In my last post, I started commentary on the Libertarian Party Platform, as published by the Libertarian Party here in the United States. I started with the Preamble portion, which I was able to cover in a single post. Because of the much-debated language of the first sentence in contrast to the remainder of the statement, I am going to separate my commentary into two sections. This one is focused on just the single first sentence of the statement, which reads:
We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.
First, if you, like me, grew up hearing “cult” used to describe groups who were organized in favor of some obscure and seemingly ominous religion, this statement may not digest well. Putting aside this emotionally charged word choice, though, consider its varied definitions instead:
cult: noun
1 : formal religious veneration: see worship
2 : a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
3 : a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents
4 : a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator
5 a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b : the object of such devotion c : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion
(copied from m-w.com)
Definition 5 quoted above is the intended meaning of the word “cult” in this context. I do not perceive the party as stating that it is challenging some religious stance or worship of government, but that it is challenging the devotion toward an omnipotent government. Personally, I am against the use of the word “cult” in this context, not because of the emotion is stirs, but because it refers to a meaning of the word that is less popular. (Dictionaries typically order definitions, per part of speech, in descending popular use at the time of publishing.) For clarity of intent, I would prefer “movement toward an omnipotent state” instead of “cult of the omnipotent state.”
Second, “omnipotent state,” on first reading, may sound like a harsh criticism against all organized government. However, taken in context, it refers to the “cult of the omnipotent state,” which is an emotionally charged and brutally concise way of saying “the state that has absolute power over its people.” Libertarians are, first and foremost, in favor of individual liberties, recognizing that each statesman is elected for the purpose of representing these individuals. An omnipotent state sacrifices individual rights in favor of some “greater good” for all citizens, deeming its citizens incapable of personal responsibility.
Finally, there is one very tiny word that is making a big difference here, changing the tone of the sentence to conjure thoughts of accusation: the as used in “the omnipotent state.” Note that in my rewording I changed “the” to “an” to imply that the state could be omnipotent, but that it was not already, nor were the intentions of those in the “movement toward” it always aware that they are moving in that direction. In other words, I perceive the “cult of the omnipotent state” as an organized movement in favor of giving all power over to the government. Despite this perception, I think the actual intention of the party was to refer to the general attitude of giving government power, one sacrificed right at a time, to achieve some great goal we feel strongly about, and often without awareness of how each sacrifice impacts our individual rights over time.
There are several in the Libertarian Party who oppose this wording and move regularly to change it. If that movement becomes a large enough majority in the Libertarian National Convention, there is likely to be a change. Otherwise, it will remain as it is. It is my opinion, though, that the party should consider the impact of wording in an effort to clarify its intention to voters considering changing from a “little L” to a “big L” Libertarian. It is my opinion that the exact same thing can be said with an equally powerful impact in a way that is less likely to result in misrepresentation of the party’s intentions.
