Let’s Talk About It.
On September 30 and October 1, the LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF CANADA (LPOC) will hold a conference in London Ontario. I am hoping to raise this topic for debate and discussion by the attending delegates.
The Issue.
The LIBERTARIAN brand has been labeled by our opponents as “far right” , “extremist”, “radical” and more derogatory terms. Too many citizens have been convinced by adversaries, institutions and left wing pundits in the legacy media and elsewhere that is a collection of socio-political ideas that must be avoided. This is ‘baggage’ that we carry into every election and every public discussion.
The Federal and Ontario LIBERTARIAN parties have existed for five decades. Not once has a candidate been elected. Not once has a LTN party exceeded 2% of the total vote count. Not once has a LTN leader been showcased in a popular legacy media magazine, newspaper or television show.
While the LIBERTARIAN brand has floundered, Maxime Bernier started the PPC five years ago and has outperformed the LPOC by many magnitudes in elections, fund-raising, membership, EDA organizations, on social media, as a guest on popular podcast shows, at rallies, and more. This proves one thing - it is possible for a new, smaller party to achieve a level of acceptable political success.
Proposal
Distance the party from the LIBERTARIAN brand. Choose a name that clearly defines our purpose. I like LESS GOVERNMENT for Canada (LGC).
Define every LGC member and political candidate as a LESS GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE.
Identify a new Charter that declares Canada’s #1 problem: TOO MUCH GOVERNMENT. The Mission Statement, Statement of Purpose, and Government Principles must be clearly aligned to steer all ADVOCATES into activities that address that problem in all of its manifestations.
Invite anyone and everyone to join, regardless of past or current political affiliation. The only criterion is that they agree with the statement that TOO MUCH GOVERNMENT is Canada’s #1 Problem and they are willing to discuss this idea with others.
SWOT ANALYSIS
All new ideas deserve robust analysis and discussion to properly determine their merit. I offer a few of my own SWOT observations to kick-start a discussion and encourage others to contribute their views.
STRENGTHS
Where citizens are confused or misinformed about the term LIBERTARIAN, or even its close relative - the “Classical Liberal”, there will be no confusion about LESS GOVERNMENT when they see it on an election ballot or engage in public discussions.
ADVOCATES can spend less time explaining Libertarianism or Classical Liberal concepts to others and more time discussing how life can be better if the size, cost and scope of authority of all three levels of Canada’s public sector could be reduced significantly. The opportunities for constructive discussions are plentiful since there are so many areas in society where a government monopoly predominates.
Failure in past elections does not mean that the principles, values and ideas that we have presented have no merit or traction with the public. Failure to win votes came from pretending that a libertarian party can form a majority government and achieve its vision. When we stop pretending and, instead, start discuss the possibilities arising from LESS GOVERNMENT, then there is a chance that we can affect a shift in the political culture towards a society less dependent on government institutions.
The LESS GOVERNMENT topic naturally invites many possibilities for discussion and debate. This is more true today after the Covid years and the evident revamping of the Climate Crisis narratives that are arising from the usual suspects.
WEAKNESSES
Change is difficult. People who self-identify as a LIBERTARIAN, especially those who have invested much time and effort to study and promote the philosophy and publications of greater LTN authors, will resist accepting LESS GOVERNMENT as the new theme of the movement.
People tend to be “tribal” in their allegiancies. Religion, political parties, sports teams, climate change and more - these are areas where these tribal tendencies are strongest. If LESS GOVERNMENT is a message that conflicts with existing tribal loyalties, social pressures from within the “tribe” will compete with their willingness to associate with LESS GOVERNMENT advocacy.
OPPORTUNITIES
Federally, Elections Canada lists 16 registered parties. Of these, perhaps half will agree that TOO MUCH GOVERNMENT is Canada’s #1 Problem and maybe they will see the wisdom to becoming a LESS GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE. This may be a way to consolidate and align some of the smaller parties under a common theme.
THREATS
Inevitably, every public sector labour union, NGO/charity, member of the Political Oligarchy of Power (POP) and government manager will fight aggressively to preserve their privileges as direct beneficiaries of the “HONEY POT”.
NOTES.
The HONEY POT is the source of all political and administrative power. It is a metaphor for the container of all public money (taxes + public debt) and all legal statutes (laws and regulation). Anyone who has authorized access to the HONEY POT has power.
POP includes any federal party that has elected MPs including Liberals, Conservatives, NDP, Green, Bloc Quebecois.
SUMMARY.
I hope that this topic will be included at the LPOC Convention. As Albert Einstein is famous for saying:
I plan to attend the LPC convention and would love to debate the issue with you. I hope it will be on Sunday. I have to attend my sister-in-law's 'Ceremony of Life" Saturday afternoon.
When I was canvasing during an election for myself or the Libertarian candidate, a few might ask, "The Liberal candidate?" to which I would reply, "No, the opposite. We ant less government and lower taxes." The response was mostly positive. I agree, "less government" has more appeal than the unknown "Libertarian" term. However, back in hose days my pamphlets included phrases such as "OHIP is bad for your health" and "Education is failing our children."
I suspect that few of the newer parties are for LESS government. The main reason for forming a new party is to get the government to pass legislation they want. The PPC is a splinter from the Conservative Party , and yes they want to make government slightly smaller, which is okay by me. But I suspect the "tribal" influence will keep the PPC small. Their success is due more to the number of disgruntled conservatives, who could abandon the PPC for a Conservative leader who could win.
Other Libertarians will probably disagree with me, but I don't believe our goal is 'less government', but a minimal government which protects us from aggressors and otherwise leaves us alone to solve our own problems. Somehow we need to convince them that government should not be robbing us to pay Paul (i.e., people who have made bad decisions) or rob Tom to buy Dick and Harry's votes.
> Not once has a LTN party exceeded 2% of the total vote count.
That's because 98%+ support literal slavery. The problem is not a lack of understanding, it's cold clear-eyed calculating evil - the pathetic reality is that most people would rather use violence and theft (slavery) to get their daily bread than honest work - they simply use synonyms and euphemisms (usually evasion) to try to assuage their guilty consciences.
> Maxime Bernier started the PPC five years ago and has outperformed the LPOC.
That's because he supports this slavery too, as was explained in that video I linked here by Tim Moen. The libertarian party can easily "outperform" him if we offer just a tiny bit more slavery than him.