Optimism and Civility on the Ballot

Two weeks ago, the Libertarian Party held its national convention in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Usually these midterm conventions are uninteresting affairs except for Robert’s Rules of Order’s fetishists (and they are legion!), but this year’s convention offered some philosophical fireworks as viewpoints clashed. Behind the rhetoric, what was on display was nothing less than a battle for the future of political discourse in the United States.

For those unaware, the Libertarian Party is the USA’s third largest and percentage-wise the most rapidly growing political party. Between membership in the national party and corresponding state voter registration, roughly 600,000 Americans identify as Libertarian, a figure which is steadily increasing. Beyond that mere quantification, which admittedly is infinitesimal given affiliation in the legacy parties, many Americans not officially affiliated with our party nonetheless “lean” Libertarian, meaning that they evaluate policies and politicians by how well these promote individual freedom. This allows the Libertarian Party to exert an influence disproportionate to its official affiliation’s size.

Yet predisposition to the philosophy of Libertarianism seldom means participation in the party, and this was a central issue at the recent convention. Several candidates for LP chair offered different strategies for engagement, and above all, divergent visions about what the LP can and should accomplish in the next two to four years. Two central issues were whether the LP should exist at all, and if so, whether it should only serve as a spoiler.

LP Chair candidate Jeremy Kauffman from New Hampshire espoused the position that the LP should not exist at all. He claimed that no Libertarian has won against legacy party rivals, which is false. He reasoned that since Libertarians are prone to defeat, the party should stop trying and simply cave to the legacy parties, but that was a grave misinterpretation of the LP’s purpose. Every Libertarian knows that it is better to lose elections for the right reasons than to win for the wrong ones, so Libertarians are happy to receive votes out of principle and protest which otherwise would strengthen legacy party rivals’ mandate upon election. Kauffman’s misread of our purpose hastened his elimination in the voting process.

Counselor Jim Ostrowski from New York ran on a platform which was a far step up from Kauffman’s cynicism. Ostrowski recognized that electorally the LP has struggled to compete pound for pound against the legacy parties in all races, yet that the LP can bring resources to bear on key, winnable races, such as Jeremy Todd’s race to fill Representative Thomas Massie’s seat in the Kentucky 4th. Ostrowski proposed the creation of a rapid response team to identify such races and quickly mobilize support in support of Libertarian candidates or causes (such as ballot resolutions). Most importantly, Counselor Ostrowski championed “direct human action,” meaning that the LP – acting as something of a bully pulpit – could highlight instances of regular people taking measures within their own lives to lessen government’s influence on them. For example, the LP could publicize the growing movement of homeschools and microschools which remove students from governmental schools.

In an otherwise admirable campaign for LP Chair, what proved the kiss of death for Counselor Ostrowski was the Mises Caucus’ endorsement of his candidacy. Though Ostrowski would undoubtedly have staked a path of independence from that caucus’ control, association with that caucus dissuaded many delegates from voting for him. As of March 2026, the LP’s former chair Angela McArdle – who resigned in disgrace in January 2025 – presided over the Mises Caucus, and she has publicly and repeatedly said that the LP should make “deals” with legacy parties (which in practice will only mean Republicans). In many delegates’ minds, such deals signify the collusion which McArdle arranged in 2024 to favor the GOP’s candidate Donald Trump over the LP’s own nominee Chase Oliver, by using Oliver only as a spoiler in blue states against Democrat nominee Kamala Harris. This concern was magnified by convention speaker Lyn Ulbricht, who outright thanked McArdle for colluding with Republicans (since President Trump in January 2025 pardoned her imprisoned son Ross) and urged Libertarians to “make deals where you can.” Due to misgivings about the Mises Caucus’ propensity for similar collusions, the majority of delegates mistrusted Ostrowski for having accepted that endorsement.

The contest’s ultimate winner was Evan McMahon from Indiana. On the gradient of pessimism to realism to optimism, McMahon expressed the greatest optimism about the LP’s prospects. In 2020 McMahon coordinated the campaign of Donald Rainwater for Indiana governor, which netted 11.4% of the vote, the highest percentage for a Libertarian gubernatorial candidate in any state since the party’s inception. As the Libertarian Party of Indiana’s chair since 2021, McMahon could boast the highest fundraising per capita. As a candidate for LP Chair, McMahon proposed replication of such successes across the LP organization, and fomenting better relationships with the media so that Libertarian candidates and causes will attract more favorable press.

Time will tell whether LP Chair McMahon’s optimism is justified and whether Indiana’s successes can be replicated across the national organization. What is certain is that political discourse in the USA demands a strong third party to counteract the polarization towards which this country is sliding.

Americans no longer want to be told to vote for Candidate A lest Candidate B will win. Dismal turn-out in recent elections resoundingly demonstrates the electorate’s fatigue with fear-mongering and ad hominem attack ads. The average American voter wants candidates who inspire confidence instead of a Faustian bargain of electing the lesser of two evils at the cost of the voter’s principles.

This is what a strong Libertarian Party can offer. Voters will not see Libertarian candidates in every race on ballot, but depending on one’s state, Libertarian candidacies will pop up with greater frequency. Such candidacies will induce greater civility in those polities since muckraking only redounds to the third candidate’s benefit. In that way, voters can thank Libertarians for improving political discourse by focusing it on the pressing issues rather than the competition’s shortcomings.