Darryl Perry today announced that he was running a write-in campaign for President of the United States.
Mr Perry did not discuss his plan with the Libertarian Party Radical Caucus Board of Directors. We were ambushed with the news.
The bylaws of the Radical Caucus provide for resigning from formal membership in the Radical Caucus simply by publicly supporting another party's candidate against a Libertarian Party candidate:
"E. Resignation / 3) The LPRC shall automatically presume a non-voting or Annual member who self-represents as a member of a political party other than the LP, casts a vote in the internal affairs or elections of another party, or who publicly endorses the candidate(s) of another party, has ipso facto resigned as a member of the LPRC effective as of the date of such representation or endorsement."
This is a resignation according to the bylaws of the Libertarian Party Radical Caucus.
While some within the LPRC are arguing this doesn't apply to independent candidates, I am proceeding on the fact that I am the person who wrote the automatic resignation provision and I know damned well what I meant. Running against the Libertarian nominee qualifies. He's publicly endorsing himself inviting others to vote for him, against the LP nominee.
Call him a "party of one".
Mr Perry certainly knew this action would be in conflict. He knew the bylaws and knew that provision. He also knew this would be unacceptable to a lot of us.
Yet he ambushed us with his announcement and did it anyway.
Regarding the reaction to his announcement, I find it truly disappointing that most Libertarians -- even among us Radicals -- know what "being held responsible for one's actions" supposedly means. But when it comes time for us to actually hold anyone responsible for their actions within the Party, they all go limp.
Regardless, Mr Perry's announcement was his resignation from formal membership in the LPRC.
He is welcome to rejoin at any time by following the LPRC Bylaws procedure for doing so.
Now that I have stated my position on the matter as one of the Founders of the LPRC and as a member of the organization's Board of Directors, let me state my personal position on his announcement:
In some ways I expected something like this. For many years we've tried to convince our fellow members of the Libertarian Party that better, more consistent candidates must be nominated. Yet while gladly accepting money and time from radicals and anarchists, often with annoyingly fake smiles, the opportunist, minarchist majority hasn't listened to a word.
Johnson could have spent the last four years becoming a better libertarian, and a better candidate. Had he done so, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now. Instead of studying up and doing a bit of basic philosophical homework, he has chosen to flip a giant middle finger in the direction of the Party's most faithful members and the Party platform.
Ron Paul made a political earthquake happen with one word: Blowback.
Well, Mr Perry's actions are a predictable blowback to a Libertarian candidate who can't bring himself to address the concerns of a number of LP stalwarts.
For me personally, regardless of my feelings about it being a clear violation of the LPRC bylaws, I would consider casting my vote for him if my state permitted doing so; and I also support his right to seek the votes of Libertarians.
It is worth pointing out that it is very likely that the votes Perry can take from Johnson will be minuscule. As D. Frank Robinson opined: "I think Johnson has a realistic shot at 5 million votes or less than 4 percent of an estimated 129 million votes." Perry will not attract more than a handful of those Johnson votes.
On the other hand, Perry's announcement may indeed speak to two other groups:
a) There are libertarians who are so upset with Johnson that they have said they will vote for Trump.
b) There are libertarians who are so uninspired with Johnson that they would have stayed home and just not voted.
If there is a chance at recapturing those votes, it is entirely possible that Mr Perry's announcement may do that.
So, my position is two-fold:
1) By his act he is no longer a member of the LPRC; and
2) I wish him all the best and would greatly prefer my state offered the ability to cast a vote for him if I so desired.
[This author wishes to note his gratitude to the following individuals for suggesting some perspectives about this which I found worth repeating: Keith Thompson, D. Frank Robinson, Rocky Eades, and several others.]