One of the disappointing aspects of being a passionate supporter of a third party is a general lack of awareness about political realities. We see this manifest in a lack of institutional knowledge about how to deal with difficult issues. We see it manifest in leadership who are well meaning but often are not flexible enough nor decisive enough when they need to be.

An example of when flexibility is required is the adherence to platform and principles. Platforms are open to change every two years at the national convention and state and county affiliates often have their own variations. What we call principles are really the collective principles of the leaders at large and at best a vocal minority.

It is not necessary nor desirable for the Chairman or any officer to be a strict adherent to any immutable set of platforms or principles. Their objective is to lead the administrative operation of the party and its affiliates to support and elect quality candidates. Not all candidates will agree on all ideas presented in the platform and should be free to deviate and serve as their heart, spiritual, and philosophical beliefs inform them.

If we hold them to impossible standards of philosophical allegiance we ultimately discriminate against good solid Americans who share our values and want to serve. They may not agree with the timeline or nuances of how small the Government should be. They do however, share our passions about a future for all Americans where the Government is more focused on protecting our inalienable rights as opposed to manufacturing new ones.

The Libertarian National Committee officers should be flexible enough to promote a community of deep thinkers and disenfranchised voters from the status quo. They must recognize that we are not a party of principles but a party of individuals. We often described ourselves as independents first, who through philosophy, education, experience, or otherwise recognize that we do not belong in the major parties. When we stepped out on the mantle of freedom from collectivism and groupthink and discovered the Libertarian alternative we discovered we were not alone.

Our opportunity to reach out and be a voice for individuals like ourselves is our most prized possession. Tyranny of thought or strict adherence to party principles does not help us win nor retain members, voters, or candidates. We are not strong when we are just independents. Even those who may disagree with a large portion of our platform are our allies if they recognize the danger facing an America with only two similar choices.

There are times however where leadership does require decisive swift action to prevent a storm of unrest and disappointment. Libertarian membership is declining, and our national and local reputations are at stake. Controversies over what officers have said or perhaps what they should have done differently create an atmosphere of sadness for the work and effort that has been or will be lost.

The Libertarian Bylaws confer upon the Chair full executive authority to lead the party and to decide at their discretion the executive role of the Vice Chair. The Chair could have defacto censored the Vice Chair on their own accord. Stating that the Vice Chair whether philosophically correct or not, principled or not, was no longer speaking in the best interest of the membership (existing or potential), the voters, or the candidates and removed any delegated authority.

This action may not have had any actual binding effect but sometimes leadership is not about the legal ramifications of your decisions but the symbolism behind them. The Chair of the Libertarian party publically retracting the duties of the Vice Chair would have been a strong vote of no confidence. It would have demonstrated to many that the party does have fundamental principles and ostracizing candidates and voters is not one of them.

Fortunately, the Chair did use the mechanisms of officer censure and removal and allow them to take their course. Unfortunately, the issues were allowed to fester and grow causing panic and disdain for both the officer in question and the committee who allowed them to remain. Any action no matter how seemingly unenforceable could have prevented us from falling into uncertainty and disarray as to what we represent or what we are willing to condone.

Let us be clear while it is easy with hindsight to point out the flaws and strategic errors of a single person: They are not fully responsible. When any member, officer, or candidate broadly speaks about a possible utopian vision they must do so at the peril of being misunderstood. The people that would be attracted to our cause are the disenfranchised whom despise the current climate of American politics. They are not seeking a utopian ideal with no realistic chance of ever being implemented. They are seeking a coalition of independent thinkers, individually strong in personal principles, collectively strong in compassion and awareness, to solve America’s problems.

I do not fault the LNC Chair for failing to act or not doing more. The responsibility was and is on all of us to represent a better choice for America grounded in the reality of the circumstances we currently live. It is our collective fault for giving voice and credence to a fantasy versus the reality.

Lastly, I want to say that this compromise of flexibility while simultaneously being amenable to swift and decisive decision making is not only practical but essential for leadership. Not all of us are blessed with extra hours in our day to read up on the latest drama or to volunteer and promote the Libertarian philosophy. Those among us who have little time to give rely on the leaders and volunteers to put forth our best who will lead by example demonstrating compassion and strength.

Strength however is not realized with militant adherence to any one set of principles or aggressive disdain for any single group. When any officer or member speaks candidly about groups in the party they despise they also speak against a much larger group of Americans whom share those same values. We are all on our own individual path to self-enlightenment. If you would find the courage and patience to educate instead of militantly oppose you will find your neighbors to be most susceptible to reason.

For those campaigning to the LNC: If your platform is based on contempt for those you do not understand nor agree with you then you are not the leadership we need.

We are all learning how to become better citizens and Americans. This journey will continue for the rest of our natural lives. Let us open our hearts and understand the circumstances that drove people away from the status quo. Let us embrace those who want more freedom even if it is not as open or free as some of us would like. Any amount of freedom that is realized under our banner and through our efforts is a win for us all.

The alternative: Clinging to “my principles are better than your principles” or “my economics are better than your economics” or “this Chair or that Chair is ineffective” helps none of us reach members, voters, or candidates. In fact, it scares them away and diminishes our role and opportunity as the home of independents and individual thinkers who love America and the freedom it stands for.