The Partial Observer thinks the Libertarian and Constitution parties should merge, since either party could have nominated Ron Paul. “If both parties would have backed the same guy,” the author asks, “why have two parties?”
The Non-Aggression Principle
He succinctly answers his own question in the next paragraph.
LP members tends to favor open immigration, the CP opposes it. The LP favors free, open trade, the CP is open to protectionist policies. The LP focuses on individual rights, whereas the CP is more concerned with moral issues and states’ rights. … The LP tends to favor abortion rights, the CP is pro-life.
Constitution Party members supporting their party’s platform do NOT accept the non-aggression principle (the idea that you may not use the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals). And you can not join the LP without accepting the non-aggression principle. Principles are more important than the expediency of the moment. End of story
Without Principles, How do you Identify Ends?
The author wants the Libertarian Party to abandon its principles but he wants the Libertarians and the Constitutional Party to work together on common ends.
What ends could you possibly identify and rigorously pursue if you have no guiding principles? That is the situation we face today, where unscrupulous politicians, lacking in guiding principles, trade favors for terms in office and make laws that are diametrically opposed to the values of our republic.
Principles, to remain principles, must be untarnished, whereas politics works through compromise, which means tarnishing principles. In any case, the Internet has made the dissemination of libertarian principles, and education in the libertarian philosophy, much easier than it used to be. If the Libertarian Party exists to educate, I don’t know if that is necessary anymore.
But if the purpose of the party is to win elections and govern, it would do well to disband or change its name to something more generic and non-philosophical. If the immediate and primary goal is to downsize the federal government, the various groups that support this goal can no longer be divided against themselves.
Constitution Party: a Misnomer
The bottom line is that the Constitution Party is a misnomer. It should be called the Conservative Christian Party. Take a look at the Constitution Party’s platform if you don’t believe me.
The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Providence as we work to restore and preserve these United States.
This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been and are afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.
The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries.
One reply on “Why the Libertarian and Constitution Parties Could Never Merge”
You have some good comments, but being a big L, you are obviously a little bit biased. The Libertarians have their own shortcomings.
I view both these third parties as being far more acceptable then the current Dems and Reps.
Anyway, I’m a member of neither party, but I try and spread the base principles of both.
We had a chance to unite under an exciting and dynamic leader with principles out the ying yang. But now that Ron Paul’s mostly symbolic campaign is winding down, we’re mostly in the same position, but I think he did more to bring people into the fold then either Libertarians or Constitutionalists have done in years.
Perhaps next time, we’ll unite some of the 3rd parties with all the individualists out there (not to be confused with The Individualists).