Topics
Abuse of Power
3
Activism
6
Anarchy
3
Antiwar
5
Austrian Economics
4
Be Informed
6
Building Tomorrow
7
Compulsory Schooling
2
Growing Government
5
Hipsters
1
Historical Perspective
9
Humor
2
Libertarian Party
1
Libertarian Perspective
7
Liberty Tech
14
Mainstream Media
2
Music
2
Occupy Wall Street
6
Paths to Liberty
12
peace
1
Propaganda
7
Psychology
2
Religion
1
Revolution
3
Ron Paul
11
Signs of Hope
11
StandwithRand
1
Videos
6
Andrew Walker
June 10, 2012, 9:57 pm
Past Debate in Libertarian Movement: "Low Tax Liberalism" or Anarcho-Capitalism?


1980 was the high point for the Libertarian Party in national politics, with Ed Clark's campaign for president receiving over 1% of the popular vote (the only LP presidential candidacy that has ever done so). The Clark campaign presented a relatively moderate message, explaining libertarianism as "low tax liberalism" rather than with more radical language. This and other disputes in the early 1980s over how to present the libertarian message led to a bitter fight between the "Kochtopus" and Murray Rothbard's more radical faction -- the animosity from which, unfortunately, continues to affect the liberty movement to this day.

As the outlines of a similar fight over strategy seem to appear on the horizon over the Paul camp's decision to work inside the Republican Party, it might be worth looking back at how these issues played out in a previous generation of libertarian activists. Can we debate our differences in a way that avoids splitting the movement into bitterly opposed factions like what happened a generation ago?

In this article, which appeared in Libertarian Forum at the end of 1980, Murray Rothbard (a founder of the modern libertarian movement as well as a major ideological influence on and close ally of Ron Paul) took the Clark campaign to task for, in his view, selling out principle in the interest of gaining a wider audience.

We post this article to stimulate discussion and provide a historical perspective on debates in our movement. Doing so does not imply agreement or disagreement with Rothbard's analysis or, by extension, an application of his conclusions to debates in our time or the implication that an exact parallel exists.


The Clark Campaign: Never Again
by Murray Rothbard
Libertarian Forum, September-December, 1980


"O Liberty! O Liberty! What crimes are committed in thy name!"
- Madame Roland

The proper epitaph for the Clark campaign is this: "And they didn't even get the votes." Libertarian principle was betrayed, the LP platform ignored and traduced, our message diluted beyond recognition, the media fawned upon - all for the goal of getting "millions" (2-3, 3-5 or whatever) of votes. And they didn't even do that. All they got for their pains was a measly 1% of the vote. They sold their souls - ours, unfortunately, along with it - for a mess of pottage, and they didn't even get the pottage. Maybe they'll demand a recount. Extrapolating from the Clark gubernatorial campaign of 1978 - as they liked to do last winter - they in effect promised us 4.6 million votes. (5.5% of the total). They got less than a million.

The Clark/Koch campaign was a fourfold disaster, on the following counts: betrayal of principle; failure to educate or build cadre; fiscal irresponsibility; and lack of votes. Betrayal of principle is of course the most important, as well as the most extensive, category. The campaign was marked throughout, in strategy and in tactics, by deception and duplicity. The platform was ignored, the message distorted. 'Basic principles were evaded and buried. The Clark defenders maintain that, in many of the instances of betrayal, he took a good stand from time to time - generally not in front of the media but before small libertarian audiences. My reply to all these feeble defenses is simply this: It's a helluva note when all we have to fall back on is the inconsistency of our candidate.

For a pdf scan of the full article, go here.
Roger Pruyne
Andrew Walker