Kill Your Heroes: Comments on Leadership and Responsibility

In the libertarian movement or libertarian culture or however you’d like to call it here in America, there seems to be a great issue with leadership. There are many intellectuals and false idols brought to the forefront, but true leaders seem to be hidden in the shadows.

Looking at American libertarianism, the traditional political signs of influence are apparent: with a political party known prominently as the third biggest party of America, publications like Learn Liberty and Reason, think tanks such as the Cato Institute and Mises Institute. Not to mention the slew of public intellectuals, both past (Ayn Rand, Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, Murray Rothbard) and present (David Friedman, Scott Horton, David Boaz, etc). There seems to be a thriving scene for the movement.

Of course, one should not flatter them too much: the third biggest party is still quite small, getting less than 2% of the popular vote every presidential election since the party’s founding (1). National influence is quite small, and the many thinkers and think tanks tend to argue and even fight with each other on certain ideas. And yet they’ve persevered nonetheless, being quite influential in local elections and movements pushing for libertarian principles in government.(2) While they’ve had qualms with each other, it seems that they had learned to respect and work together, taking the small victories that they can get.

Nowadays, however, it seems the movement has started to fall apart. Conflicts between self-proclaimed radicals in the movement and the more socially classical-liberal crowds has led to what appears to be self-destruction. The present Libertarian National Committee, headed by members of the LP Mises Caucus, had promised, according to the Chair Angela McArdle, to make the party “functional and not embarrassing”, and former would-be LP presidential candidate Dave Smith had said that, with the change in LP leadership that “The Ron Paul Revolution is back”.(3) It seems that some big changes were to come.

And big changes they were: in the span of less than six months, two state affiliates of the party (New Mexico and Massachusetts) had disaffiliated, with the Illinois LP affiliate polling its members on whether they should as well. Membership and associated dues are falling, and criticism against the party has been heaped up, inside and out. The current Secretary of the LNC, Carry Ann Harlos, had threatened to sue Andrew Koppelman and the Hill for defamation, and both she and McArdle have wanted to sue the Southern Poverty Law Center for libel, and inquired about trademarking the term “Libertarian” to sue those who used it without the party’s permission for IP violations.(4) Both actions has been argued to be contrary to libertarian principles, including by Harlos herself. It seems there’s trouble within the new regime.

What’s odd is that the current LNC has members from previous terms, such as Ms. Harlos, who has been the secretary for the LNC multiple times. Others no doubt have had experience with organizing as well, as the Mises Caucus has ran movements and activist campaigns in the past, such as the legalization of psychedelics; and while they tend to aim for a more conservative-leaning audience, they do argue for libertarian positions, and their criticisms, and their criticism of past leadership is not without reason.

However, they have similar issues, and it can be summed up in a simple sentence: they’re not leaders, they’re politicians. They went into it the same way politicians do. Even if they meant well, if they wanted real change, they were still grasping for power, hungry for it. With how things are going, they’re not using such power well, and have become geared more towards personal gain, service for self.

This isn’t entirely new: there have been complaints about such aiming for power over principles. Criticisms in regards to Bill Weld, who was the 2016 Libertarian Vice President Nominee, having worked as a lobbyist for weapons manufacturers such as Raytheon; on the actions of figures such as Nick Sarwark and the LNC under Joseph Bishop-Henchmen during a dispute on the Massachusetts affiliate; even in the beginning of the party, there was complaints on the influence of the Koch Brothers, and how they may use the movement for their own personal gains. The Mises Caucus had argued for a return to principle, but they have as much a problem with power as well, such as supporting Republican candidates for certain offices.

Many of those people, aiming for the limelight, can there be no better label for them than politician? Very few come forward to honestly serve, to help the movement, to become a leader.

The culture in the movement does not help: it’s become in some ways an organized religion, with its own pantheon of idols. One need only mention Ron Paul or Murray Rothbard, perhaps Thomas Sowell or Milton Friedman as lesser deities. The slew of modern heroes, consisting of Tom Woods, Lew Rockwell, Dave Smith, even more worthwhile people as Scott Horton, all help to further cement a kind of mythos, a collection of fetishes(5), and the “gospel” of the liberty movement pushed forth unquestioningly, part automaton-like. The memes, while at times funny, helps enforce that kind of unthinking culture, that conformity and collectivity inherent in the factions of the liberty movement.

I mean no insult to the people named above: it may just as well be that their work has helped spread libertarian ideals, and do help the movement. Just the same, however, they are part of a cult of personality, the same cult of personality which has lead to the current issues in the movement. The people in power, or at least a good amount of them, have no doubt that they are right, and such a cult mentality only reinforces that kind of narcissism, bloating the egos and making them more like politicians in their office. Again, there is a lack of leadership; there is an overabundance of politicians.

Yet, for what issues are in the limelight, at the top of the pyramid, on the lower rungs of local issues there have been leaders that have pushed forward. Even within politics, people such as Bill Redpath, who has organized efforts for the Libertarian Party to be on the state ballot, or Marshall Burt, a representative in the Wyoming State Congress, who pushed for the broad legalization of cannabis across the state. Organizers for protests, such as the pardoning of Assange, have made their place in the libertarian movement, and many mutual aid projects have also been founded. In all the small nooks and crannies, one can see leaders taking real action, doing real work, serving to help their fellow man, as well as to pave the way for a liberated future.

What, then, must be done, to deal with the issues of politicians instead of leaders at the top? Simply put, there would need to be a cultural shift: towards truth, towards responsibility, towards keeping to principles, and towards unity and communication.

The following are needed:

1. Kill your heroes (metaphorically): The worshipping of idols, and the inability to criticize, leads to stagnation, conformity, group-think. In order for growth and learning to occur, you have to be free and able to criticize those you look up to. When we do that, we create accountability, responsibility, and individual maturity.
2. Service for others, not for self: We should be choosing true leaders, who put aside their own selfish wants or dreams of glory in order to help the movement grow and to further the principles of libertarianism. We shouldn’t choose politicians who want power and make sweet sounding promises, but the leaders who have actually put in the elbow grease, who have done what they could locally to help spread the cause. If we can’t find any, then we have to become leaders. Community action and correspondence is necessary: a true leader will not ask what he thinks the movement needs, but will ask the actual people in the movement what it needs, and will listen and work to fulfill that need.
3. Principles over Power: Closely following the previous point, we should choose people who actually keep to their principles, who do stand for liberty, and do not compromise on such principles for the sake of gaining more power, to silence critics or enforce conformity. We should choose those who are humble, who are good communicators and mediators, those who can bring people together under the banner of liberty, and who uphold those principles of libertarianism we seek to spread. Servant-leadership, principled leadership, is needed; we can leave the politicians to their soap boxes.

None of these pointers are difficult: all it takes is some work, communication, and the fostering of a better culture, of helping people open their minds, to be able to learn from others. Utilize the wisdom of the past, of the elders, of those who know the workings, and add the passion of the new generation, the youth, who will fight fervently for a better future. Such a balance brings forth new leaders, leaders that will push the libertarian movement to greatness.

There is work needed, as well as some much-required ego-death. However, it will all be worthwhile in the end, leading to a greater unity, and a greater change in the world.

1. The only exception to this is the Johnson/Weld ticket of 2016, which also has the highest percentage of the presidential popular vote for the Libertarian Party (3.3%).
2. One can bring up examples as the Free State Project and other local elections within other states, as well as numerous protests against the war on drugs, foreign intervention, minority rights, etc.
3. The McArdle quote is taken from her nomination speech for Chair of the LNC. The quote from Smith can be found here, but he also mentions it repeatedly on his social media.
4. The topic of trademarking had been recorded in the planner on the party’s Business List for the executive committee, under orders by the LNC, to consider it in a motion. The threat of defamation towards Koppelman was posted on Ms. Harlos’ social media, which can be found here, and the talk of suing the SPLC is shown in the email list of the LNC.
5. In the religious sense, fetishes describe certain idols or objects of worship.