The choice of battle-ground

How should people with libertarian-views choose their battle-ground? Should they stay within the biggest political party where views of free market promotion and individual freedom have the "most" understanding, or fight on their own terms for their ideals in a way that their voice is unchallenged by endless compromises with those they are supposed to be working with?

Here are a few thoughts from John Ray on the matter, especially aimed at the political scene in the United States. John wants American libertarians to stay within the Republican Party, or at least not run an independent campaign for president or parliament, and fight for libertarian-views by encouraging people to vote for Republicans. John thinks that is the best way to promote the ideals libertarians stand for, so that they can actually come into practice. By running an independent campaign, libertarians only decrease the strength of the Republican Party, therefore increasing the risk of clowns like John Kerry seizing the office of president.

The American president has enormous power, both on international as well as domestic scale. The election of a single powerful president like that has both advantages and disadvantages, of course depending on the nature of the person holding the office. John Ray makes a point that libertarians who vote for a special libertarian candidate increase the risk of a man like John Kerry seizing power, because libertarians votes are primarily votes which the Republican Party would get in the absence of a special libertarian campaign. In the same way the Greens in America are spoiling the harvest for Democrats.

This point I understand very well. However, I am still not convinced that libertarians should try to fight for their opinions within some bigger party which is in a better position to gain control. Libertarians can of course be spoiling the harvest for the big party, but there is another possible consequence of libertarians running their own campaign: They can move the whole political debate further to the Right by standing strong on their views as an independent voice.

This point I believe is enormously important. By being enclosed inside a big political party, libertarians risk being put to the side and their voice completely suffocated in compromises and political bargains with their own team-mates. This has been the case in Iceland. To fight this development in my country, many libertarians decided to split themselves free in order to influence the debate and move it to a more liberal and more open direction. The thought is that by running independently for the Icelandic parliament, the group of free-thinking people can be expanded. The thought is not that the number of Leftists is a constant, but a number that can be decreased with education, debate and discussions.

In a two-party system like in the United States this method could be questioned. Icelanders don't have a president with any power - the multi-party parliament makes the law and the ministers uphold them. A two-party system is more vulnerable to dramatic changes. If a Leftist seizes power the whole country could be facing huge difficulties for a long time. By having a independent presidential candidate, libertarians could indeed be clearing the path for an authoritarian Leftist.

Can't libertarians stand alone?
The question libertarians all over the world ask themselves is this: Should we fight within some large political party and hope our voice will be heard there within, or have a independent voice which people can hear without compromises? Compared to the political scene in Iceland, I don't see how the first option is viable. The Icelandic Independence Party has for decades been the refuse for Icelandic libertarians. For decades it did okay. Of course there are the endless compromises on the political scene, and progress has been slow and it has been fast, depending on circumstances and the men in the front-line. Over the past few years a lot of positive steps have been taken to reduce the government in Iceland and therefore common well-being of Icelanders. Some came with the EEA-contract, and others by the initiative of Davíð Oddsson and the Independence Party.

But Adam and Eve didn't stay long in Paradise. The obvious flaw of operating inside a right-winged conservative party, which carries a wide variety of different opinions, some more fitting in a Leftist-party, became obvious a few years ago, and has since multiplied in strength. The State will not give up its radio-stations and television-station in the present political climate. The State will not release farmers, patients, doctors and teachers the way things are evolving now. The Left has loud voices and some meet a surprising understanding with the public, compared to the sufferings of totalitarianism in the 20th century. This must be fought, and the suffocated voice of libertarianism inside the Icelands only "right"-winged party wont do it. An independent voice is needed or else ...

But is there any hope of libertarians expanding the voice of freedom by working on their own and speaking directly what they want to teach? Some experience exists which gives rise to optimism. In Costa Rica the independent voice of libertarianism has had some success in the local political scene - see Movimiento Libertario. Why can't the same apply for others? Why is it necessary to remain within a stagnant, conservative, slow-moving, compromising political-machine, well tied within the society's structure and extremely reluctant to decrease its own authority when it finally gains power over the government?

I'm not going to speak for other countries and urge libertarians to stay or go from their local, big, right-winged political party, or urge libertarians to vote or not vote or how to vote. In Iceland I see the great need for an independent libertarian running for the parliament, and I'm sure the same goes for many other countries.