The Pledge Problem and How to Fix it

by Phillip Schmitt

Posted June 8, 2005

After more than thirty years the LP has almost no significant electoral success to show for its efforts. Why is that? Poll after poll indicates that large numbers of voters truly want smaller government. I would suggest that there may a fundamental flaw with our ability to recruit and retain members.

To begin our exploration of the problem, let's look at how the rank and file membership of the Democratic Party (DP) and Republican Party (RP) plots out on a Nolan chart.

The Democrat and Republican parties are represented by very large circles. There is no singe point that we can point to and say "all republicans/democrats hold these positions on the issues". Their membership and candidates vary widely in their beliefs. 

Each party has a single national platform, but their members and candidates are free to ignore any part of it that they wish. Members on one side of the circle may point to members and candidates on the other side and complain that they aren't "true" Republicans/Democrats. But those members can just turn around and say the same thing back to them. Even though many members agree on many issues, their parties are built upon a broad coalition of different groups who differ on key issues.

Most of each party’s new members tend to come from people who are either inside the respective circle or close to it. But since the circles are fairly large, each party has an extensive segment of the general voter population to draw from.

There is no pledge or test to join as a member. Anyone is allowed to join. Over time the circle can expand, contract, or move to a completely different part of the Nolan chart based on the beliefs of the new members. There is nothing to keep the circle anchored to a certain set of core beliefs.

 But what about the candidates? The only thing keeping any type of ideological controls on the candidates are the party's primaries. During the primaries, candidates have to hold positions that will pass muster with the majority of their party's members - at least the ones who vote in that particular primary.

Of course, once they've successfully navigated through the primaries, they trip over themselves racing to get to the center. They often deemphasize or re-position themselves on certain issues where their party disagrees with the average voter. In the primaries, they were appealing to voters inside the circle. Now they need to draw from voters outside the circle. So just like the party members, there's not much binding the candidates to any particular ideas.

In summary, their party systems gives great flexibility for new members to join. This allows for a broad appeal to a wide range of potential members. But at the same time there is nothing anchoring these parties to any core set of beliefs. Over time these two parties can and have undergone major changes in the beliefs held by their average member and candidate.

A Party of Principle

Now let's compare this with the Libertarian Party. The founders of the LP wanted to make sure that it was anchored to a certain ideology. After all, what's the point of starting a new party if it will just turn into a clone of one of the existing parties? Grounding the party to its original principles is a good idea. But, as is often the case with any good idea, it can be implemented very badly.

To implement their idea, they came up with the "non-initiation of force" pledge. All new members are required to sign the following pledge:

I certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals.

In addition, they wrote the LP's Statement of Principles (SOP) which you can find in our national platform. It starts with the phrase "We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state".

Let us examine how our party's membership graphs on the Nolan chart as a result of the Pledge and SOP.

Instead of a large circle, the Libertarian Party is a small dot. The LP's positions, logically deduced from the Pledge and the SOP, leave only one possible spot on the chart.

When you first look at the graph, you might think that we have a lot of opportunity here. After all, there's a large amount of space between the LP's point and the circles representing the other two. Shouldn't we easily attract people whose beliefs are closer to our point then to either of the other circles? Unfortunately not.

The beliefs taken from our spot are the positions held by an anarchist. All pledge-signing members are expected to hold ALL of these beliefs. Our Statement of Principles (SOP) reaffirms quite clearly that the LP's philosophy is a belief in the rights of a sovereign individual which implies anarcho-capitalism.

It's true that some people, including David Nolan, the author of the Pledge and one of the founders of the LP, say that the Pledge is simply meant to demonstrate to the government and to new members that the LP is a peaceful, non-violent organization. However, this explanation doesn't fit with the way that the majority of active members view the Pledge. In a recent poll conducted here in Oregon, active members were asked how they explained the Pledge to potential new members. They overwhelmingly replied that they explain the Pledge to mean that non-initiation of force is the core principle of the Libertarian Party.

It's also true that some people haven't thought out the logic of the Pledge and have never heard that we have a "Statement of Principles". But eventually most people learn that if you truly follow the logic of the Pledge and the SOP, it means that you have to support things like:

1. The government has no right to levy ANY taxes.
2. The government has no right to stop people from making their own nuclear bomb, nerve gas, Ebola virus, etc.
3. The government has not right to regulate companies that produce toxic pollution unless it can be proven that the pollution has already leaked onto another's property.
4. The government has no right to trespass on someone's property, even if our country has just been invaded and the military needs to cross the property in order to retreat and avoid being destroyed.
5. The government has no right to confiscate someone's property, even if a natural disaster has just destroyed the regional water supply and the only functioning water well is owned by someone who decides to charge $1,000,000 per gallon to people who are about to die from dehydration.

The Pledge and SOP leads to an incredibly exclusive membership. So you say that you only want to cut taxes by 90%? Sorry, we don't really want you in our party. You aren't really following the Pledge. What's that? You are a firm supporter of gun owner rights, but you don't think that high school students should be allowed to make working nuclear bombs for their science project. Well, you can vote for us, but don't think we will allow you to join. What's that? You want at least some environmental regulation of large corporations that produce massive amounts of toxic byproducts? Sorry. Members of our party aren't allowed to believe in any government regulation under any circumstances. Unless you can prove that a company has let some pollution seep beyond their property lines you are out of luck.

I could go on, but the point is that any belief system derived from a single rigid principle will lead to certain conclusions that don't make sense to most reasonable people. Therefore, requiring members to believe in this principle with no exceptions will lead to a very limited membership.

In addition to allowing only pure anarchists to join, the Pledge may stop members from advocating incremental changes towards freedom. For example, is an LP member allowed to advocate school vouchers? School vouchers would definitely be a step in the right direction. They increase the choice of parents and students and decrease the power of government. But if an LP member advocates this, aren't they still advocating a system that involves the initiation of force by the government? I would have to say yes. Would this be breaking the Pledge? Unfortunately, I think so.

 I've heard some good arguments that calling for incremental change and advocating positions that are less pure than those of an anarchist is not breaking the Pledge, but frankly, I don't buy it. The Pledge states "I certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force...". If a member advocates a change in government that reduces the use of force but does not eliminate it, he is still advocating FOR a system that initiates force. I believe this is breaking the Pledge. And ultimately, it doesn't really matter if some can successfully argue that advocating incremental changes is allowed, because a large percentage of party members believe it is not allowed. These purist members will express this view whenever they get the chance, thereby discouraging large numbers of potential new members.

Another way to think of the problem is that the Pledge and SOP insure that the LP is focused on a destination, not a direction. There are huge numbers of voters who want to go in same direction as we do  - the direction of smaller government. But they don't want to go as far as we do. We want to travel 1000 miles. As long as we exclude people who only want to travel in our direction for 100 miles, we will have a very lonely journey.

Results of the Pledge and SOP

The methods that were used to keep the LP from straying from its original ideas have worked. But at the same time they have insured that we have no chance of real success.

The system is incredible inflexibly. The result is that the LP membership is not made up of a broad coalition. Instead it's a very exclusive club made up mostly of purist anarchists who won't accept incremental change, people who don't fully understand the implications of the Pledge they've signed, and those who simply ignore some of the implications of the Pledge and the SOP.

A Possible Solution

So how do we fix this problem? How do we change into a more inclusive party that is still anchored to the idea of Liberty? First, I propose that we modify the Pledge to the following:

The Libertarian Party will always stand for more liberty and less government on every issue.  As a member of the Libertarian Party, I will NOT attempt to change this.

NAME____________________________________

The new pledge should change the dynamics of our membership to the following.

Notice that the first sentence refers to "more liberty and less government" on every issue. This is more flexible because it uses the current level of government as the reference, rather then setting some specific end goal as the "correct" amount of government or liberty. In the future, whether the level of government shrinks, grows, or stays the same, the LP will always be on the side of less government and more freedom on every issue.

With this flexibility we can welcome members who want smaller government, even if they don't want to eliminate all government. Do you want to cut government power by only 50%, 25%, or even only 10%. No problem, welcome aboard. Start helping out.

With the new pledge, we can advocate for incremental changes. Proposals like school vouchers, decriminalizing drugs instead of legalization, reducing welfare but not completely eliminating it immediately, legalizing prostitution but regulating it are all acceptable. As long as a proposal will decrease governmental power, it's consistent with the new pledge to make it an official LP proposal.       

In addition, the new pledge would give us the flexibility to welcome members who want more liberty on most, but not necessarily all of the issues. They just have to agree that "as a member of the Libertarian Party" they won't try to change the official position of the LP to one that advocates for more government.

This means that when engaging in party activities like voting on the platform or recruiting new members they can not try to change the LP's into a party that stands for more government on any issue. It doesn't matter if, on a certain issue, they personally believe we need more government or think that the current level is OK. As long as they do not work to change the official LP position, they are upholding the pledge.

The most important aspect of the new pledge is that it focuses on a direction, not a destination. Large percentages of voters want to go our direction, but few of them want to reach the same destination as us. By focusing on a common direction, we will be in a much better position to recruit a large coalition of like-minded members. And what if the power of government continues to increase? As more and more people find themselves on the side that wants less government, we will have more and more potential members.

The new pledge will allow us to increase membership from the vast numbers of people who believe in being socially tolerant and fiscally responsible, but who do not want to be sovereign individuals. But at the same time, it will keep the party firmly anchored on the side of more liberty for the individual and less power for the government.

Summary

Designing a political party to insure that it remains true to its original ideas is a great concept. Unfortunately, the way it was implemented by the LP founders resulted in an exclusive club unable to achieve lasting success. If we modify the Pledge, we can take the first step to change the LP into a real party made up of a large coalition of freedom minded people. But at the same time we will also insure that the LP always remains on the side of more liberty and less government.

Step two in the process involves changes surrounding the LP's Statement of Principles (SOP). My essay involving the SOP will come out soon.

NOTE: Changing the Pledge would require amending Article 7, Section 1 of the national LP bylaws. This would require a 2/3 vote at a national convention.

16 Comments

Printer Friendly Version
Top of Page