I was just reading over an interview Michael Badnarik gave to Liberty‘s R. W. Bradford and came across this section that I find particularly pertintant to the LP (emphasis added).
Liberty – An Interview with Michael Badnarik
Badnarik: Yes, because I represent the Libertarian Party. I don’t think that the Libertarian Party endorses that level of activism. I was doing that on my own for lack of any other venue for getting my message out. I had several people tell me that this was a compromise of values and I don’t necessarily see it that way. In order to accomplish things, there are times when we have to postpone our goals for an intermediate step.
From the many sources of libertarian news that I’ve been reading lately, I see a dichotomy in the party between the purists and the politicians (for lack of a better term for those in the party trying to negotiate to get things done). I think that the LP would be much more capable of accomplishing its goals if those of us who are purists would recognize that “you can’t always get what you want, but sometimes you get what you need”. What we want may be the abolition of the 16th amendment, but we can at least get what we currently need, reduction in the current spending levels, by getting libertarians elected, even if they don’t currently push for the abolition of the income tax. We need to take this one step at a time if we are to accomplish anything.