A Battle for the Soul of the Libertarian Party

A Battle for the Soul of the Libertarian Party

By

James Scott Trimm

The Libertarian Party is undergoing a crisis, a battle for its very soul.  There is a battle on going between two very different philosophies, and the fate of the Libertarian Party lies in the balance.  It is a battle that was typified by the recent race for the Libertarian nomination for president, but its implications go much further than that.

Austin Petersen campaigned on a platform of “taking over the government so we can leave you alone.”  He defined Libertarianism as “fiscally conservative, but socially whatever you want, as long as you don’t want to force it on anyone else.”  And these are the classic Libertarian beliefs.  This platform allowed Petersen, who describes himself as socially liberal, to reach across party lines and appeal to many conservative Republicans (like myself) who were unhappy with Donald Trump.  I did not have to agree with Petersen’s socially liberal beliefs, because he did not want to force them on myself or others.  Petersen was campaigning for more freedom and less government, and that was something I could agree with.

Gary Johnson, however, has another view.  Johnson wants to transform the Libertarian party into his own vision of “fiscally conservative but socially liberal.”  This is hugely different form the Petersen approach, or even from classical Libertarianism, because Gary Johnson is a liberal activist with every intention of using the full force of government to force his liberal social agenda on America.  This manifests itself in the fact that Johnson wants to require Christians (and presumably Jews and Muslims) to bake cakes for gay weddings, even if they find this conflicts with their deeply held religious beliefs.  When asked if Jews should be forced to bake cakes for Nazis as well, he answered firmly favor of that position.  And when Petersen argued that clergy should not be forced to perform gay weddings, Johnson argued against him on the point, saying that we should not tolerate any discrimination and that the freedom of religion had become an excuse to discriminate against homosexuals.  In another glaring example, pro-abortion Johnson is against defunding Planned Parenthood.  You would think a Libertarian would be in favor of defunding almost anything, but not Johnson.  He wants tax dollars spend on Planned Parenthood.  These are just symptoms of the problem.  The problem is that Gary Johnson is a new breed of “Libertarian” that does not subscribe to classic Libertarian beliefs, but instead is fiscally conservative, but wants to use the full force of government to force a liberal social agenda on others, whether they like it or not!

At the recent Libertarian National Convention, the LP nominated Gary Johnson over Austin Petersen as their nominee for President of the United States, sending a clear signal that this newly revised version of “Libertarianism” is gaining steam.

The Libertarians are at a crossroads.  Many of them are as upset about the Johnson nomination as Conservative Republicans are about the Trump nomination.  Yet others are pushing them to tow the party line.  There is a battle for the very heart and soul of this party, and it is not going well for the classic Libertarians.  Will they abandon more freedom and less government for “fiscally conservative but socially liberal”?  Only time will tell.