The 2006 Libertarian National Convention in over, and the results continue to reverberate among the party faithful.  In a nutshell, the reform wing of the party was able to assemble a coalition of just over 50% of delegates and thus defeat the most egregious portions of the party platform.   Since eliminating the Pledge requires a 2/3 vote however, that monument to anarchy remains.

In determining just what all this means, it might be useful to point out what it most assuredly does not mean:

• It does not mean that the LP has been "taken over" by what one forelorn anarchist described as "...neocons, republicrats, and libertarian lites..." (More on that shortly);
• It does not mean that the LP will now abandon its most important principles (The Statement of Principles remains intact, as does the preamble to the Platform); and
• It does not mean that the "purists" or "anarchists" have been purged from the LP.

As to the first bullet point above...explain to me if you can why any member of either major party would want to waste the time, effort, and resources to "take over" what has been for the last 30+ years a footnote to American political life.  Drawing less than 1/2 of 1 percent in any national election, and raising at most 4 million dollars in national campaign money, the LP is, was, and would certainly remain a theat to no one other than whichever other minor party wanted to be able to boast of coming in third!  No, the LP reform movement came from within the Party, harkening back to its roots, and sick and tired of losing elections and being forced to watch the Liberty of our forefathers recede still further into the distant past.

OK, so if whatever happened in Portland wasn't any of those things; then what was it?  There are two answers to that:

1. It was a realization that not only has 30+ years of purism and anarchy not worked in advancing the cause of Libertarianism, but in actuality it has served to permit a further erosion of Liberty.  A marginalized Libertarian movement has not only been unable to stop or slow the slide into statism, but by insisting on remaining marginalized it has contributed to that slide.  Albert Einstein said "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over, while expecting different results".  The LP has been insane far too long, and a majority of the delegates in Portland voted, in essence, for the Party to undertake a course of therapy.
2. Portland marked, not a "take over" by reformers, but a return to a pre-1980s balance between the various wings of the Party...an undoing of the Rothbard purge if you will. 

The 2008 and subsequent NatCons may well see shifts in the delicate majority forged by the reform movement.  Indeed, now shaken from their lethargy, the purists/anarchists may well represent a majority in future conventions.  But whichever way the political winds end up blowing, it is highly unlikely that either faction will be able to muster the super-majority necessary to effectuate a sharp turn in either direction.  The LP will be able to neither stray far from its ideals, nor to plunge back into the radicalism that turned it into the sideshow of American politics.

And isn't that, in the end, good for both the LP and the nation?  A Liberty-focused party with a pragmatic approach to politics could be the best thing that has happened in these parts since the Bill of Rights.

I am back from the Texas Libertarian Convention, were I was pleased with the results.  In a nutshell, the platform passed by the Convention – including the Immigration Plank – reflects a move toward Constitutional, small government, Libertarianism and away from the dark, self-defeating grip of anarchism.

I will also be a delegate to the National Convention in Portland in a few weeks, and that will be a tougher test.  But, for now at least, a return to the Liberty envisioned by our Founders seems a little bit closer than before.

Item Two…President Bush snuck into Iraq yesterday to confer with the new Iraqi government and glad-hand with the troops.  With the flack he is (justly) getting from all sides…on immigration, a lack of real tax reform, his runaway budgets, the unconstitutional spying on the American people, and his pandering to the worst elements on the religious far-right…I can see why he might feel that Bagdad was a safer place to be than Washington, D.C.

And Finally…A new poll says that people in Germany, France, Russia, and a couple of other places believe that the American presence in Iraq is more of a threat to world stability than the Iranian nuclear program.

Fair enough, even residents of pants-wetting beds of defeatism are entitled to their opinions.  Lest we forget, however, these are the same folks who failed to stand up to Hitler when it would have been much easier and cheaper (in lives and treasure), the same folks who opposed Ronald Regan’s principled response to the evils of the Soviet Union, which eventually led to its collapse, and the very same wimps who had to be dragged kicking and screaming into addressing the massive crimes against humanity occuring in their own back yard - the former Yugoslavia.

The problem is simply this – the people of Europe have had the luxury of living under the protection of the United States for more than fifty years.  During that time, they have spent less than a third on their own defense than they would have had to if we had not been willing to be the guy standing up to the world’s bullies.  That is a major reason Europe, en mass, has been able to build the self-defeating web of social welfare that hobbles their economies today.

To which I say, fine.  Let’s bring home all of our troops from Europe, disentangle from the United Nations (for which we provide in the area of ¼ of its support) and NATO, and let the merry wimps protect themselves for a change. 

Can anyone say…”Islamic Europe”?

Many...perhaps most...of my Libertarian brethern oppose any government funding for schools.  I take a somewhat different tack (Surprise!) -- I view education as a national investment, not an expense.  That does not mean, however, that I am willing to accept the status quo.

The education system in Texas, indeed in the United States, is a virtual train wreck, and the only answer anyone in government can come up with is to add yet another railcar full of money to the train.

There is good news and bad news to report on this front.

The good news is that the people of Texas, if one is to believe a recent Dallas Morning News poll, are willing to do something about the situation, with 52 percent willing to pay higher taxes to provide our children with a better education.

The bad news is, due largely to the self-serving efforts of teachers unions and politicians, we continue to focus on the wrong solutions while ignoring those which have proven highly successful elsewhere.

The first question we need to ask is, “Will more money solve the problem?”  An examination of the facts must lead us to the conclusion that, in all probability, it will not.

In 1985, a federal judge in Kansas City ruled that funding for the failing city schools was inadequate, and ordered the city and state to dramatically increase spending.  By the time the judge’s experiment ended in 1997, taxpayers had poured an additional two billion dollars into the city’s schools, increasing spending to almost $12,000 per student.

The results?  Student achievement declined, the district failed eleven performance standards and lost its academic accreditation.

A study by two professors at the Hoover Institution a few years ago compared public and Catholic schools in three of New York City's five boroughs. Parochial education outperformed the nation's largest school system "in every instance," they found -- and did so at less than half the cost per student.

Or how about the tiny 284-student Sausalito, California, Elementary School District?  In a story in the San Francisco Chronicle, Peter Fimrite reported that although the district spends more than $12,300 per student each year -- nearly three times the state average; test scores are the lowest in Marin County, a third of the students are in special education classes, classrooms are "chaotic", and teachers are afraid to "turn their backs" on their classes.

The fact is that U.S. students rank 25th internationally on standardized tests, even though we spend 56% more per pupil on education than the next highest spender, Germany.  We rank lower than even much poorer countries, such as Poland and Korea.

Albert Einstein is reported to have defined insanity as "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."  Just maybe, higher taxes and more spending are not the answer.

What then, might be the answer?

In 1989, New Zealand…hardly a bastion of conservative thought…radically overhauled their education system by:  1) Eliminating existing school districts and school district administrations; 2) Making each public school independent -- governed by a board made up of the principal, parents, and faculty;  3) Permitting parental choice among public schools…money followed students -- schools competed for students and funds; and  4) Partially funding private schools -- even reimbursing parents who chose home schooling for some of their materials costs.

The result – greater bang for the buck.  Even though educational spending moderated, test scores rose.

The constituency for fixing education is decreasing.  Not too many years ago, super majorities supported tax increases and bond issues for schools with little thought of the actual need.  Today, almost as many such attempts fail as pass, and as the Morning News poll suggests, a bare majority today supports throwing more money at the problem.

It is, it seems, time to rethink our approach to education in its entirety – its organizational structure, funding methodology, and even sources of that funding.  We must resist the temptation to tack still another railcar full of cash onto an already wrecked train.