I would add that the Libertarian Party should abandon its connection to the ACLU. If there was ever an example of hypocrisy in America it's the American Civil Liberties Union, which would more appropriately be named the Anti Christian Leftist Union.

It's more of a tool of the Left than a champion of liberty.

The Libertarian Party has no connection with the ACLU or any other organization and never has. We may co-endorse a particular bill, initiative or statement that originates with some other organization, but note that it is the specific action or statement that is endorsed, not the organization.

Having said that, my local party has occasionally ended up on the same side of an issue with the Texas ACLU and when we do we don't hesitate to get involved just because the ACLU is involved. Neither do we hesitate to oppose the ACLU when they endorse something we oppose.

So few people are politically engaged that it is pretty stupid to dismiss someone entirely who might be a potential allie or convert. So Bircher, tree hugger, ACLU member, Green, Fundamentalist, Progressive, whatever, you have to get beyond the label and get to know the person. Only an overt Marxist is not going to have al least a little common ground with us, so cultivate that connection and work to earn that person's trust. They may vote for you despite the differences of opinion that invariably arise.

From the time I became interested in politics, nearly everything the ACLU has done has been not only against what I believe, but also contrary to the principles of liberty that they claim to uphold. If they agree with us on a particular case, then yes, by all means join them in that case. I'm not suggesting we make a priori assumptions about them with everything, but what I am saying is that the ways they seek to accomplish their goals are often contrary to what the LP stands for.

Having the ACLU legislative director speak at the LP convention suggests more than just a correlative connection. And in my opinion that kind of connection is not only dangerous politically, but also dangerous given our the difference in principles between the ACLU and us.

Marcus, if you believe in a free exchange of ideas, you would not discredit a group you do not agree with politically. I believe the LP is unique in that it can embrace many views - it doesn't mean you have to agree with them.

Plus, the ACLU is not "anti-Christian." The ACLU has stood up for the freedom of Christians many times. I suggest you broaden your horizons instead of being so partisan.

Here is a good list of what the ACLU has done for Christians:

http://www.preemptivekarma.com/archives/2004/12/the_aclu_hates.html

The ACLU shares some beliefs with the Libertarian party, especially in the realm of the Patriot Act and freedom of speech. Perhaps you would be more comfortable staying in the Republican party. It is my belief that the LP party has a mixture of people you may not agree with.

I'm okay with differing ideas. I'm okay with having different interpretations, and I know there are pure libertarians, liberal libertarians, and conservative libertians, all of which make up the LP. I'm absolutely fine with that, and I agree that the ACLU should not be written off without any hope of redemption.

It's just worrisome that the LP will make such a connection with the ACLU, that was the point I was ultimately getting at. As long as people view the ACLU as a group that shares some of our ideals but has also done numerous things contrary to the cause of the LP, then it will be fine.

Having their legislative director speak at the convention, I say again, just seems to suggest a much more warm feeling toward them, which I do not think is good for the LP in the long run. Then again, I wasn't there so I didn't hear what the guy said.

I didn't mean to cause a stir here, it was just my opinion with regard to what the LP should do. I'm not a fan of the ACLU, and I expressed that on this blog because it seemed the appropriate forum for such a thing, as it invites discussion (like this has.) However, I do take some offense to the suggestion that I should just go back to the Republican Party based upon my dislike of the ACLU. If the party is about open-ness and principles, that kind of knee jerk reaction seems to deny those very premises. And if we aren't making any kind of formal connection as a party to the ACLU, then why should my general dislike of that organization necessarily imply my lack of compatibility with the LP?

Let me make one other comment: If I sound disgusted or whatever (on this forum or any other) it's mostly because of my transition from one political philosophy to another (right-wing conservatism into libertarianism), and thus I still see the reasons and arguments for those espousing my previous ideology.

With the ACLU, I may warm to them, I may not. But you are all correct in asserting that I shouldn't just write them off given my past disagreements with them, especially since those opinions were made in the context of my conservatism. I just went to their website and looked through the issues: It still kind of makes me cringe, not necessarily for what they want, but for the way they say it and the means they wish to achieve their goals. But, in a fight against a common enemy perhaps they are, like government itself, a necessary evil. I never thought I would ever give any kind support, explicitly or passively, for the ACLU... but I think I just did.

Anyway, I guess I felt bad for some of the other posts I've made on here in the past few days that appear to be more statist than Libertarian. It's a process, so if you bear with me I promise I'll be a valuable ally sooner rather than later. This whole process is a way for me either to solidify my beliefs in the Libertarian Party or to figure out if it even is for me. Contingent with that, coincidentally, is a gradual change. I'll probably always be at least a little conservative (with regard to abortion especially), but as a whole I see the merits and legitimacy of libertarianism more each day.

Marcus,

A lot of people coming to the LP from the left may have more of a negative reaction to the ultra-conservative Bob Barr speaking at our convention than the ACLU guy. You, coming from the right, the opposite. The good thing about the LP is that we're pro-freedom on everything, so to the extent Bob Barr is strongly pro-freedom on many issues, Libertarians can agree with him. Similarly, to the extent the ACLU is strongly pro-freedom on other issues, Libertarians can agree with them. I'm sure the ACLU wasn't at our convention speaking about 2nd Amendment issues, and I doubt Barr was there speaking about medical marijuana; they're both speaking on issues where they are in strong agreement with Libertarians.

P.S. As an aside, the LP's late Political Director, Ron Crickenberger, once targeted the top 5 incumbent Drug Warriors in Congress for the LP to try to play a role in un-electing. Barr made the list, we had some attack ads aimed at him, and the LP claimed some success in unseating him (although the Republicans redistricting Barr into another incumbent Republican's district likely played the biggest role in booting Barr out).

P.P.S. Speaking of Political Directors, that's a position the LP currently has unfilled. This also being a thread about the LP convention, it bears noting that one of the candidates to take over as LP Chair, William Redpath, has hiring a Political Director as a top priority.

Absolutely. And I guess what I was getting at is that it's wrong for me to make a priori assumptions about an organization's worth, especially given the LP's willingness to accept parts of several different organizations or individuals for the sake of advocacy. It's one of the big draws for the LP, and for me to suggest we abandon what could be a vital ally would be to sandbag the LP's attempt at success.

Your point about Bob Barr really brought the situation into perspective, and I think I should probably withdraw most of my comments on this post for that reason. I think perhaps my past political affiliations are still somewhat clouding my judgment, but this instance has, as many have in the preceding week, probably drawn me closer to the LP, which is good.