Libertarian Chair: The Libertarian Party deserves fealty from libertarians
The first time I voted was in the 2008 Republican primary for Ron Paul, and the last time I voted was in the 2012 Republican primary for Ron Paul. Book-ending my electoral participation by voting for the greatest advocate for peace in the United States Congress of the 20th and 21st-centuries twice feels pretty good to me, so it would take a lot to get me to spend my finite time going out and voting for someone else. That said, I'm not opposed to voting in principle, even if it is largely a waste of time. If a principled non-interventionist wants to take the time and effort to run for office on a platform of peace and shrinking the government, especially given the fact that they're unlikely to be successful, I wouldn't have a problem taking the time to vote for them.
Given the near impossibility it would be for such a candidate to win the nomination of one of the major parties, it essentially falls to third-parties to run these types of candidates, and the party best positioned in that respect is the Libertarian Party. They are the third largest political party in the United States, and, given their name, are at least theoretically in favor of peace and reducing government power. The problem is that in practice, at least at the federal level, they run candidates who have historically not been in favor of these principles, such as 2008 Libertarian Presidential nominee Bob Barr or 2016 Vice Presidential nominee Bill Weld, or are, in the case of 2012 and 2016 Libertarian Presidential nominee Gary Johnson, mostly just incompetent. The so-called "Party of Principle" runs these candidates because they're more interested in using the names of these Republican Party rejects in an attempt to increase the party's respectability or seriousness than they are in adhering to libertarian principles.
Part of the reason for this strategy is justifiable: A large percentage of libertarians are, simply put, weirdos. The creep who decided to strip naked and run around at the 2016 Libertarian National Convention being a perfect example of what party leaders are trying to avoid in a candidate. Nor should the party, in my opinion, be expected to run a principled candidate whose main interest seems to be in taking libertarian positions simply for the shock-value they might induce in the average voter. The problem is in going too far in the other direction.
Many members of the Libertarian National Committee, the leadership of the Libertarian Party, were enamored of former Massachusetts Republican Governor Bill Weld when they pushed for him to be the Vice Presidential nominee on the 2016 ticket with Gary Johnson, and were grooming him to be the Presidential nominee in 2020. His experience, name recognition, and the money he could raise for the party were touted as positives that he would bring going forward. Many of us were concerned, however, because he had historically been ideologically closer to big government Republicans like John McCain or Mitt Romney than even libertarian-ish Republicans like Gary Johnson and certainly nowhere close to someone like Ron Paul, and we warned that he was simply using the Libertarian Party as a platform to position himself for future elections rather than to help the party or promote libertarian values.
Lo and behold, Weld is running to be President in 2020, but is running as a Republican.
You'd think this would provoke a sense of humility in someone like LNC Chair Nicholas Sarwark, but you'd be wrong. He instead spends his time attacking principled libertarians like Ron Paul or Tom Woods rather than the man who betrayed the party he ostensibly leads for not being sufficiently deferential to a political party that has failed to promote its supposed principles at the national level in at least more than a decade.
The question Sarwark should be asking is: "Why should anyone want to be an ally to the Libertarian Party under my leadership after I've made the mistake of promoting big government Republicans who have no interest in libertarian principles since I've been in office?" Or, "Why should libertarians support a Libertarian Party that does not promote or advance libertarianism at the national level in any meaningful sense?" My response to Sarwark on Twitter was to ask whether an organization that would promote Bill Weld as a candidate could be considered an ally of liberty? Given Weld's support for the Iraq War and the Patriot Act, I'd say the clear answer is no.
In the wake of the disastrous Johnson-Weld 2016 ticket, and Weld's defection to the GOP at the earliest and most convenient moment, it's clear that the best thing for the Libertarian Party would be Sarwark's immediate resignation. This would require some self-reflection on his part, and the ability to take responsibility for his failures which he seems to be incapable of. But it's clear his strategy has not grown the party in any meaningful sense and has tarnished the Libertarian brand as being nothing more than a rehab center for the careers of loser Republicans.
Perhaps the only good thing Sarwark has done as Chair is convince principled libertarians like Tom Woods and Dave Smith to join the Libertarian Party. This wasn't his intention, of course, but by constantly antagonizing them he convinced them to join simply to influence the party away from his idea of what it should be. I don't know what they plan on doing within the Libertarian Party, aside from supporting the radical Mises Caucus, but hopefully they'll use their influence to help get principled libertarians nominated and oust establishment hacks like Sarwark from positions of power.