Politics

What is the Parity Project?

The Libertarian Party’s Parity Project is a strategic initiative launched by the Libertarian National Committee (LNC) aimed at growing the party’s size, visibility, and electoral competitiveness to “match” or reach parity with the two major U.S. parties within a ten-year time frame.

Core Objective

The Parity Project seeks to elevate the Libertarian Party from limited visibility into a national political force comparable to the Democratic and Republican parties in terms of:

Number of libertarian voters and self-identified supporters

Donors and financial resources

Visibility in media and public awareness

Electoral success at various levels of government

Strategic Approach

The project’s strategy emphasizes what we describe as “discovery before persuasion”:

Instead of primarily trying to convert non-libertarians, the initiative focuses first on finding and activating people who already self-identify as libertarian, libertarian-leaning, or libertarian-curious.

The plan starts with an existing database of roughly one million contacts, which the party intends to expand by appending updated contact information and engaging individuals with targeted questions about their political alignment.

Respondents who express interest would be added to the party’s outreach lists and engaged through regular updates, reports, and fundraising appeals.

Tactics and Tools

Key elements of execution include:

Database expansion and data enhancement using commercial sources and ad targeting.

Email campaigns and social media advertising to identify and engage libertarian-aligned individuals.

Leadership and Resources

The project is led by strategist Perry Willis, with advice from Jim Babka, and uses data and advertising services provided by a firm called Iron Light.

Initial fundraising goals are modest, with plans to secure tens of thousands of dollars to start enhancements and outreach efforts.

Broader Rationale

The underlying premise of the Parity Project is that a significant segment of the U.S. population already holds libertarian-aligned views or identifies as libertarian; by systematically discovering and organizing these individuals, we believe we can build the momentum, resources, and visibility necessary to operate as a truly competitive third party.

What is the Parity Project? Read Post »

Understanding the Libertarian Ecosystem: Voters, Party Members, Activists, and Donors

The Libertarian movement in the United States is not a monolith. It is an ecosystem made up of distinct but interrelated constituencies, each with its own motivations, behaviors, and expectations. Effective strategic planning begins with understanding the differences among these groups: Libertarian voters, Libertarian Party members, Libertarian activists, and Libertarian-aligned donors who may not belong to either of the first three categories. While these constituencies overlap substantially, they are not interchangeable. Each requires a different form of outreach, engagement, and support to draw them further into the organization.

Libertarian Voters

Libertarian voters represent the broadest circle in the political ecosystem. These individuals express their ideological alignment primarily through electoral behavior. They may cast ballots for Libertarian candidates, support ballot initiatives that limit government power, or split their votes across parties based on issue alignment.

Characteristics include:
High ideological diversity within the broader liberty spectrum.
Limited time for political involvement.
Often distrustful of formal political organizations.
Motivated more by policy impact than party identity.

Many Libertarian voters are philosophically aligned but not organizationally connected. They may not follow internal party developments, and few regularly engage with state or county affiliates. Their engagement tends to be transactional: they support candidates or causes when those efforts align with their personal priorities.

Libertarian Party Members

Party members form a narrower but more committed group. These individuals take an affirmative step to join the Libertarian Party, often paying dues or signing a pledge.

Distinctive attributes include:
Organizational loyalty and continuity of engagement.
Interest in governance, policymaking, and party development.
Higher receptivity to messaging that emphasizes infrastructure, accountability, and growth.
Greater stability in participation across election cycles.

Membership typically reflects a stronger identification with the Party as an institution rather than with libertarianism as a purely philosophical concept. However, not all members are active; many participate primarily through dues and occasional convention attendance.

Libertarian Activists

Activists constitute the smallest but most energetic segment. These individuals volunteer regularly, petition, canvass, run events, serve on committees, or seek elected office.

Activist traits include:
High time and energy investment.
Strong internal networks and relationships.
Movement-centered identity that extends beyond electoral politics.
Intense commitment to the mission of building liberty through sustained action.

Activists are regularly the bridge between casual supporters and deeper organizational involvement. However, activism intensity varies, and burnout risk is substantial. Their needs differ from those of voters or passive members, requiring consistent support, recognition, and leadership opportunities.

Libertarian Donors Who Are Not Members or Voters

A less discussed but strategically important group is Libertarian-oriented donors who may not vote Libertarian or join the Party. These donors often behave like investors funding a cause rather than participants in a political organization.

They may include:
Individuals who support liberty-related legal challenges, think tanks, or single-issue campaigns.
Donors who prioritize policy impact rather than party loyalty.
Supporters who value ideological outcomes without wanting direct involvement in internal processes.

This group may be substantial in size but largely invisible unless properly cultivated. Their contribution patterns follow philanthropic logic more than partisan engagement.

How These Groups Overlap

The intersections among these groups form the operational core of the Libertarian movement.

Voter-Member Overlap: Some members vote Libertarian consistently, but many Libertarian voters are not members.
Member-Activist Overlap: Many activists are dues-paying members, though some activists participate without formal membership.
Voter-Activist Overlap: Activists almost always vote Libertarian, though not all Libertarian voters have the time or capacity to become activists.
Donor Overlaps: Donors may overlap with any of the groups, but a significant number sit outside all three categories.

The smallest overlap, where all these groups converge, represents individuals who vote Libertarian, pay dues, volunteer, and donate. These individuals form the backbone of sustained organizational capacity, but they are only a fraction of the overall liberty-aligned population.

Where These Groups Diverge

The differences matter because strategic assumptions often blur these categories, leading to weak recruitment, muddled messaging, and misallocated resources.

Voters may be ideologically aligned but organizationally disconnected. They need simple, policy-focused outreach.
Members may not be activists. They require structured on-ramps and meaningful ways to participate.
Activists may not be donors. Their primary contribution is time, not funding.
Donors may not vote Libertarian. Their participation is mission-driven rather than electorally motivated.

Understanding these divergences is critical to designing a scalable organizational strategy.

Tailoring Targeting and Engagement Strategies

Each constituency responds to different forms of messaging, incentives, and organizational pathways.

Engaging Libertarian Voters

Best approaches include:
Issue-based campaigns tied to real local or national concerns.
Clear contrasts with major-party policies.
Low-friction calls to action such as signing a petition or joining a mailing list.
Messaging focused on impact rather than internal processes.

Voters need a narrative about why Libertarian candidates matter, not a deep dive into committee structures.

Converting Voters into Party Members

Membership-focused outreach should emphasize:
Organizational credibility and transparency.
Tangible benefits such as influence, representation, and shaping the platform or bylaws.
A clear explanation of how dues sustain ballot access, infrastructure, and candidate support.

The objective is to shift supporters from passive ideological alignment to active institutional alignment.

Developing Libertarian Activists

Successful activist recruitment requires:
Personalized invitations.
Peer mentorship and integration into local teams.
Leadership development pipelines.
Appreciation, community, and recognition.

Activists thrive in environments where their contributions are visible and meaningful.

Engaging Libertarian Donors Outside the Membership Base

Donor engagement is most effective when it mirrors nonprofit fundraising:
Highlighting measurable outcomes and strategic priorities.
Offering structured giving programs.
Demonstrating organizational stewardship and transparency.
Avoiding assumptions that donors must become members or voters.

These donors want results, not meetings.

Conclusion

The Libertarian ecosystem is diverse, multilevel, and often misunderstood. Voters, members, activists, and donors each play distinct roles in the movement’s strength and sustainability. Only by recognizing their differences, appreciating their overlaps, and tailoring outreach accordingly can the Libertarian Party build an effective, durable, and scalable organization.

Understanding the Libertarian Ecosystem: Voters, Party Members, Activists, and Donors Read Post »

Honor Veterans by Repealing the AUMFs and Reclaiming Congressional Oversight of War

As we approach Veterans Day, we pause to reflect on the sacrifices our service members have made in defense of this nation. One of the most solemn promises a country can make to its veterans is to employ military force only when absolutely necessary and under clear national purpose. Yet today we face a troubling reality: several outdated Authorizations for Use of Military Force (AUMFs) remain active, granting the executive branch sweeping war powers that bypass meaningful congressional debate and accountability.

The 1957, 1991, 2001, and 2002 AUMFs are still on the books, allowing U.S. presidents to launch military operations without fresh authorization from Congress.


The Legacy of the AUMFs

1957 AUMF

Enacted during the Cold War, this law authorized military involvement in the Middle East to counter Soviet influence. That era is long gone, but the authorization remains.

1991 AUMF

Passed to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait during the Gulf War, this authorization has served its purpose yet still sits on the books.

2001 AUMF

Created after 9/11, this gave the president broad authority to use force against those responsible and their “associated forces.” Over time, it has been stretched to justify combat in regions far removed from the original threat.

2002 AUMF

Authorized the invasion of Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein from power. The mission ended, the regime fell, yet the authorization persists.


Why Repeal Is Essential

Restore Constitutional Balance

The Constitution gives Congress, not the President, the power to declare war. Keeping these AUMFs in place allows administrations of either party to bypass this crucial check and deploy military force without open debate.

Prevent Perpetual War

The 2001 and 2002 AUMFs have fueled a generation of “forever war,” involving missions that drift far from their original purpose. Veterans deserve to know their sacrifice serves clear objectives, not mission creep.

Honor Veterans’ Sacrifices

Military force should only be used for clearly defined purposes backed by the people’s elected representatives. Open-ended authorizations fail this basic test.

Reflect Today’s Realities

Geopolitics in 2025 bears little resemblance to the world of 1957, 1991, or 2001. New threats require new debates, not recycled legal justifications.


A Current Example: Boat Strikes Off Venezuela

Recent events highlight the danger of leaving outdated AUMFs active.

Since early fall 2025, the U.S. military has carried out a series of strikes on boats in the Caribbean Sea and Eastern Pacific, many originating near Venezuelan waters and allegedly connected to drug-smuggling networks or “narco-terrorist” groups.

Examples include:

  • September 2: A U.S. strike destroyed a Venezuelan-flagged speedboat, reportedly killing eleven people tied to the gang Tren de Aragua.

  • As of November 10: Over 75 people have reportedly died across 19 separate strikes connected to these operations.

  • Legal experts warn the justification is murky, with many questioning whether the 2001 or 2002 AUMFs actually authorize these actions, or whether the operations violate international law.

These incidents underscore a central problem: The Administration is relying on broad, outdated authorizations to justify military actions far outside their original scope. This is precisely the kind of mission creep that Congress was meant to prevent.


This Veterans Day: A Path Forward

As we honor our veterans, we must also honor the promise that their service will be used wisely and only under constitutional authority.

Congress has begun efforts to repeal outdated AUMFs, including attempts to eliminate the 2002 authorization for Iraq. But this process is far from complete.

To meaningfully restore constitutional oversight:

  • Repeal the 1957, 1991, 2001, and 2002 AUMFs outright.

  • Require clear, specific, and time-bound authorizations for any future military engagement.

  • Demand Congressional debate and transparency for military operations of any type, including naval strikes, counter-terror missions, and anti-narcotic operations.

  • Ensure each mission has a defined purpose, a clear enemy, an achievable end-state, and public accountability.


Conclusion

The brave men and women of our armed forces deserve more than endless war. They deserve a nation that uses military force only after careful deliberation and proper constitutional oversight.

This Veterans Day, we owe it to them to recommit to these principles. Repealing outdated AUMFs is not only a matter of constitutional integrity, it is a promise to future service members that we will never send them into danger on the basis of a blank check.

Let us honor our veterans by restoring the proper role of Congress, ending perpetual war, and ensuring that America’s use of force always reflects the will of the people.

Honor Veterans by Repealing the AUMFs and Reclaiming Congressional Oversight of War Read Post »

A Conversation with the Libertarian Party Vice Chair – October 13, 2025

Monday, October 13, 2025 at 8-9pm CDT.
Join Libertarian Party Vice Chair Paul Darr and be prepared to ask him anything about the Libertarian Party or just random questions you might have.
https://retinue.live/pauldarrama
Can’t make it? Sign up for Paul’s Newsletter at:
https://paul.darr.org/newsletter/

A Conversation with the Libertarian Party Vice Chair – October 13, 2025 Read Post »