning on the GOP ticket, why switch to LPNH instead?
But what's more interesting though, is which direction within the GOP it is that FSP people end up going in once they get here. Take Chris Cantwell, for instance. He came here as a FSP-er and ended up going fully rascist and fascist. He is not a unique case.
The Ron-Paul-fan-to-alt-right pipeline is well-established. How is this compatible, you may ask? Well, for these people, their libertarianism is more about contrarianism and going against prevailing norms than having a coherent ideology.
This is what PJW meant when he called the alt-right the new "punk rock": he saw punk rock as being about pissing people off, and then figured the best way to piss people off would be to go against the prevailing norms of being good and respectful to others.
Now, if you're going out of your way to piss off people, that eventually spills over to people who otherwise agree with you. This is why Cantwell is no longer a member of Free Keene: he pissed too many of them off, & now they fight against him on Twitter as much as anyone else
So, there's reason 1 why libertarians don't affiliate with LPNH: their propensity for pissing people off leads to people being put off by infighting. But, as I said, that's only part of the libertarian-linked Republicans. On to the next group of them...
So, while the previous group may have been more on the extremist side, there are also Republicans who call themselves "libertarian" as a way of making themselves sound more moderate. I'm talking about the Bill Weld style of Republican here.
Now this batch of lib-GOP isn't like the previous group: they're not contrarian trolls, they're nice & about bringing people together! So, if they haven't pissed off other Libs like the extremists did, then why don't they affiliate? Well, it's gotta be a different reason
So, while I used Bill Weld as an example previously here, I have to admit he's a bit of a special case here: he actually DID affiliate with the LP previously, and has only disaffiliated to run against Trump in the GOP primary.
Nevertheless, this section isn't about Bill Weld himself, it's about the archetype he represents: the old-school ancestral liberal New England Republican. Sure, Weld himself may have once affiliated with the LP, but many people who are otherwise like him haven't.
Why don't these Weldlike-but-not-actually-Weld GOP change parties? Well, many of them are getting old by this point, so I'm suspecting it's largely out of nostalgia/tradition and a refusal to acknowledge what the parties have become these days.
So there's reason 2: ancestry and inertia. Now onto the Dem's side: yes, there are actually libertarian-adjacent Dems! Like with the Republicans, they split into their own subdivisions on the Dem side as well.
Since I'm going right-to-left along the ideological spectrum here, I'll start with the centrist libertarian Democrats. Examples here include Andrew Yang, Steve Marchand, and Carl Soderstrom (from my local Concord City Dems). The main uniting idea here: UBI.
(ok so really it's more than just UBI, but I prefer to focus on that, so, anyways...) Why might UBI supporters be more likely to affiliate w/the Dems instead of the LP? Well... ok this one is a bit complicated, let me start by first talking about UBI in general.
So, at first blush, UBI sounds more like a Dem idea: free money! In fact, one might even wonder the reverse of the previous question I asked: why am I associating this clearly Dem idea with libertarians in the first place? Again, it's complicated.
To save myself the writing, I'd just like to refer people to the literature surrounding UBI. Let's just say that there's lots of reasons. And the thing is, this group of UBI supporters is smart: they know the reasons why it fits as both a Dem idea and a LP idea.
So, if they can see the idea fitting either place, why pick the Dem side? Well, remember which 1 I mentioned first: at 1st blush, it seems like a Dem idea. This group of CLDs might not be seeing the idea for the 1st time themselves, but they can empathize with people who are
Basically, this one comes down to receptivity: there's greater potential for growth in the spread of people accepting the idea of UBI with the Dems than in the LP. I only scratched the surface here, but let's call that our 3rd reason overall for why ppl don't affiliate w/LPNH
(hopefully I also answered the question of "How can Steve Marchand position himself as running to the left of Molly Kelly when he's affiliated with centrist groups like Problem Solvers and No Labels?" while I was at it)
So, since I'm going right-to-left here, now we come to the left end of the portion of the spectrum I'll be covering: the DSA LSC (Libertarian-Socialist Caucus). This is kinda close to where I am, but I'm just a member of the larger DSA, not this specific caucus.
I do have several friends in the LSC though. Anyways, since this is the portion I'm personally closer to, it'll be considerably longer, so I'm going to take a bit of a break before diving into it. (Also my battery is dying)
(this will also give @MKWilson_603 a chance to yell at me in case I blew up their notifications more than they were expecting, & request that I untag them...)
ok, time to pick this thread up again: libertarian socialism! It sounds like an oxymoron, right? Well, it isn't: libertarian socialists oppose both state power AND capitalism. In this way they are kinda similar to the anarchists.
The way I like to think of it is that libertarian-socialism is a "lite" version of anarchism-without-adjectives (or anarcho-socialism, or anarcho-communism) in the same that libertarianism-without-adjectives is a "lite" version of anarcho-capitalism
Some key concepts for understanding libertarian-socialism are dual power theory & the distinction btwn electoral & non-electoral politics. Since LSC types prefer to avoid recognizing the legitimacy of the state, they prefer to build power in structures outside of it
An example of this is tenant organizing: by organizing tenants' unions, the LSC builds political power that can stand up against landlords without having to rely on the electoral system. The LPNH doesn't do this.
At least as far as I can tell, the LPNH is almost entirely focused on the electoral side of politics. So, here's reason 4 why people don't affiliate: people who prefer to focus on the non-electoral side of politics aren't going to join an org that's primarily electorally-focused
"But wait," you might say, "the LSC doesn't eschew electoral politics ENTIRELY. What about that whole diversity-of-tactics thing?" Well, that's a fair point. Let me try to address it.
It's true that some LSC-types do participate in electoral politics anyways. One of my LSC friends works for the Campaign For A Family-Friendly Economy here in NH, which is a primarily electorally-focused organization.
So now the question becomes why LSC ppl will associate with some electorally-focused organizations but not the LP itself. Well, I think that this is a good example of how 1 word being shared between 2 ideology names doesn't imply their adherents share interests.
Other examples of this include socialists opposing Nazis (National Socialists), Democrats and Republicans (with both big and small Ds and Rs) opposing the DPRK, and anarchists of all other stripes opposing anarcho-capitalists.
Now, unlike some of those other cases, there's no lying involved here: the LSC *is* actually libertarian. It's just that it's also socialist, and the current LP is too heavily anti-socialist to be able to resolve their differences with most LSC members.
"But wait," you might say, "The DSA isn't the only organization with a Libertarian-Socialist Caucus! In fact, the LP even has one itself! So it looks like at least *some* LSC-ers have been able to resolve those differences!"
Well, yes. The LP-LSC does in fact exist. But it's still very different from the DSA-LSC. To illustrate... well, let me first note that we're finally coming full-circle here. This thread started as a tangent to a Vermin Supreme discussion, and now it's coming back to him.
I don't know if Vermin Supreme is actually a member of the LP-LSC himself, but I have seen him associated with it before. Even if he's not actually a member of it, he's still a good representative of its absurdity.
Note that I don't mean this as an insult! Absurdism is a valid philosophy! But, it's not for everyone. Not everyone can be Vermin Supreme. Nor does everyone even want to be.
But let's put him aside. Let's assume that the LP-LSC actually has things figured out, and has a way for people to be members without turning to absurdism. Why would DSA-LSC members still be reluctant to join the LP-LSC in this case?
At this point I think it comes down more to history, and personal squabbles. One of my DSA-LSC friends (diff. 1 from the prev. 1 I mentioned) said something along these lines when describing how he became disillusioned w/the LP & left to move to the DSA
I remember reading some interesting tweet-convos on this topic (by anonymous other people); hold on while I try to find them...
This isn't the one I was thinking of, but still worth expanding: https://mobile.twitter.com/parsonshanged/status/1138856049878941696?p=v
right I think I'm getting closer now: https://mobile.twitter.com/wingulls_r/status/1173503665727868928?p=v
here we go, this is the one I was thinking of: https://mobile.twitter.com/thecoleslaws/status/1138800012228464640?p=v
Ok, so that's enough of that... uh... time to wrap up with a summary, I guess...
So, to recap, the reasons I see for ppl not affiliating w/the LP are:
1. Contrarianism leads to infighting
2. Republican ancestry leads to inertia
3. Dems are more receptive to ideas being spread
4. The electoral/non-electoral divide
5. Philosophical incompatibilities
1. Contrarianism leads to infighting
2. Republican ancestry leads to inertia
3. Dems are more receptive to ideas being spread
4. The electoral/non-electoral divide
5. Philosophical incompatibilities
And @rosemarierung has a good 6th reason of practical concerns, which I kinda touched on, but never stated explicitly: https://mobile.twitter.com/rosemarierung/status/1194110071585878016?p=v
Now that I'm at the end of the thread & don't have to worry about people getting mad that I kept them tagged for the whole thing any longer, some tags for accounts of groups and/or people I mentioned, to give them a chance to comment... (hold on while I find handles)
Here we go: @LPNational @LPNH @FreeStateNH @ProgressNH @susanthe @RonPaul @PrisonPlanet @FreeKeene @GovBillWeld @AndrewYang @marchandsteve @NHMollyKelly @ProbSolveCaucus @NoLabelsOrg @dsa_lsc @DemSocialists @FamilyEconomyNH @LibSocCaucusLP @VerminSupreme @social_caucus @nh_dsa
Some of this thread could use some revision given the way the primaries played out this year...
