This weekend I have been thinking about a line Sunni wrote on Friday. "Yah, the pro-freedom types spout off, but we're usually too busy fighting amongst ourselves to take on a real enemy..."
The Movimiento Libertario has enjoyed some success and is making inroads for many reasons. In great part because of proportional representation, the ability to presented cases to the Constitutional Court, the parliamentary rules and a few other "features" of Costa Rica's system. Mostly however, I feel it is because they have avoided the infighting that seems to plague US libertarians.
I have been wondering why. Why is it that here, those who want more liberty are willing to work together under a Libertarian "tent"? For example, a key individual disagrees with us on many issues, but is contributing money and working full time as a volunteer to help elect Libertarians to office. He wants more freedom in Costa Rica and views the ML as the vehicle to achieve it. He is willing to work in the background and keep his differences out of the public view. He is not running for office and makes no public speeches. There are many others in similar positions. I hear a lot of "I disagree with the ML on issue X, but they are by far the best choice." A lot of people who feel this way are working with us.
So, why no ideological schism? After all those in the ML are human. We have the same weaknesses as others. We have our share of sycophants, a bunch of people who think they are god's gift, more than our share of those who just want to talk and who disappear the moment work rears its ugly head, plenty of those who want to be "a big fish in a little pond", etc. In addition we do have plenty of personal differences, but they have not resulted ideological warfare.
I think it has to do with a unique combination of circumstances.
First of all Costa Rica does not have a military. So we do not have the "peace vs security (war)" split. It simply is not an issue.
Secondly there is only one political party that is calling of less government. In the US the R branch of the ruling party uses the rhetoric of freedom. We know it is a lie, but they use it. In Costa Rica only the ML calls for more freedom, only the ML presents Liberty as the answer to the problems of the day. There is no one else.
Third, by the time others started noticing the ML, it was well established, with a good organization, dominated by hard core ideologues. When non-libertarians come to the party they encounter the ideology and are told in no uncertain terms that we are working to transform Costa Rica into a Libertarian Society. They are welcome to join and work with us towards those ends. Those who stay end up working with dedicated Libertarians, and after a while end up "converted". While all who will work towards Liberty are welcome, only those who are Libertarians, who understand the ideology and who will sign a statement of principle, can run for office. Only Libertarians speak for the party.
Finally, those who have left, but remained dedicated to Liberty, have not spent their efforts attacking the ML. Instead, they chose to work in a different way. One of the party's founders started a think tank. Another group of individuals started a consumer association. No one is trying the tear anyone else down.
Currently there is an internal "battle" over who will be the candidates for Asamblea (Congress). The National Assembly of the party will select the candidates, but people are supporting some over others. Including the two founders. They agree on all except three. In one case it is a matter of position on the list. In the other two cases one founder does not think the other's choice belong there at all. They are both campaigning hard for their respective choices. On June 25th the National Assembly will conviene and lay this issue to rest. In the meantime both founders are working together on the greater issues. They have their disagreements and arguments, but they stay focused on the goal. Liberty.
More in the next few posts.
Working for Liberty
Wally Conger says:
This movement could move forward if everyone realized that "freedom is not a half-way place." (Thank you, Bob LeFevre!)
Monika says:
I often wonder if for the Libertarians to succeed in becoming a popular movement, rather than just an intellectual one, would mean trying and not talking about the details that manage to divide them.
I definitely see how the need to be individual at all times clashes with that idea- for the anarchists to let the "leashitarians" try and do the first step in becoming a major political movement, to support them, would mean denouncing the most important point of their view. And likewise for the libertarians who accept some form of government to just let go and go for it in the most radical way possible.
It reminds me of the conflict between the two protagonists of John Jakes' "North and south" book. They are on the opposite sides of the war and yet try to save their friendship. But whenever they talk they always wind up arguing about slavery. They finally agree, though through much fighting and struggle, that in order to preserve their friendship they just have to avoid certain subjects.
Do you think it might work that way? Or is it "saving a marriage for the sake of the children"?
Kimberly Ash says:
In the U.S. the problem is several factions wish to define “libertarianism” on their own terms -- and the end-result of their strategies are often reached by questionable means.
That in turn leaves Liberty dangling in the wind while disagreements are sorted out.