2008 Libertarian Convention: Gunfight at the LP Corral?
It’s no big secret that the current level of enthusiasm for Libertarian Party presidential campaigns is lower than usual, mostly due to Ron Paul’s bid for the White House. No matter what happens with respect to the Paul campaign, the next Libertarian Party National Convention may be as dramatic an event as the 2004 convention.
Presidential politics will certainly be a major factor at the convention, especially if there is some movement to draft Paul or support him with a NOTA (None-of-the-Above) nomination vote. But the showdown I’m talking about is the ongoing battle between the Reformers and the Radicals, the purists and the pragmatists, extremists and moderates, activists and hierarchists, those more interested in retail politics and those more interested in wholesale politics.
As you can see, even defining the sides in this internal political warfare is difficult. I’m sure every reader will have some disagreement with how I tried to categorize the divide; I merely attempted to cover as many angles as possible while remaining as neutral as I can. As a matter of disclosure, I think both sides in this debate have some merits. I also think both sides have some faults, as well. Despite some rumors to the contrary, I’ve maintained this view for years.
A lot of this battle will happen during the debate of platform positions. While the Reformers were credited with overturning the platform in 2006, my observation was that a handful of Reformers convinced 50 to 60 people to cast certain votes. Combined with some timing factors and administrative issues (such as the distribution of the forms people used to retain platform planks), much of the platform was voted down.
A lot of planks were removed for housekeeping purposes and there simply wasn’t enough time to return more updated versions to the platform in Portland. I expect most of the platform to return at the Denver convention. However, I’ve obviously been very active in national LP politics and haven’t been hampered by the leaner but not necessarily meaner version. Other than as a joke, the absence of a space exploration plank has never come up. Reporters and potential candidates are already aware about Libertarian positions on issues like taxation, federal spending, the War on Drugs, the Iraq War, etc.
The two key platform issues which still may not be resolved in Denver are the two most widely debated by libertarians: abortion and immigration. Unlike the still debated Iraq War, there is no clear majority on either side of these two issues. No matter what the delegates decide, I expect the debate over abortion and immigration will continue for years to come.
Much of the conflict will occur outside of platform debate, however. Some of it will deal with bylaws and a lot of it will surface in the election of party officers. One such issue deals with the very mission of the Libertarian Party. One side, taking wording from LP Bylaws, insists the mission is “moving public policy in a libertarian direction by building a political party that elects Libertarians to public office.” The other side seems more focused on education, and are often accused of trying to turn the LP into a “protest party.”
Centralization vs. decentralization will likely be a hot general issue. Previous candidates for the LNC Chairman’s seats, such as George Phillies and Ernie Hancock, have argued for the DC office to be shut down. These candidates have generally lost by wide margins. Some people may run for LNC seats by running against the “Good Ole Boys” club. Others may seek as many endorsements from as many “Good Ole Boys” as possible.
Some presidential candidates will try to obtain support from one or both of these caucuses. I’d expect Phillies and Smith to run hard for the Radical vote; Kubby seems to be seeking votes from both sides. Root will probably fare better with the “establishment” vote, which will probably include more Reformers than Radicals.
The membership pledge is likely to be another issue of debate. Libertarians thrive on debate over database applications. Ballot access will be another issue certain to be raised.
Again, I see some pros and some cons from both sides in this historical Libertarian struggle. While I generally agree with Murray Rothbard on many political issues, I’ve found his tactic of directing personal attacks against his internal opposition counterproductive. Some Radicals use the same tactic to destroy the characters of their opponents, as opposed to debating the issues at hand.
By the same token, the Reformers often get it wrong, too. There does have to be a significant distinction between the Libertarian Platform and the platforms of other political parties. Anarchism isn’t the root of all evil.
Right now, my outside observation (I belong to neither caucus) provides that the Radicals are a bit more organized then the Reformers—certainly more organized than they were in 2004. However, the Reformers seem to have superior organizational skills and a more efficient communications network. I’m not prepared to speculate about which group shows in greater force.
Personally, I’m hoping the Libertarian Party learns something from the Ron Paul campaign. By creating the right balance between the national staff and grassroots activists, perhaps the LP could become more politically effective. Reformers are often more skilled at necessary organizational tasks while Radicals often serve as the conscience of the party. A body can survive and be very functional even while missing an appendage or two, but no body can survive long without a functioning heart and a functioning mind.
December 5th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
Hmmn? Sounds like you’re right smack dab in the middle of all the factions and candidates of the Libertarian Party.
Perhaps, in the end, as Steve Gordon goes, so goes the LP?
December 5th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Gordon writes: One side, taking wording from LP Bylaws, insists the mission is “moving public policy in a libertarian direction by building a political party that elects Libertarians to public office.” The other side seems more focused on education, and are often accused of trying to turn the LP into a “protest party.”
I think this is a mischaracterization of the debate. My view is that some folks have taken one statement from the “Purposes” statement in the Bylaws and latched onto that one purpose (out of five listed) as the Party’s mission. What authority they have for such elevation is beyond me, although I’ve seen claims that a previous LNC adopted that particular purpose as its (the LNC’s, not the Party’s) mission over a decade ago. Other folks have pointed out that the current “Purpose” statement in the bylaws includes five compatible activities ranging from education to policy reform (lobbying) to elections, and that determination of which of these Purposes is most important belongs with the Party’s individual activists, who may be inclined in one or another direction at any given time. Probably some of those individuals favor an education-heavy approach, but others do not, and still others probably favor an election-heavy approach.
This is not, as it is often cast, a dispute between those who want elections to be the main focus of the Party and those who want something else to be the main focus. It’s a dispute between those who want to elevate electing Libertarians to office (_one_ part of the membership-chosen Purpose statement) to be the Party’s Mission and are willing to lie/bluff a Mission Statement that does not exist into existence, and those who beleive that only the membership acting in convention ought to set the Party’s Mission, and in fact has done so, through the Purpose Statement of the bylaws.
Now, the discussion may very well become about elections-vs-elections and other things, but that will have to happen by a change to the Bylaws. I believe the membership would not choose to limit the Party’s Mission to a single activity – electing Libertarians – that is in reality more of a metric of success than an activity to be engaged in. We don’t elect people, after all – the voters do. Winning elections is a measure of how voters feel about Libertarians and libertarianism as well as individual candidates, it’s not something that we can create except by being the best Libertarians possible.
This same question came up in NC, where at the last state convention such a “Mission Statement” was floated. Of course, the LPNC already has a Purpose statement much like national’s, and the delegates sensibly (in my opinion) chose to continue with that as the Party’s purpose, rather than creating a separate election-centered Mission to conflict with it or replace it.
What is especially galling to me is that when/if this question comes up in Denver, the same “We already have this Mission Statement, we just need to confirm it for the sticklers in the Party,” nonsense that was floated in NC will be tried. It will be harder to counteract, since the staff at national are still allowed by a complacent and/or complicit LNC to include this “Mission Statement” in their publications – despite ANY evidence that the membership did, in fact, choose such a Mission Statement, and despite the evidence to the contrary (the fact of the Purposes statement in the Bylaws). This laxness has allowed those who are trying to bluff/lie/will the so-called Mission Statement into existence to use a very circular argument: “We have a Mission Statement already, obviously! Duh! You can see it every (other) month on the front of LP NEWS! So let’s just confirm it for those whiners who are complaining it isn’t in the Bylaws anywhere!”
Do you see the problem we face? The staff have willed this fiction Mission Statement into place, and will now use the fiction to support creation of the real thing. However, I am confident that most of the voting membership will not in the end fall for for such a stupid and deceptive trick. I do find it irritating to have to waste time on such nonsense, though.
For reference: A copy of the Bylaws Purposes Statement, which I think does a decent job of outlining the activities that the LP ought to be focusing on:
_ARTICLE 3: PURPOSES
The Party is organized to implement and give voice to the principles embodied in the Statement of Principles by: functioning as a libertarian political entity separate and distinct from all other political parties or movements; moving public policy in a libertarian direction by building a political party that elects Libertarians to public office; chartering affiliate parties throughout the United States and promoting their growth and activities; nominating candidates for President and Vice-President of the United States, and supporting Party and affiliate party candidates for political office; and, entering into public information activities. _
December 5th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
Steve,
You write:
“I’d expect Phillies and Smith to run hard for the Radical vote; Kubby seems to be seeking votes from both sides.”
I don’t think that the above is very realistic.
Phillies’ positions on immigration and trade pretty much preclude him posturing himself as “the radical candidate.” He definitely seems to be aiming for the “moderate” vote, both on policy positions and with his sort of milquetoast credibility pitch (“trustworthy as your grandfather’s banker”).
I do see what you mean about Kubby. His policy positions definitely fall on the radical end (as they have consistently for a good decade), and he’s the only candidate with any real political credibility. That latter should appeal to the “moderates,” but they may be put off by the fact that that credibility has largely been established on an issue that they’re skeptical of the respectability of (drug policy). Too early to tell, really.
Smith is the real variable at the moment. At present, her policy positions tend to the radical and she seems neither concerned with, nor equipped to solicit, the “moderate” vote. However, her positions could change as much in the next seven months as they have in the last seven months. As of now, all that can really be said is that we won’t know what Christine Smith believes in May until May gets here, and that’s not a good position to be in as a candidate. If she steadies up, manages to convince people that her recent conversion experience has been sincere rather than opportunistically, and vastly improves her communications skills, she may do well.
Root’s a factor, but a fairly fixed one. I’ll be surprised if he pulls 15% on the first ballot, and his first-ballot count will be his highest.
December 5th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
Wow Knapp, you’ve really gone over to the far, far, far, fringe of the Libertarian Party. Doesn’t seem like you’ve got a pragmatic bone left in your body. If the LP goes in your direction, it’s doomed. They’d be much better off, listening to what you have to say, and doing the exact opposite.
If Root is such an “also ran” how is it that he’s the only one getting on Michael Medved?
Kubby gets on Medved, than you can consider him to be a serious contender. Until then, he’s just a sideshow.
December 5th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
Tom,
I think you might be underestimating Root with the suit-and-tie crowd that doesn’t frequent blog comments. The 15% will come from Root’s current foreign policy position but he will get other votes from folks who are more worried about image than foreign policy (or other political positions).
Smith is a variable, but I’m only seeing “radical” support for her at the moment.
Kubby, I think, can appeal to the same balance of factions that supported Russo. However, shaking the single-issue perception will be critical.
I’ve never been able to accurately predict who will support Phillies and who won’t. This said, the fact the Kubby is supporting Liberty Decides while Phillies isn’t is somewhat telling.
Then again, I predicted that Russo would win the nomination in 2004, so my track record is no better than yours.
December 5th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
Since my name is being invoked, I shall emphasize that I actually want the support of all libertarians, even those currently supporting the Democratic and Republican parties.
December 5th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Susan,
Regardless of whether there is an official “Mission Statement” or not, I’d argue that it may be immoral for electoral politics (while maintaining principle) to not be the primary focus of the Libertarian Party.
Think of it from the perspective of most voters. Most people think the purpose of a political party is to get the candidates running under that party banner elected to public office.
They provide campaign contributions, volunteer support and critical votes on Election Day. They provide this support based on their understanding that most LP candidates are “in it to win it.”
If our key goal isn’t to get people elected to public office, plenty of voters would have reason to feel defrauded.
Perhaps there is some way the Radical Caucus might address this concern?
December 5th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
Eric,
Root got on Medved for one, and only one reason: Medved loves making Libertarians look bad, and Medved correctly judged that Root would be an “easy kill.” Medved knows better than to have Kubby on the show, because Kubby would mop the floor with the host.
As far as pragmatism is concerned, you have it exactly backward:
Media appearances are a tool for getting the word out and attracting support, not an indicator of support. The goal at this point is to secure the support of a majority of delegates to the LP’s national convention. A thousand appearances on Medved won’t make Root the LP’s nominee unless those apparances either indicate, or help him secure, that majority—and his first appearance there probably cost him a few delegates (specifically of the “suit and tie” variety that Gordon mentions above—they love Libertarians on big media, but they hate being embarrassed by Libertarians on big media even more).
Yes, I’d love to get Kubby on Medved, and on any other show I can get him on. I’d love that because he’s damn good and those appearances would firm up his existing support and bring new support his way. Root, on the other hand, would be much better off sticking to infomercials and media appearances that he can control. Putting him in a studio with Medved was like opening a trap door under him and dropping him into a pool full of piranha. Not only did it not prove anything as regards his mythological “frontrunner” status, it did serious damage to his prospects.
Steve,
I agree that “single issue perception” remains a problem for Kubby. It’s one I’m working on—and fortunately it IS a matter of perception, not reality. Kubby will never run from the medical marijuana issue, because it’s a strong issue for Libertarians and the issue he made his bones on (i.e. his credibility is bound up in it to a large degree). However, The reality is that in his public statements since announcing his run for president, Kubby has spent at least as much time on foreign policy, immigration, gay rights, etc., as he has on drug policy issues. The trick is making sure that people KNOW that, and it’s harder than I thought it would be.
December 5th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
Steve (and Tom)
“I’d expect Phillies and Smith to run hard for the Radical vote; Kubby seems to be seeking votes from both sides.”
Being on the ‘Reformer’ side of the debate, I see Phillies as pulling a lot of the Reformer vote already… and somewhat less of the Radical vote, as noted, due to his positions.
Smith’s recent stance change to a strongly Radical one is likely to gain her more support, but the Radical side of the fence votes will remain split with Kubby, who isn’t likely to get any Reformer support himself, as least that I’ve seen so far.
I agree that Root isn’t going to do well in the long run… despite the bogus ‘vote with your dollars’ approach of Liberty Decides.
Susan, the question of the conflict/agreement between the current Bylaws and the current Mission Statement is something the Bylaws Committee is addressing, and I expect it’ll be one of the first bylaw changes up for a vote.
December 5th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
Steve:
I am calling bullshit on the Reformer=Pragmatist,Reformer=Administrator, Reformer=Big Money meme.
Glad you got this out before my six month break from the Wild Wild Web. Just a quick note that you and others need to grapple with—find me a Reformer* with actual administrative skills before we talk about pragmatism.
I can name some bright guys. I can even name a Reformer who has made actual financial and administrative contributions (Stuart Flood.) Can’t find one however with even the basic understanding of how an office works let alone with the ability to raise money or manage staff and volunteers. No particular evidence that Reformers are better donors or are even competent campaign managers.
This is an ideological divide masked by silly ancillary debates over the pledge, the mission, etc. The LRC sings an old tired tune. When they can bring something to the table other than complaints and excuses, wake me. Meanwhile, some of the most vocal Reformers would do well by taking internal stock and introspection. The anti-anarchist jihad of ‘06 said more about state of Milsted and Company’s soul and very little about the LP.
(*Reformer—someone who IDs as a member of the LRC.)
....4 days until Libertarian Lent.
December 5th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
Steve,
I don’t think I’ve ever seen the Radical Caucus object to “electing Libertarians.” What we’ve objected to is the “reformer” claim that electing Libertarians is and must be the sole and only purpose of the LP, in favor of which all other possible purposes must be, and any inconvenient principles may be, sacrificed.
I suspect that if you go through the lists of Libertarians elected or appointed to public office, you will find that a supermajority of them are … radicals! The “reformers” have stayed far too busy pissing and moaning that Libertarians can’t possible get elected to office until the LP becomes whatever they insist that it should be at any given moment to bother with minor matters like actually running effective campaigns in winnable elections themselves.
While I am not empowered to officially speak for the Radical Caucus, I can tell you what I think our position is: We’re all for Libertarians seeking election to public office and succeeding in those efforts—as long as they do so as libertarians.
For Libertarians to seek election as something other than libertarians would make the whole exercise meaningless. It would mean one of two things: Either the Libertarians doing so are simply using the libertarian banner to front for another agenda (and we wouldn’t be supporting the Libertarian Party if libertarianism wasn’t its agenda), or the Libertarians doing so are trying to trick the public into electing them by pretending to be something else (which, beyond being unethical, is simply poor strategy).
December 5th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
George, nice to see you here. And everybody, a reminder, George Phillies will be our guest on Libertarian Politics Live Friday night 7:00 pm cst. www.blogtalkradio.com/libertarian (I’ve promised George I’d be nice.)
George, you say you wish to attract support from all factions of the Libertarian Party. Great.
What is it that you have to offer Moderate Libertarians? How can you convince mainstreamers like me, that you are going to present a credible alternative in the general election, and run an Ed Clark type campaign?
Wayne Root has potentially millions to spend on his race. Mainstreamers like me would be concerned with cold hard dollar figures. Saw once where you said your personal wealth was $1.5 million. Not too shabby. But not anywheres in the league of Wayne Root. Tell us, how could you run a well-funded Ed Clark style campaign in the $5 million range, when your personal wealth is only $1.5 million? (Mind you, we don’t wish to see you go broke to fund the effort.)
You are also aware, that the Libertarian Party has had a Libertarian Defense Caucus since its inception. It was dormant for a while, but now thanks to Ryan Christiano it’s back up and running. Ryan intends to be a force at the convention. Tell us, what is it that you have to offer to us “Hawk Libertarians”?
You said after all, you wish to appeal to all segments of the LP. Fine, the LDC is a healthy segment. Not 40%. But I’d estimate at least 10 to 15% of all LPers could be categorized as “Hawk Libertarians.” How do you intend to reach out to that crowd?
December 5th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
Steve Kubby is a “frontrunner”? He’s not even included on this Super Duper Presidential Vote survey:
http://babblemur.com/blog/?p=1253
They’re listing 4 Libertarian candidates, not one of them is Kubby. And Knapp thinks he’s the frontrunner for the LP nomination.
December 5th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
Great piece Steve! See my thoughts here:
http://www.freeliberal.com/blog/archives/003090.php
December 5th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
“I don’t think I’ve ever seen the Radical Caucus object to ‘electing Libertarians.’”
I absolutely agree. However, they frequently seem at odds with people who have a primary motivation of electing Libertarians.
“What we’ve objected to is the “reformer” claim that electing Libertarians is and must be the sole and only purpose of the LP, in favor of which all other possible purposes must be, and any inconvenient principles may be, sacrificed.”
I haven’t seen so much of that from the Reform side. Hell, they are members of the LP, so some degree of political principal must apply otherwise they’d be a Dem’ or ‘Pub.
“We’re all for Libertarians seeking election to public office and succeeding in those efforts—as long as they do so as libertarians.”
I think both sides would agree with that statement.
At issue, still, (I think) is this question: Is the primary purpose of the Libertarian Party to elected principled libertarians to public office?
December 5th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Angela:
“I am calling bullshit on the Reformer=Pragmatist,Reformer=Administrator, Reformer=Big Money meme.”
I do not see much (if any) pushing a Administrator or Big Money connection to Reformers. Pragmatic, yes. But I don’t see anyone within the core LRC group (of which I’m involved) using either of the those 2 memes.
“find me a Reformer* with actual administrative skills before we talk about pragmatism. Can’t find one however with even the basic understanding of how an office works let alone with the ability to raise money or manage staff and volunteers. No particular evidence that Reformers are better donors or are even competent campaign managers.
(*Reformer—someone who IDs as a member of the LRC.)”
Hmm, looking over http://reformthelp.org/home/about/members.php
I see a large number of qualified individuals… though I won’t name names.
Plus, I think you’re still missing that the biggest argument of the LRC is that we aren’t attracting those sort of folks, because of the current state of the LP. In other words, chicken & egg there.
December 5th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
I just hope the LP brings back the platform that was gutted and remains ‘The Party of Principle’. It would be a sad day for the LP if they sacrificed Libertarian principles for political expediency.
December 5th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
Angela: ever hear of a dude named Ed Crane? Your ilk kicked people like that out of the LP back in the early 1980s. He administers something called Cato. Rather larger than the LP.
I was not able to bring in too many Cato types back in via the LRC. They were too smart to get put up with petulant anarchists. LRC membership includes several people who have held political office as Libertarians, a former Vice Chair of the the party and the current Vice Chair of the party. The former is one Daniel Fylstra, software pioneer and founder of Byte magazine.
As for the “root of all evil” citation. I am being misquote as usual. My gripe has been about the REQUIREMENT that one be an anarchist in order to be a member of the LP. My critique of anarchism is that it is problematic and unproven, therefore it is impolite to damn those who don’t follow “principle” to its logical conclusion.
My dream for the LP was for it to be a coalition of freedom lovers: anarchists, minarchists, constitutionalists, isolationists, liberventionists, etc. The anarchists screamed bloody murder at the prospect, and now call me divisive. Very well, I shall divide. Plans for a new party are in the making. Those who wish to defend a narrow definition of the word “libertarian” are free to have the LP as far as I am concerned. Those who want to actually freedom will have better options in the future.
December 5th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
Anybody know who might be speaking at the convention? I have friends and family in the Denver area, and may purchase the $150 Congressional package to hear the speakers if there are any that interest me enough to spend the $150 and plane fare.
December 5th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
Quoth Carl Milsted:
“Angela: ever hear of a dude named Ed Crane? Your ilk kicked people like that out of the LP back in the early 1980s.”
Er … no. Nobody was “kicked out” of the LP (for one thing, there was no way to do it even if anybody had wanted to). Crane et al left the LP under their own steam after the LP didn’t nominate their preferred candidate for the 1984 presidential nomination. Entirely their prerogative, of course, but walking away and being kicked out are two entirely different things.
Cato is indeed “bigger than the LP” and has done some good public policy work. However, LP “anarchism” is neither here nor there in the equation. Cato would not likely have been nearly as effective as it has been had it remained tied to a third party of ANY orientation, for the simple reason that it lobbies politicians of the major parties and would not be as effective at doing so if it was perceived as being a partisan institution of a party other than that of the legislators being lobbied.
December 5th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Carl,
I stand slightly corrected about your view on anarchists. I do think that it’s a fair criticism, considering how many times I’ve seen the word used to describe the problems with the LP/
December 5th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
Knappster: you are technically correct, which is the best kind of correct.
Driven out might be more appropriate. Insulted and cursed out perhaps. The venom and bile generated by Rothbard et al was pretty heavy. Why try to make an organization work when some of its most honored members fight you every step of the way?
Let the “Party of Principle” be the party of principle. Let it tell the world what it truly it. Drop the Nolan charts and the toned-down rhetoric of the 90s. Go back to describing The Principle to people when you meet them at outreach booths. Tell them you are for zero taxes. Tell them that you want to fund the military with bake sales. Be honest. I know that’s hard for “principled” Libertarians, but try.
Let’s have some honest LP slogans: “Abolish the Government, Vote Libertarian!”, “The LP, the Party of Blood Feuds”, “Nukes? Sure! As long as they are privately owned”, “Wait Until They Invade, Vote Libertarian!” “There’s no difference between sales taxes and waterboarding; they’re both initiation of force.” “Who needs the military; look at our gun collections!”
I suggest handing out a test at the next convention. Anyone who truly doesn’t live up to the membership oath should not be allowed inside. Be principled! No more double standards in order to pump up the membership numbers.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
Carl,
Perhaps a more technically correct slogan might be: Nukes? Sure! So long as we continue aiming them at ourselves.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
Seth,
The key to happiness is knowing what you want and how to get it. LRC has always been a catch all drawer, so any criticism is likely to misfire.
However, I have been over that list and it is mostly a bunch of middle income computer programmers who don’t have any of the skills or financial means to do what it is they claim they want. That does not mean they are not good LP members, or good people. They do not however know what exactly it is they want nor have figured out how to get it, whatever “it” is. All you have is a list of people who have inchoate dis-ease with the LP.
If the average LRC member believes that the anarchists are bunch of blathering eggheads which keeps us from getting those bluff hardy rubber meets the road sorts. Fine, find some. Meanwhile, what you got, besides some programmers in male menopause is a bunch of eggheads blathering. It’s just different blather. Come on, Bob Capozzi? Jon Roland? For Brain Bowl? Great choices. As missionaries to the Normals, not so much. Brian Holtz? Brian is exactly kind of libertarian we need to keep locked in the basement if we are ever going to appeal to normal people.
To attract the kind of people one wants to be around, one needs to be that person first. That’s my goal during the next six months. I want clean, physically attractive, well adjusted, anarchists with means. I also want an LP that can also appeal to normal human beings. That’s why I am ditching the militant atheism, returning to modest dress, getting off line and back on the streets.
Dr. Milsted:
I don’t know about my ilk other than through folk lore but I do know this,
“I feel like I have to take a shower after I meet with some of these guys. It’s very unpleasant what this power thing does. People who want to be congressmen are creepy people.”—Ed Crane, pg 631, Radicals for Capitalism
The New Angela Keaton, for the Old America
December 5th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
Seth writes: ... the question of the conflict/agreement between the current Bylaws and the current Mission Statement is something the Bylaws Committee is addressing, and I expect it’ll be one of the first bylaw changes up for a vote.
Argh.
Let me say it again. ARGH.
This is exactly what I was getting to when I predicted the circular reasoning argument would be used to try to push this through. It’s not a ‘conflict between the current bylaws and current Mission Statement’ because the LP does not have a Mission Statement, other than that expressed in the Purposes section of the Bylaws.
Here’s what happened, as I see it:
1) Someone or someones remembers a ‘Mission Statement’ – passed by some previous LNC over a decade ago and NEVER apparently chosen by the membership. Whether the LNC can concoct a Mission Statement for the Party or only for the LNC is a point of contention, but since the Bylaws are, in essence, the vessel of the LP, and the LNC does not write the Bylaws, I don’t tend to think so. At any rate, this person or persons recalled this long-ago LNC decision and decided it fit in with their particular vision for the LP.
2) These folks started acting as if this long-ago LNC decision applies to the entire Party (not just the LNC) and to the present (not just to the period covered by that particular LNC).
3) When someone finally takes the time to look into it, present evidence of the non-existence of the so-called Mission Statement, and have it removed for LP publications, the staff AND the LNC go into serious ring-around-the-rosey mode (everything from “It’s being looked into” to stone silence) and refuse to remove the at-BEST questionable statement pending a decision. This gives the so-called Mission Statement even more time to collect an air of authenticity.
4) Then, when ignoring it becomes an issue, those same guys will go to Convention saying “Well, of course we have a Mission Statement – you can see it everywhere!!” and simply asking for a resolution between … what was Seth’s phrase?... ah, right – the “conflict/agreement between the current Bylaws and the current Mission Statement”.
That’s a dirty rotten trick. I give most folks who have taken this line a pass because I suspect most people are just going on the MISinformation that has been handed them (although that’s bad enough), but I really hope, Seth, you take this back to the Bylaws committee and explain it’s NOT a case of rubber-stamping an existent Mission Statement, but of making up and having one passed.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
Angela writes: To attract the kind of people one wants to be around, one needs to be that person first. That’s my goal during the next six months.
Excellent. I will join you.
I want clean, physically attractive, well adjusted, anarchists with means.
Oh, pooh. I’ll have to get serious about that diet then, I suppose.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:37 pm
Stephen – you mention the low enthusiasm for LP Presidential candidates, and attribute it to the Ron Paul campaign. Actually, the two are distinct.
As a long-time Libertarian, I have no enthusiasm for any of the hopefuls for the Libertarian nomination.
None have credentials that would indicate they are qualified to be President, even with the circumscribed powers a libertarian would allow. None have shown an ability or commitment to build the Libertarian Party before running for office. And all the LP hopefuls are obscure. Nominating any one of them would be a waste of time.
The enthusiasm for Ron Paul is based on his record of being a champion for less government, freedom, and for being an antiwar leader. But if Ron Paul were not running, I cannot imagine any of the LP candidates being a substitute for galvanizing the spontaneaous campaign for freedom and peace that Ron Paul has generated.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
Susan,
The diet part will be easy as will staying away from porn and alcohol. My challenges will be staying away from the internet (including most email) for six months and not being an asshole. Can I go for six months without posting something about “Lost: Fanny Pack…return to Brian Holtz” or describing M Carling as the bastard child of Kato Kaelin and a Vulcan miniature? Can I stay away from TPW now that it will be Gordonized?
Someone is taking bets.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
Steve Gordon says:
At issue, still, (I think) is this question: Is the primary purpose of the Libertarian Party to elected principled libertarians to public office?
Wes Benedict says:
Steve Gordon, what is the primary reason people go to church? If you asked all 1000 members of a church (after injecting them with truth serum), what answer would they give?
Some would say to get closer to their god, some would say because their wife wants them to, some would say because their friends go, and some would say for the alter boys, and others would say other things. If the church deacons put something in their charter declaring the primary reason for going to their church, that would not change most of the people’s primary reason for going to church. Their would still be diversity. However, it is possible more of the people, when not under the influence of truth serum, would as a matter of habit and to conform say whatever they were told to say was their primary reason especially if some little short nitwit kept shaming and tsk-tsking them every time another reason slipped out.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
Gordon writes:
Regardless of whether there is an official “Mission Statement” or not, I’d argue that it may be immoral for electoral politics (while maintaining principle) to not be the primary focus of the Libertarian Party. Think of it from the perspective of most voters. Most people think the purpose of a political party is to get the candidates running under that party banner elected to public office. They provide campaign contributions, volunteer support and critical votes on Election Day. They provide this support based on their understanding that most LP candidates are “in it to win it.” If our key goal isn’t to get people elected to public office, plenty of voters would have reason to feel defrauded.
Hard to know where to start here.
1) Do you think there is an ‘official Mission Statement’?
2) ‘Most people’, eh? What makes you say that?
3) Don’t you think ‘most people’ see a difference between the roles of the D/R party and the roles of third parties?
4) Don’t you think ‘most people’ recognize that political parties have more than one method for getting their agenda accomplished, and that winning elections is just one tool in their box?
5) If ‘most people’ think that our purpose is something other than the purpose we’ve voted on and published as part of our bylaws, how in the world could you possibly consider that fraud?
And a generic observation: winning elections is not the goal of any political party unless that party is simply interested in obtaining power for itself (and maybe not even then, as there are probably better ways). The goal of an ideological political party is to have its ideology embraced by as many people as possible. To make one of the tools (winning elections) of that actual mission of the LP into the focus and ‘mission’ of the LP is to confuse means with ends.
If every office in the US was filled with a Libertarian, the LP could not say ‘mission accomplished’ – because the real goal of the LP is not to win elections but to help move our society toward greater freedom.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
Wes,
A better analogy might be: What is the primary reason people go to Kentucky Fried Chicken?
December 5th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
Some people go for a low paying job because it’s one of the few they qualify for and it just happen to be closer than McDonald’s. Others go for a quick meal. While other go and gorge themselves and get real fat and stay for a long-time and read comic books. Some just stop to use the bathroom without buying anything. In France, the anarchists go to throw cocktails.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:55 pm
Wes,
Even the French anarchists enjoy an order of wings before blowing up da joint.
The point is that virtually all of them (some vendors, employees, alter boys hiding from priests, and health inspectors notwithstanding) go to eat fried chicken.
December 5th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
Steve,
Steve, if it’s not in the KFC by-laws or articles of incorporation, then how can you be sure? Why don’t you call the KFC board and make sure they put it in there articles of incorporation? Also, have they resolved which came first, the chicken or the egg? If not, how can they be a real political party?
December 5th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
Gene argues:
The enthusiasm for Ron Paul is based on his record of being a champion for less government, freedom, and for being an antiwar leader. But if Ron Paul were not running, I cannot imagine any of the LP candidates being a substitute for galvanizing the spontaneaous campaign for freedom and peace that Ron Paul has generated.
I think you are 90 percent right, but I think there is a slight chance that a more serious (electable) contender may have sought the LP nomination if it were not so clear that Ron Paul enjoys a preponderance of LP member and libertarian support.
/KDR
December 5th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
That is not true. George Phillies ran for Congress in 1998. He has donated money to ballot access in North Carolina. He has worked with a 527 group for ballot access. Here are a few more things George Phillies has done.
Libertarian Party of Massachusetts (Vice-Chair, Executive Director, Political Facilitator, Chair)
Libertarian Association of Massachusetts (Political Facilitator, Chair)
Worcester County Chapter, ACLU of Massachusetts (Chair)
National Volunteer Coordinator, Russo for President
National Volunteer Coordinator, Badnarik for President
December 5th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
Susan,
1) Short of this mysterious 10 year old LNC resolution that no one seems to be able to find, I’d say that the combination of the Purposes section of the bylaws and common sense indicate that the primary mission is winning elections (this does not mean winning by compromising principles).
2) I’ve never seen any polling data, if that’s what you mean. However, I think the KFC analogy above applies.
3) No. Although some people do.
4) Yes to part one. I’d think that most people would say that winning elections is the primary tool in any political party tool box.
5) Because as a political party, we stand apart from all other libertarian organizations. They can employ public information campaigns, conduct lobbying, recruit, change public perceptions, etc. but they cannot run candidates for public office. Only the LP can run candidates.
The goal of a general ideological organization is to have their goals enacted. The goal of an ideological political party is to have their goals enacted by electing its members to public office.
December 5th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
Steve,
KFC will die if it doesn’t resolve the chicken or egg issue. Ask any real business person.
December 5th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
Those of you who have read my book Stand up for Liberty! will have noticed that while I say that the purpose of a political party is to win elections, I equally say that in order to win elections the Party has to incite the formation of special interest groups (e.g., “Perky Goths for Liberty”), think tanks, etc., do general Libertarian outreach, and many other nonpolitical things, failing which the candidates will do poorly.
December 5th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
Members of a political party can do whatever the fck they want.
December 5th, 2007 at 6:12 pm
“if it’s not in the KFC by-laws or articles of incorporation, then how can you be sure? Why don’t you call the KFC board and make sure they put it in there articles of incorporation? Also, have they resolved which came first, the chicken or the egg? If not, how can they be a real political party?”
Wes, I’m much more concerned about the cult of the omnipotent chicken than whether our eggs take a pledge not to initiate force.
December 5th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
Correction: Members of a political party can do whatever the cluck they want.
December 5th, 2007 at 6:19 pm
Some go to KFC to eat anything. They’re just hungry. Some go because they want any kind of fried chicken. Some go because they want KFC chicken specifically.
How can KFC exist if it fails to recognize that some people who eat their are principly KFC supporters, while others just want chicken?
I will have nightmares about chicken all night. Actually, I’ve just about had premature hunger pains talking about this even though I just had a Wendy’s hamburger 3 hours ago. I think I’ll go to Furr’s cafeteria for some fried chicken tonight. Furr’s isn’t too good, but it’s not worth driving all the way to KFC just for some greasy fried chicken.
December 5th, 2007 at 6:23 pm
Angela and Susan,
I apologize if I made you hungry. Sometimes when I play with fire other people get hurt and then I get burnt too.
December 5th, 2007 at 6:42 pm
Wes,
There is nothing about Furr’s that could possibly make me hungry.
December 5th, 2007 at 6:54 pm
Purist!
December 5th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
There are a number of answers to the “fraud” allegation. I’ll offer another take.
If you’re being mugged, and the crook asks you whether your wallet contains all of your money, do you tell him about the balance in your money belt? Is it “fraud” to answer in the affirmative?
We should use all ethical means of self-defense. There is nothing unethical about using the machinery in order to get more people to see it needs dismantling.
Lastly, from a practical standpoint, consider that the race we put the most resources into, is the one that is more certainly that any not going to be a “win”. And I’m glad that we do, because that race always brings in new blood.
December 5th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
Angela: “I want clean, physically attractive, well adjusted, anarchists with means.”
To Dream, the impossible Dream…. To Fight, the unbeatable Foe…
To BEAR… with unbearable sorrow, to Run where the brave dare not Go….
Angela Quixote is my new nickname for you.
December 5th, 2007 at 10:27 pm
Susan, I think you misunderstood. See
http://lpbylaws.blogspot.com/2007/09/libertarian-party-purpose.html
December 5th, 2007 at 10:53 pm
I just got back from Furr’s and had fried chicken and barbecue chicken. I’m sure some customers only prefer one type. I looked for eggs too. Luckily they didn’t have any because then I would have had to decide which to eat first, the chicken or the eggs. I have receipts and even a camera phone photo, so don’t try to challenge me on this. You will lose.
December 6th, 2007 at 2:10 am
Stephen Gordon: “it may be immoral for electoral politics (while maintaining principle) to not be the primary focus of the Libertarian Party. Think of it from the perspective of most voters. Most people think the purpose of a political party is to get the candidates running under that party banner elected to public office.”
I’d say most voters are more sophisticated than that. They vote third party as a protest vote; they’re not so deluded as to imagine their candidates might win. (Granted, many third party candidates may not be as sophisticated as the average, semi-literate voter.)
Stephen Gordon: “The goal of a general ideological organization is to have their goals enacted. The goal of an ideological political party is to have their goals enacted by electing its members to public office.”
So if someone broke into your house intending to kill your child, and you had no gun, just a hammer, you would say, “The goal of a hammer is to pound nails, not to act as a weapon, and so I cannot use this hammer to protect my family.”
A political party is a tool, to be used in whatever way is most useful.
December 6th, 2007 at 2:55 am
Carl, for you to pretend that you were not devisive after the rhetoric you used (and continue to use above) indicates serious flaws in your perception of reality. Your attempts to reduce individuals to data points on a chart and the use of numbers pulled from your rectum is on the same par with the attempts of Robert Milnes to replace politics with algorithms. Good luck with your new party – maybe you should try advocating FOR something instead of merely attacking libertarians.
“Wait Until They Invade, Vote Libertarian!” – what a crock, Carl. Insulting to anyone that supports noninterventionism.
Dondero, it is my hope that Mr. Phillies and other LP candidates will offer liberventionist hawks like yourself a one-way ticket to Fallujah, a camo dunce cap, and a big bag of pig shit to snack on.
Steve argues:
“If our key goal isn’t to get people elected to public office, plenty of voters would have reason to feel defrauded.”
Maybe they wouldn’t feel defrauded if the LP didn’t give them false hope by making pie-in-the-sky predictions of likely victory. Perhaps a better approach would be to honestly recognize the position third parties have been relegated to in America and the traditional role they have played. At best, LP candidates serve as spoilers. A more realistic approach is to acknowledge that campaigns are about educating the public about issues.
Case in point: LP poster boy for electoral success Smither (who was running as a true conservative). A big fat loser who forgot to run as a true libertarian. Personally, I’d rather support a Republican (running as a true conservative) who espouses at least a few radical libertarian ideas.
December 6th, 2007 at 10:36 am
Seth,
My point is that unless and until the membership chooses a Mission Statement that is a subset of the current Bylaws Purposes statement, the LP staff should not ACT as if there is one.
This isn’t rocket science. Those favoring a restriction/focusing/whatever of the purpose statement are using their positions within the LP to create a de facto Mission Statement that was never chosen by the membership in direct contravention to what is in the Bylaws.
The staff should be directed by the LNC to stop acting as if such a Mission exists, and act instead as if they are following an organization that is run by member-approved Bylaws.
December 6th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
Susan, since changing the Purpose bylaw requires a vote, nobody is ‘using their position’, but it is being put it up for a vote of the entire membership, which is the right thing to do.
Two possible outcomes exist:
1) The Purpose will be explicitly set as saying that the LP is a political party, focused on elected candidates. Then there is no contradiction with any Mission Statement, whether the existing statement’s existence is valid or not.
2) The Purpose will remain the same, vote failed, and then your issues can and should be addressed, since having a unofficial (or quasi-official or whatever) Mission Statement that only focuses on some of the Purpose is clearly incorrect.
December 6th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
Sorry, Seth, I am afraid I am not being clear. My concern is that the ‘my issues’ (as you refer to them) need to be addressed well BEFORE - not AFTER - the convention. Waiting until AFTER the convention to stop placing the so-called Mission Statement in staff emails, on the website, and in the LP News adds a false sense of legitimacy to the (incorrect, IMO, and certainly not addressed by the current LNC) idea that there is such a Mission Statement.
People voting at the convention will be told that the Bylaws change simply ‘brings the bylaws into compliance with the current Mission Statement’ – this is exactly what happened at the NC convention. Fortunately our delegates did not fall for it, but there’s simply no excuse to even foster the confusion.
I agree with you when you write that having a unofficial (or quasi-official or whatever) Mission Statement that only focuses on some of the Purpose is clearly incorrect, which is why I can’t see why you would not immediately agree that use of this “unofficial (or quasi-official or whatever) Mission Statement” should be immediately ceased until after the convention. Why wait? If it’s wrong to have something at odds with the purposes AFTER the convention, isn’t it just as wrong to have it BEFORE the convention?
December 6th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
To expand on my previous post, here is some information from the LPNC convention “Mission Statement” debate. Sean Haugh, who is on the national LP’s staff and is active in the LPNC, argued publicly for the adoption of an elections-focused “Mission Statement” in NC as part of the bylaws revision. It failed – we had, and continue to have, a multipart Purpose Statement as does the LP at this time. What is fascinating is to see the arguments Sean used for adopting a Mission Statement:
http://www.libertyforall.net/?p=508
Right at the top Sean starts with “I’m currently serving on the Bylaws Committee of the Libertarian Party of North Carolina, and proposed that we adopt a Mission Statement copied from that adopted by the national party in convention in 1993.”
OK. What he’s referring to, apparently, is the piece of the Purpose Statement adopted in convention that he and a few others like to present as ‘the Mission Statement’. Someone not following too carefully or who is inclined to take a fellow activist at his word will (and did, I assure you) just assume that Sean (1) knew what he was talking about and/or (2) was being honest when he maintained that the national party does have an elections-centered Mission Statement.
This is either intellectual dishonesty or muddled thinking; I’ve little interest in deciding which. However, it should NOT be encouraged by the LNC, which is what they are doing by continuing to allow the non-existent so-called Mission Statement to be printed on every issue of the LP News by the staff.
If the history and veracity of the so-called Mission Statement are in doubt – and thank heavens at least most activists following along now at least acknowledge that much – then there can be no good argument for continuing to present this as an actual mission Statement until the matter is resolved. And there is a very compelling argument against it – that such repetition allows supporters of an elections-focused Mission Statement to imply that such a thing is already a ‘done deal’.
December 6th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Congrats to Stephen, best of luck to Austin.
otherwise, same old shit, I see. :/
December 6th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
Hi, Little Mr. Sunshine. (aka Tim West).
Got anything relevant/interesting/amusing/useful to say?
Nope? Thought not.
Same old shit, I see.
December 6th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
Susan, I agree with you, despite the fact that I agree with the ‘Mission Statement’ as a goal, however I have little hope of the LNC doing anything wrt the staff. IMHO, the hidden image of RP on Liberty Decides and the related letter Shane wrote, combined with a number of other issues I’ll decline to mention right now, some related to LD08, some not, point to the fact that the staff isn’t up to snuff, again, IMHO. This isn’t news to anyone who looks into national LP results and activity.
The earliest chance we have to do something about the problem, like it or not, is the convention. Electing new LNCers, who pledge to do something about the problem, is the only real fix. Regardless of whether they are Reformer or Radicals, I would hope that we can agree that anyone pledging to do so deserves our support.
December 9th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
For the specs on the glass house from which Angela is throwing her stones, see http://knowinghumans.net/2007/12/keep-holtz-locked-in-basement.html.
December 9th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
Wow, this is an interesting discussion. But I am not going to spend too much time thinking about it, as I am concentrating on Ron Paul.
He might win, and here is my latest article on the subject:
A Rigged ‘Scientific’ Poll
Deconstructed. Article by Rolf Lindgren.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/lindgren2.html