Gay libertarian

During September's midpoint, as presidential hopefuls Kamala Harris and Donald Trump traversed key battleground states, Chase Oliver, the public figure of the nation's third-biggest political party, convened with local residents at a café featuring a bicycling motif in Cambria, an eclectic central Californian locale. Oliver, aged 39, the Libertarian Party's presidential candidate, found himself weighing a recommendation from his own party members suggesting the elimination of Vice President Harris. 

'Anyone who murders Kamala Harris would be an American hero,' whoever manages the X (formerly Twitter) account for the Libertarian Party's New Hampshire chapter had, some days earlier, published on the social media platform, subsequently removing the entry. The controversial post had already drawn public condemnation from Oliver, characterising its originator as a 'pitiful individual' (a sad little man). In reply to Oliver's statement: 'Fuck off and read any book on libertarianism, you infiltrating leftist faggot.' 

Oliver, who is gay and a former Democrat, appeared unaffected by the derogatory epithet. 'I got three brothers. I've been called every name under the sun,' the Georgia-bred Oliver shared with me, pausing only to eat his chicken-fried steak. 'Such words hold no power to wound me. However, what is indeed damaged is the very organization you purport to speak for. This directly opposes the core tenets of libertarianism, consequently, in my capacity as our ticket's head, I felt obliged to voice my opposition. It is my earnest desire that I hadn't been forced to act.' 

Indeed, he must contend with the radical elements within his political faction — not due to any genuine prospect of attaining the presidency, but rather because he desires his concepts to attract a novel audience. Historically, Libertarian candidates have never secured more than a mere 3.3 percent of the total votes cast in any nationwide electoral contest, furthermore, survey data indicates that no candidate from a minor party is expected to achieve more than one percent this electoral period. Nevertheless, Oliver, presenting a neat image, often seen in sharp button-down attire, and making regular appearances at Pride gatherings, his campaign aims neither to undermine the primary contenders nor to secure a win. His true aim is the construction of a fresh trajectory for a long-standing set of beliefs.

Although a distinct divergence exists between the contenders from the dominant political parties, a segment of the electorate, feeling disenchanted with both options, also exists. There are proprietors obstructed by convoluted legal frameworks, jaded individuals convinced of systemic venality in all governmental sectors, and unconventional minds frustrated by an electoral process where the victor takes all, which perpetually maintains the dominance of Democrats and Republicans over the entire political landscape. Oliver's proposition for these citizens (or indeed for those contemplating abstaining from the polls) asserts the existence of a superior path. Moreover, while the broader populace might oversimplify Libertarians as merely possessing a simplistic devotion to liberty combined with an aversion to governmental authority, nonetheless, the party along with its theoretical foundations has, in fact, played a crucial, though frequently unacknowledged, part in molding current U.S. political discourse, for both good and ill. Historically, Libertarians have adopted progressive positions concerning LGBTQ+ rights and the decriminalization of narcotics; Conversely, they have also amplified conspiratorial narratives and given a platform to corrosive individuals, including the one who advocated for Vice President Harris's assassination. 

A fundamental element of libertarianism's allure has consistently resided in its capacity to challenge the conventional left-right political dichotomy. Adherents of libertarianism seek the cessation of widespread governmental monitoring. Furthermore, they advocate for substantial changes to the penal system. And they wish for the United States to withdraw from global military engagements. Such viewpoints are precisely what Oliver champions. Regarding his anticipated position on unrestricted firearm access, Oliver, who characterizes himself as 'armed and gay,' remains squarely aligned with both the Republican Party and the National Rifle Association. Additionally, he advocates for the complete dissolution of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

Oliver envisions that younger generations of voters will ultimately repudiate the Republican and Democratic parties, perceiving them as authoritarian, excessively partisan, and detrimental to the nation's well-being, thereby creating an opening for a credible alternative. Irrespective of how idealistic or impractical his political campaign might appear, he firmly believes he can bring together a fresh group of individuals eager to redefine political alignment. 'It is imperative that we cease casting ballots driven by apprehension and instead commence voting with courage,' he conveyed to me. 'While many typically categorize themselves on a Y-axis, representing the left-right political divide, libertarians tend to position themselves more on an X-axis, defined by the contrast between authoritarianism and liberty.' 

For him to achieve success in broadening the party's influence, he will be compelled to confront the questionable past of libertarianism itself. This history is extensively characterized by unfounded conspiratorial narratives and discriminatory attitudes — encompassing everything from the intense anti-communist paranoia of the John Birch Society to those facets of the anti-tax Tea Party movement that fostered Trump's emergence.

Oliver, as he shared with me, experienced a 'solitary' upbringing within the suburban areas of Atlanta. His sense of community and purpose emerged during his involvement in protests against the Iraq War. Having been a Democrat his entire life, he departed from the party in 2010, at the age of 25, upon reaching the conviction that President Barack Obama had failed to fulfill his pledges regarding the termination of overseas conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, or the closure of the American detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Conversely, American armed forces remained engaged in warfare across his two presidential terms, with the Pentagon initiating aerial bombardments or military incursions in no fewer than seven nations. 'Many anti-war commitments were made by Obama,' Oliver recounted to me. 'But ultimately, he failed to uphold them.' 

This aspiration to conclude perpetual conflicts served as Oliver's initial entry point into the philosophy of libertarianism, a philosophical perspective that prompted inquiries for him concerning not only the fundamental character of humanity but also the inherent structure of the international economic and political system. Consider the hypothetical: What if the United States were to disengage from all overseas military involvements? Or what if America ceased accumulating trillions in debt with the stated aim of 'rescuing' the economy through the financial rescue of major corporations? Furthermore, what if both abortion and various substances were permissible by law, alongside virtually any type of firearm an individual wished to possess? Lastly, what if the market operated with genuine freedom, without conferring an unjust benefit upon the affluent? 

Should these inquiries strike one as simplistic, then one ought to examine the historical performance of libertarianism beyond mere electoral outcomes. Throughout the last twenty years or so, libertarian philosophical concepts have gradually permeated the predominant societal thought and consequently altered the trajectory of American political discourse. 

This political party has consistently derived its principles from the broader, lower-case 'l' libertarianism, a tradition whose origins can be traced to the closing years of the 18th century. By the middle of the 19th century, certain French communists adopted the nomenclature to articulate their dedication to personal freedom. Subsequently, throughout the ensuing decades, the philosophy of libertarianism frequently became linked with both socialist and anarchist movements prevalent in France and the United States.

Contemporary manifestations of this intellectual framework have unfortunately spawned several concerning deviations. Commencing in the 1950s, the libertarian-driven initiative to shift public education into private hands consistently resulted in detrimental effects for Black and brown students residing in economically disadvantaged communities. The tenets of libertarianism also fostered the emergence of organizations such as the John Birch Society during the 1950s; this group, initially established as a socially conservative and anti-communist entity, rapidly became dominated by an expansive, preposterous conspiracy theory that resonates strongly even today: specifically, the notion that the United States was subject to an extraterritorial conspiracy aimed at seizing control of the nation, and that President Dwight Eisenhower, remarkably, served as a communist operative. Subsequently, libertarian principles contributed to the proliferation of numerous militia groups — a portion of which held racist views — which materialized throughout the 1990s. Their unequivocal declaration was that the central government represented an adversary. Moreover, libertarian anxieties regarding governmental oppression significantly strengthened the Tea Party, too, and even fifteen years following its inception, the repercussions of that particular movement persist in influencing American political dynamics.

In Colorado Springs, during the year 1971, the formal Libertarian Party was established by a collective of Republican, Democratic, and politically unaligned citizens who expressed discontent with the Vietnam War and President Richard Nixon's directive to detach the U.S. dollar's final ties to the gold standard. Their aim was to forge a new political option. The party's informal declaration was: 'We favor the abolition of damn near everything.' It continued, 'We call for drastic reductions in everything else. And we refuse to pay for what&8217;s left!' 

From its inception, this nascent political entity adopted audacious positions — stances that continue to inspire Oliver in the contemporary era. It championing the rights of homosexuals and abortion access, pushed for clemency for all individuals who committed nonviolent offenses, and vociferously opposed both the war on drugs and the American military's participation in international disputes. 

During the 1980s, the party identified a new and widely admired figurehead: Ron Paul, the erstwhile Texas representative, who contested the presidency as a Libertarian candidate in 1988. Paul's introduction to libertarianism occurred through the Austrian school of economic theory, a philosophy that criticized economies managed by governmental bodies. He cultivated his supporters by expressing opposition to airport security screenings, and by advocating for the elimination of various federal government agencies, the termination of the federal income tax, a substantial trillion-dollar reduction in the national budget, the disbandment of the Federal Reserve, the discontinuation of fiat currency, and a re-adoption of the gold standard. 

Following an unsuccessful bid for the presidency in 1988 under the Libertarian banner, Paul subsequently vied for the Republican nomination in 2008 and 2012, attracting millions of constituents through his unconventional, rebellious campaign strategies. His pledges included the abolition of income taxation, the repeal of narcotics legislation, and the termination of the American military's engagement in the Middle East. The particular strain of anti-tax libertarianism espoused by Paul likewise contributed to the formation of the Tea Party movement in 2009, a phenomenon that subsequently propelled a Republican Party assumption of congressional control in the subsequent year, thereby obstructing President Obama's legislative initiatives. 

Those within the Tea Party opposing Obama frequently faced accusations of employing racially charged discourse concerning the notion of 'reclaiming the nation' (implying from minority groups) and promoting birther conspiracy theories. Furthermore, critics leveled accusations of racism against Paul himself. Between the latter part of the 1970s and the 1990s, he discreetly disseminated a collection of newsletters addressing political and economic subjects, largely uncredited to him personally. Specific editions of these publications included statements like: 'Considering the systemic shortcomings of what Washington D.C. humorously terms its criminal justice system, it is, in my estimation, reasonable to presume that ninety-five percent of African American males within that urban area are either partially or completely involved in criminal activities.' A separate entry, dated 1992, declared, 'Even in my modest town of Lake Jackson, Texas, I have strongly advised every member of my household to acquire proficiency in firearm usage for self-protection &8230; as the 'animals' are approaching.' While Paul did not dispute his authorship of these articles, he asserted his opposition to racism and contended that his remarks had been misinterpreted through selective quoting. 

The Tea Party movement advocated for a reduced governmental footprint and decreased taxation, however, it concurrently deteriorated into pervasive claims that the Democrats overseeing the government were existential threats to the nation and that citizens were obliged to arm themselves in opposition to their perceived oppression. With the financial support of affluent magnates such as the siblings Charles and David Koch, the Tea Party progressively supplanted the established Republican leadership. This progression contributed to the rise of Donald Trump, an individual who espoused some of the movement's most racially offensive and conspiratorial perspectives. (It is worth noting that the Koch brothers have consistently withheld their support from Trump, indeed allocating substantial funding towards efforts to weaken his influence.)

When Donald Trump assumed control of the Republican Party in 2016, the Libertarian Party once again nominated Gary Johnson, New Mexico's erstwhile Republican governor, for the presidency. Similar to Oliver's current endeavor, Johnson sought to steer the party away from its more extreme edges. He focused on fundamental concerns such as reforming the taxation framework, bringing an end to the campaign against illegal narcotics, and withdrawing from international military engagements. Nevertheless, he additionally underscored pragmatic commercial concepts, advocating for fiscal reductions and a decrease in criminal activity. Consequently, he garnered 3.3 percent of the nationwide ballot, marking the most impressive performance by any candidate outside the two principal parties since Ross Perot's showing in 1992. 

In the subsequent year, the fervent adherents within the party re-emerged. A faction identifying as the Mises Caucus materialized on the social media platform Facebook. Named in honor of Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises, its constituents voiced grievances that Johnson's approach leaned excessively towards pragmatism and that he had courted liberal voters in an effort to secure ballots. Their aspiration was for the unblemished ideological adherence exemplified by Paul, and they demonstrated no tolerance whatsoever for Johnson's more conventional, politically conscious methodology.

Initially, the Mises Caucus failed in its first two endeavors to secure leadership positions within the Libertarian Party, during internal party elections held in 2018 and two years later in 2020. However, in the aftermath of the COVID-19 imposed lockdowns, the racial justice demonstrations of summer 2020, and Joe Biden's triumph in the presidential election, the caucus commenced accumulating greater sway, assuming control of the majority of state chapters and attaining key leadership capacities, such as the party chair, at the convention held in May 2022. Without delay, the caucus removed from the party's official platform a declaration that denounced bigotry as 'irrational and repugnant.' It then released a succession of online publications that trivialized the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday, ridiculed the passing of Senator John McCain, and even made light of the number of Jewish individuals who perished in the Holocaust. In response, numerous state-level chapters severed their affiliations with the national body. 

Concurrently, Oliver established his reputation as a disruptive force (or 'spoiler') in Georgia's prominent U.S. Senate contest involving Raphael Warnock and Herschel Walker, by securing two percent of the ballots cast in 2022, thereby necessitating a runoff election between the pair of leading party contenders. During the current year's Libertarian Party convention, which took place in Washington, D.C., Oliver stood as one of just a few hopefuls.

Initially, it appeared plausible that Michael Rectenwald, a staunch right-wing conspiracy theorist and Mises Caucus affiliate, could emerge victorious. Rectenwald asserted (erroneously) that selecting Oliver would signify supporting COVID-19 lockdowns, unrestricted borders, and 'wokeness,' a term he characterized as an 'authoritarian, totalitarian ideology.' Across the initial five balloting sessions, Oliver consistently ranked second to Rectenwald; however, since Rectenwald failed to secure a majority, the electoral process persisted. Subsequently, Rectenwald conducted a press conference that attracted extensive condemnation, which he later disclosed to The Washington Post had been poorly executed due to his consumption of an edible substance prior to the event. He stated, 'This was not akin to some significant political controversy, understand? I was not discovered in a compromising situation with [porn actor] Stormy Daniels' (who, incidentally, did receive a single delegate's vote). 'I am attending a Libertarian Party convention. Someone extended an offer to me,' he reportedly explained to the Post. In the ensuing and conclusive round of balloting, Oliver successfully garnered a majority of the votes. 

However, Oliver's struggles within his own party are far from concluded. In order to engage with the upcoming cohort of electors, his aim is to broaden the attractiveness of the Libertarian platform. Oliver articulated, 'Our endeavor should be to present ourselves to the widest possible electorate, and this becomes genuinely challenging when individuals act in an exclusionary manner or impose ideological purity tests.' He continued, 'The party is defined by those who participate. My duty is to encourage the attendance of as many well-intentioned, libertarian-inclined individuals who desire to witness more polished communication.' 

Should Oliver's aspirational campaign, through some means, successfully attract a sufficient number of individuals who resonate with his more inclusive interpretation of libertarianism, his expectation is that these new adherents will outnumber the radical factions and consign the more unsavory components of his party and its core ideology to the periphery. 'Should you wish to direct a derogatory term at me on Twitter, that is acceptable,' Oliver remarked. 'However, it is a fact that one-third of American voters belonging to Generation Z identify as LGBTQ+. Do you genuinely desire the expansion of your party, or do you not? Because employing such terminology will assuredly not attract a fresh generation to our political organization.' 

Within the Cambria cafe, Oliver convened with three anti-establishment activists, strategizing on the most effective methods to engage the broadest possible populace. Christina Tobin was the sole female present at their discussion, asserting that she would not, and indeed never had, cast a ballot for any presidential contender, attributing this to her inability to discover a candidate whose views sufficiently aligned with her own. Nonetheless, she operates a voting rights organization named Free and Equal, which endeavors to provide a public platform for political candidates unaffiliated with the dominant parties. 

Seated opposite Tobin was Tom Pinkh, a twenty-one-year-old resident of New York adorned with a deep, dark beard. He attributes the genesis of his libertarian convictions to an instance in his childhood when a friend's parent admonished him for excessive exuberance on the playground. Pinkh indicated that the overarching strategy for the campaign hinges upon securing financial resources and media exposure, coupled with enhancing the party's overall standing. Consequently, any location where Oliver might solicit contributions, conduct interviews, or facilitate the party's inclusion on the ballot is deemed a worthwhile destination for a visit. This rationale explains Oliver's presence in California during September, rather than his campaigning in crucial swing states such as Pennsylvania or Michigan. He had been arranging a debate involving other presidential hopefuls from minor parties, including Jill Stein and Cornel West, an event that transpired on October 23rd.

During the debate, Oliver articulated his fundamental proposal: 'Should you choose to live peacefully, your existence ought to be your own, your physical form should belong to you, and your commercial endeavors should be solely your concern, not that of the federal government.' Additionally, he advocated for the cessation of the majority of taxes, a fifty percent reduction in the Pentagon's budget, the prohibition of the U.S. government's ability to create currency 'from nothing,' and the complete elimination of corporate subsidies. What he offered was a multifaceted ideological framework—a system with the capacity to attract a diverse array of individuals to its tenets. 

Oliver conveyed to me, 'Should we succeed in attracting a significant number of new adherents, a portion of that provocative, 'edgelord' rhetoric will be effectively suppressed.' 

He remains considerably distant from realizing that particular objective. The count of engaged contributors within the party has consistently decreased since 2021, following a peak in 2020 that represented nearly twenty years of unprecedented support. It is conceivable that the subsequent Libertarian nominee might revert to espousing discriminatory views. Yet, from Oliver's perspective, he possesses a period of four years — extending until the party selects its subsequent presidential contender — to articulate his arguments and attract fresh constituents to the libertarian philosophy.

During my discussions with him, Oliver generally conveyed a greater preoccupation with strategic deliberations concerning ballot inclusion and capital generation than with abstract ideology. Nevertheless, transforming a simplistic linear political spectrum into a multidimensional grid will necessitate more than mere tactical approaches, particularly given that the voting populace largely remains entrenched on the traditional left and right flanks of the liberal-conservative divide. Advocate for transgender rights, for instance, and you risk alienating conservative voters in Montana, many of whom have never encountered a transgender individual and express apprehension about their daughters sharing restroom facilities. Conversely, take a stand against firearm regulation, and a substantial portion of the political left will be profoundly disheartened.

This predicament does not appear to perturb Oliver. His aspiration involves discovering novel attractiveness for his political organization through a more subdued presentation of libertarian principles. His primary focus lies in ceasing overseas military involvement and implementing an expedited resolution to the border situation, one that would closely resemble the historical processing at Ellis Island. Were he able to select merely one paramount issue, it would undoubtedly be ranked-choice voting — an electoral mechanism enabling voters to designate not only a singular candidate but also their preferred first, second, and occasionally third choices, with these preferences subsequently aggregated to ascertain the ultimate result — a reform he asserts would, above all else, improve the nation's condition.

He stated, 'The sole rationale for Democrats and Republicans refusing to adopt ranked-choice voting lies in the fact that the existing system safeguards their influence.' He encourages the electorate to issue an ultimatum to candidates: '&8217;Should you decline to implement ranked-choice voting, I shall allocate my ballot to the Libertarians, to the Green Party. Your potential defeat is of no consequence to me.' Should they prove incapable of acting upon this, then they are unworthy of electoral office.'

At the coffee shop, Oliver descended to the souvenir store, intending to purchase olallieberry-flavored gummy bears, a confectionery tribute to the area's most celebrated produce. He engaged in conversation with the retail assistant, presenting himself as at ease and congenial — yet conspicuously devoid of the characteristic allure typically associated with presidential contenders. Indeed, Oliver did not even present himself as a political figure. As a matter of fact, over the course of his day in Cambria, the aspiring candidate alluded to his presidential bid on merely one occasion: when he briefly entered a downtown vintage establishment and discovered a metal sign that appealed to him, emblazoned with the words 'Stop voting for stupid people.' With a tone bordering on apology, he informed the cashier of his pursuit of elevated public office. She, for her part, did not inquire as to the specific position.

Enroll in our subscription list to have our narratives delivered directly to your electronic mail inbox.