When the Libertarian Party received a lot of negative editorials for inviting Donald Trump to its national presidential nominating conventionin May — Trump’s no libertarian! was the pearl-clutching cry — my response tended to align with folks I follow pretty closely, Dave Smith and Paul Jacob, especially. The invite may have been one of the party’s best notions. Ever.
Publicity does count in politics.
As the convention neared, and then happened, media and popular attention did pick up. Bigly. And a significant element of the invitation became clear, something I had not mentioned — few had mentioned — in advance: Biden and RFK Jr. had also been invited, and the current president somehow not dared to face a booing crowd.
Trump and Kennedy did.
At the convention, National Chair Angela McArdle got re-elected, and the daringness of her convention speakers’ list proved a resounding success. Despite this, her faction’s favored presidential candidate was not chosen. The legacy faction went woke and went for broke, pushing a dark horse activist to headline this year’s quadrennial run.
And now a major piece in Mother Jones discusses “The Spectacular Implosion of the Libertarian Party” (May+June 2024). The article, which came to me with a note from a friend attached — “Amazing how much can be written about libertarians without discussing liberty” — focuses on the ideological “war” between the “pragmatists” and the “right-wing” Mises Caucus.
With few meaty ideas inside.
“Eight years ago,” the blurb burbles, “America’s third-largest party had its best-ever showing. Then came the fallout.” The article does not emphasize that the biggest showing occurred in the context of the the major parties’ two most hated candidates ever, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, or that by 2020 the country itself had divided further not only ideologically but historically, even mythically. How Americans see their government, and the contest between Trump and the permament government, matters.
Even for Libertarians.
Instead of ideas, the article throws at the us loaded terminology, calling former LP candidate Ron Paul (1987-8) a spreader of “conspiracies about the Council on Foreign Relations.”
Not conspiracy theories, mind you; conspiracies!
“Implosion” is the wrong word for what’s happening to the party. But it might describe the article.
twv
Wirkman Comment 
Even as the evidence of various significant conspiracies has become more blatant, main-stream journalists have become less sophisticated and more childish in their attempts to dismiss conspiracy theories.