New Libertarian leader in Alabama
Posted by BrianFrom the Montgomery Advertiser:
The new head of the Libertarian Party of Alabama knows he has a tough job ahead — leading a party where members are so individualistic it can be hard to organize.
“The analogy of herding cats is frequently used,” said Stephen Gordon, who became state party chairman earlier this month. “But I’ve learned that cats can be herded. As an example, if you open up a can of cat food and walk around your house with it, all the cats are going to follow you around. That’s what we have to do effectively. We have to find some mechanism to make that happen.”
That mechanism is rebranding Libertarians as members of a party that truly believes in small government, he said. It will pull the party together behind a common message that he believes will attract voters.
Good luck to him. I adhere to libertarian ideals, but have never been eager to call myself a Libertarian. As a party they focus far too much on legalizing drugs instead of the big picture. Their opponents easily leverage the pro-drugs sentiment associated with Libertarians against them by playing to the conditioned belief among most in this country that drugs are bad AND should be kept away from individuals through force.
If the party ever wants to move beyond the fringe they are going to have to adopt the message that Gordon is preaching. They will have to proclaim themselves as THE small government party. The modern Democrats have never been accused of being in favor of limited government. And despite their incessant claims, modern Republicans have not proven that they are really desirous of small government. I believe that there is an undercurrent of demand in this country for a party that truly believes that individuals should be as free as possible from the intrusions of government. Can the Libertarian Party start to make progress and win converts from the two major parties? I would love to see that, but I’m not going to hold my breath.
Related content:
July 2nd, 2007 at 3:02 pm
At the very least, the argument for legalization (I’d rather think of it as de-illegalization) of drugs should be made in terms of a small-government issue. The war on drugs is pure and simply big government trying to protect us from ourselves. And it has failed. We are spending billions of dollars each year on this effort to keep drugs out of the hands of the citizens, and yet drugs are more available and cheaper now than ever before. I don’t believe you can truly be for small government without being for ending the war on drugs.
July 2nd, 2007 at 3:35 pm
Exactly. Personal freedom, including the right to use drugs, should merely be a subset of a true small government platform.