Gold Flips Red

On Mike ter Maat's departure from the Libertarian Party

On June 10^th of this month, the Libertarian Party’s Vice-Presidential nominee for 2024, Mike ter Maat, announced his registration in the Republican Party. Immediately and since, many Libertarians have been dog-piling him on social media. The vitriol ranges from “you were never really one of us” to “good riddance.” All this is to be expected, yet it is unfortunate on multiple levels.

Firstly, contemptible treatment of those who exit our party is untactful. Of course, such exits will occasion some disappointment, but to make a harsh example out of someone who breaks with us only ensures that fewer members in our ranks will be honest about their drift of conscience. It is preferable that someone who comes to identify more with another party feel free to make that change, rather than to stay in our ranks and influence us in another party’s direction. Ideally we should thank a person for his time with us and wish him luck on his journey of conscience. You may even know a registered Libertarian who seems more aligned with another party; maybe the only thing holding him back from coming clean is the prospect of being dragged through the mud.

On a deeper, interpersonal level, we should also recognize that we are never owed someone’s allegiance. Every day we strive for converts amongst voters, donors, activists and prospective candidates, and we should be grateful for those who see eye to eye with us on the issues, even if this alignment is temporary.

The flipside to this relationship is that we have to remain worthy of our converts’ loyalty. We must honor our principles and fulfill our converts’ expectations. In the specific case of Dr. Mike ter Maat, over the course of two years he campaigned across the USA on his own time and dime for the Libertarian Party’s presidential nomination. The caucus which he supported outright excluded him from endorsement, and when at the national convention he won the nomination for Vice-President, our party’s chair conspired with a legacy party’s candidate to undermine our nominated ticket. Any way you slice it, the Libertarian Party did not fulfill its end of the bargain with ter Maat, so no one can rightfully blame him for gravitating to a party which – whatever else its faults – knows to circle the wagons around the nominee until victory.

Some readers may counter that ours is a newer party, so members and candidates should exercise greater patience and endure our growing pains, but that does not fly far. The Libertarian Party was founded 54 years ago – two generations – so it has had plenty of time to grow up and take its role seriously. It is frankly unreasonable to expect someone in his sixties to wait another two decades for the LP to conduct itself like the major player it wants to be, when there are already several factors which make that seem less probable. Case in point, the LP’s former chair – who resigned in disgrace this January and is now under internal investigation for improprieties with party funds – announced on June 6^th, 2025, through X that a major caucus has seen fit to elect her as its chair. This gives every indication that all the passengers haven’t yet emptied out of the circus’ clown car.

Speaking in general terms does not adequately address ter Maat’s motive for leaving, however. His is not a case of apostasy as discussed above, since he still espouses the non-aggression principle and a commitment to governmental transparency/accountability as do all Libertarians. Nor does this decision originate from a grudge against the party or any pettiness of that sort.

Instead, ter Maat has specifically joined the Republican Liberty Caucus. In this move, he is followed by forty other people, many of them distinguished former Libertarians who had supported his presidential run in 2024. The Republican Liberty Caucus is the entity which has endorsed Congressmen like Senator Rand Paul, and Representatives Justin Amash and Thomas Massie, all of whom lean very Libertarian. Thus, ter Maat has changed nothing about his objectives; he has just swapped the organization through which he will pursue them.

On the one hand, such a move makes sense. In many places, Libertarians expend vast resources in money and personnel just to get on ballot. This leaves less wherewithal for pitching a platform to voters through a campaign. More so, some voters will prove more receptive to the policy proposals when they come from a candidate representing a party more familiar to voters.

On the other hand, Republicans are currently the party of Donald Trump, which means that the overall mindset is about using government to solve society’s ills. Mike ter Maat counters that this is more the reason to join the GOP, so that the party can be persuaded away from this brand of statism to adopt a more free-market, non-interventionist approach. In fact, ter Maat predicts that as fallout accumulates from Trump’s ongoing policies, the GOP’s Liberty Caucus will grow, and even the homologous Democratic Freedom Caucus.

Though this article attempts impartially to analyze ter Maat’s actions and intentions, in full disclosure I did serve his presidential campaign as an adviser. My readership can judge whether this analysis is sufficiently disinterested.

As stated earlier, we should wish ter Maat well and hope for success in his new endeavor. In 2008, Dr. Ron Paul’s rEVOLution consolidated a liberty-oriented constituency which spanned both major parties. There were self-identifying “Ron Paul Republicans” and “Ron Paul Democrats,” and the Tea Party elected Dr. Rand Paul to the U.S. Senate in 2010, so this faction enjoyed notable success for a time. Maybe ter Maat will find similar momentum from those seeking solutions rooted in the free market and voluntaryism.

The one problem which ter Maat’s plan does not solve is the “lesser of two evils” effect. This is when one candidate who poorly represents his party’s supposed values (think RINOs and DINOs) gets elected by telling his base, “If you think I’m bad, my opponent’s much worse!” This farce is what passes for electoral politics in our country. A candidate need not be a good Republican or Democrat, well aligned with his party’s trumpeted values. He only need threaten the base with how much worse things will be if his opponent wins. Ultimately, it is a race to the bottom, and in this environment, less innovative policy solutions become the norm.

This phenomenon ends when a strong third party enters the race. When one candidate muckrakes against another, he winds up making the third candidate look better by comparison. Suddenly the electorate’s focus shifts to a candidate’s qualifications for the position sought, instead of the opponent’s disqualifications. A strong third party – any party which authentically represents a different perspective – makes for better Republicans and Democrats, because their candidates will have to embrace their respective parties’ values since the candidates can no longer cruise to victory simply by denigrating the opposition.

For this reason, personally I am choosing to remain in the Libertarian Party. Our deck still has many jokers to discard… but we will find our aces.