New Hampshire Libertarian Party Criticized for ‘Abhorrent’ Harris Post

Chase Oliver, the Libertarian Party nominee for president, has publicly denounced a now-deleted comment from the New Hampshire Libertarian Party that seemed to endorse violence against Vice President Kamala Harris. In a statement shared on social media platform X, Oliver expressed his strong disapproval.

“I 100% condemn the statement from LPNH regarding Kamala Harris. It is abhorrent and should never have been posted,” he wrote on Sunday.

A New Hampshire reporter had earlier circulated a screenshot of the post, which allegedly stated, “Anyone who murders Kamala Harris would be an American hero.” The comment ignited immediate public outcry and shed light on the potentially dangerous rhetoric from certain individuals within the party.

The Libertarian Party of New Hampshire later addressed the issue, confirming the removal of the post. They stated, “We deleted a tweet because we don’t want to break the terms of this website we agreed to. It’s a shame that even on a ‘free speech’ website that libertarians cannot speak freely. Libertarians are truly the most oppressed minority.”

This incident is not isolated; it marks a pattern of contentious posts from the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire that have previously garnered criticism due to comments regarding political violence and anti-LGBTQ sentiments. On the same day as the controversial Harris post, the account shared another statement suggesting that “John McCain’s cancer didn’t go far enough.”

The timing of these posts coincided with reports that former President Donald Trump was the target of an apparent assassination attempt at a golf course in Florida earlier that day. This serious news further escalated the conversation surrounding dangerous rhetoric in political discourse.

In response to the recent incident, Oliver reaffirmed the Libertarian commitment to non-violence. He elaborated, “As Libertarians, we condemn the use of force, whether committed by governments, individuals, or other political entities. We are dedicated to the principle of non-aggression and to peaceful solutions to conflict. This is also something we pledge as part of attaining party membership.”

After Oliver’s statement, the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire countered with a series of disparaging remarks aimed at him, including a homophobic slur, labeling him an “infiltrating leftist snake.” Such responses show the internal divisions within the party regarding ideology and the handling of sensitive issues.

The remarks made by the New Hampshire Libertarian Party sparked discussions about the state of political discourse in the United States. Many citizens are growing increasingly concerned about extreme language and its implications, especially when directed towards public figures.

The broader context includes a strained political environment where threats and violence against political figures have become more prevalent. The FBI’s involvement and the mention of previous assassination attempts on Trump have added urgency to calls for responsible speech in political dialogue.

In this charged atmosphere, Oliver’s stance highlights a potential reprioritization within the Libertarian Party. His commitment to principled non-violence could serve as a critical pivot point in party messaging, emphasizing the need for civility and peace in political discourse.

The response from the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire, however, reveals a factional debate about the party’s future direction and ideology. With rising tensions and differing viewpoints on how to express libertarian ideals, it remains to be seen how this will shape the party leading up to the 2024 elections.