An update on the Boston Tea Party
In several comment threads here at Third Party Watch, readers have inquired as to the current status of the Boston Tea Party.
I gave up active participation in the BTP some time ago, considering it moribund. That assessment may have been premature:
- The BTP now claims four state affiliates, up from one at the time that I parted ways with it. In addition to the existing New York affiliate, there are now Boston Tea Parties in New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Tennessee.
- The organization’s now apparently fully reconstituted national committee will meet in Denver on Sunday, May 25th, coincident with the Libertarian Party’s national convention.
- BTP chair Jim Davidson has been attending various political events (including LP state conventions and, if I am not mistaken, the Constitution Party’s national convention) and is apparently interested in running a BTP presidential slate this November.
Davidson’s articulated vision and goals for the Boston Tea Party are somewhat different than those I had in mind for it when I founded it. Not that I’m complaining, mind you—organizations evolve. I’ll follow how this one does so with interest.
May 15th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
I read the BTP website. How is it different than the Libertarian Party?
May 15th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
No ballot access and nobody running for president.
May 15th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
Why even nominate someone for president?
May 15th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
NewFed,
Well, 50-state ballot access is out of the question, obviously.
Ballot access in a handful of states, however, is not.
The BTP’s national committee is currently in violation of the organization’s bylaws. Those bylaws say that the party’s national convention has to open no later than Memorial Day, and specify a process leading out six months ahead of THAT for bylaws and platform committees. So, there’s no particular reason to believe that the organization won’t go ahead and shuck the bylaws altogether and nominate a presidential slate ad hoc in the near future (perhaps even in Denver). Apparently Alden Link is interested in their nomination. Not my cup of tea (pun intended), but …
If they do that, then they should find it reasonably easy to get on the ballot—just the presidential ticket, or perhaps a party slate—in Florida and a few other states.
If I was still active in the BTP, I’d be calling thunder down over the bylaws adherence situation … but I’m not still active in the BTP, and as long as they’re off track bylaws-wise anyway I can see how they might find it advantageous to wait until after they’ve done some things they want to do before worrying about getting back on track.
May 15th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
So, in other words, if Barr wins the nomination the radicals will walk out and run one of them on a BTP ticket?
I thought Alden Link was pro-war. His bio made him sound like an interesting enough fellow until I saw that.
May 15th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Steve,
Well, those are “other words.” They’re just not other words for what I actually reported.
To the best of my knowledge, most LP radicals are not, and never have been, affiliated with the Boston Tea Party, nor do I suspect that most of them have any desire to be so affiliated. The BTP’s membership maxed at about 300; not all of those members were also LP members; and not all of the LP members who co-affiliated with the BTP were necessarily radicals. The BTP’s platform and 2006 program are both more “moderate” in some ways than the LP’s platform.
Furthermore, most of the radicals I know, and most of the radicals who comment on TPW —myself included—have made it clear that we intend to stick with the LP whether we like the outcome of its 2008 presidential nomination contest or not.
I thought that Alden Link seemed a pretty unlikely choice myself, but I’m just telling you what I know.
May 15th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Yes, Mr. Knapp, I am stretching your words a bit to imply a radical walk-out to the BTP, but what other conclusion is one supposed to draw from this report and the links therein that the BTP
1. will meet concurrent with the LP
2. wants to nominate its own candidate
and
3. suggests choosing a candidate in Denver?
I don’t want it to sound like I’m accusing anyone of disloyalty. And I don’t necessairly fault anyone if a potential walk-out would be their strategy (indeed, its the only card we Paulites are still holding in our fight with the GOP establishment).
May 15th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
I’m really seeing no difference between BTP and the LP.
1. The Boston Tea Party calls for a complete and unconditional withdrawal of US troops from, and a cessation of US military operations against or within, Iraq.
2. The Boston Tea Party supports repeal of the USA PATRIOT Act.
3. The Boston Tea Party calls for an end to the federal prohibition of marijuana and hemp.
4. The Boston Tea Party calls for the immediate repeal of the REAL ID Act and any and all National ID plans.
5. The Boston Tea Party calls for legislation adopting an annual, regularized increase in the personal exemption to the federal income tax of $1,000 or more, and the additional application of said personal exemption to all FICA/Social Security taxes paid by employees and employers.
Little help here?
May 15th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Steve,
OK, I can see where you might infer some things from what I wrote that aren’t necessarily so. Let’s take it from the top:
“will meet concurrent with the LP”
As I understand it, BTP chair Jim Davidson has been attending LP and Constitution Party, as well as other events, to recruit support for the BTP. I don’t find it that unusual that he would want to conduct some kind of activity at the LP’s biggest biennial activity. I suppose intent to incite a “radical walkout” in the event of an unhappy (for LP radicals) convention outcome might be in his playbook, but I don’t know that it is. And I don’t think it would be a successful play if so.
“wants to nominate its own candidate”
Actually, I didn’t say that the BTP “wants to nominate its own candidate.” I said that the BTP’s chair is apparently interested in having it do so. I linked to Jim’s piece that mentions that. There’s a huge gap between his interest and any actuality—a gap that would presumably have to be filled by interest from others.
“suggests choosing a candidate in Denver?”
The BTP didn’t suggest choosing a candidate in Denver. The BTP’s chair didn’t suggest choosing a candidate in Denver. I hypothesized in comments that if the BTP decides to run a candidate, it might decide to choose that candidate in Denver. On the other hand, I pointed out that it would have to egregiously violate its own bylaws to do so. On the third hand, I pointed out that it’s already in violation of its own bylaws, so that might not stop it.
I left out a fourth hand possibility that would likely militate strongly against a BTP presidential ticket, especially one framed as an “LP radical walkout.” It’s one that I’m not interested in discussing for reasons of my own, but if comes to pass you’ll know it when you see it.
May 15th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Mike,
The BTP’s platform is intended to be welcoming to anyone who wants less, rather than more, government. It’s short, sweet and directional.
The LP’s platform is longer, more specific, and states end goals and transition conditions. It tends to call for a LOT less government, rather than welcoming anyone who wants less government.
The BTP’s program is to be adopted every two years and to incorporate a maximum of five short-term policy goals. This time it was the ones you named. Next time it might be five (or fewer) completely different ones.
The LP’s bylaws specifically prohibit its affiliates from endorsing the candidate of another party. The BTP’s bylaws specifically allow for cross-party endorsement of candidates.
I founded the BTP as a place for LP members upset with the 2006 convention platform debacle to go, in the hope that it would be a place from which they could either work with (and, if they wanted to, remain in—I did), or return to, the LP.
At the BTP’s organizational convention, I moved a resolution to constitute the BTP as an internal caucus of the LP. That resolution failed, but it has so far taken no practical steps to constitute itself as a bona fide separate party, either … although it seems to be about to take such steps.
Update with some interesting information in a moment.
May 15th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
The Boston Tea Party has a cooler name.
May 15th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
UPDATE: The following motion was passed by the BTP’s national committee earlier this month:
“[T]hat a meeting of the National Committee of the Boston Tea Party be held on Sunday, May 25, 2008 at 6:30 p.m. at The Buckhorn Exchange in Denver, Colorado (Denver’s Oldest Restaurant located at 1000 Osage Street; 303-534-9505; www.buckhorn.com); that all BTP members be invited to observe the proceedings; that all LP Presidential & Vice-Presidential Candidates be invited to seek the BTP Presidential & Vice-Presidential nomination, as well as other individuals invited by other National Committee members; and that the bylaws of the Boston Tea Party be suspended to enable the National Committee to select the Presidential & Vice-Presidential nominees of the Boston Tea Party and to conduct such other business as it deems necessary and appropriate to ensure the future of the Boston Tea Party.”
So, it looks like the BTP national committee, at least, intends to actually nominate a presidential slate, and that they’re interested in doing so from among the LP’s contenders.
The meeting is scheduled for an hour-and-a-half after the close of the LP’s convention business (assuming that we aren’t in for an all-day-and-half-the-night balloting bloodbath). So it may be that they contemplate endorsing the LP’s ticket, if they find that ticket satisfactory, rather than nominating a separate ticket.
Even if the LP’s ticket is NOT satisfactory to the BTP’s national committee, I doubt that you’ll see any of the serious LP contenders who lost running over to see if they can get the BTP’s nomination, or accepting it if it is offered.
And, if things get too silly, then I might challenge the BTP national committee’s authority to ignore—and now, per this motion, suspend—the bylaws. While I am no longer actively involved in the BTP, I am a member and therefore have standing to do so … and the wherewithal to do so effectively.
May 15th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
It’ll be bad enough seeing Chuck Baldwin and the Libertarian fighting over who’s the “real” Ron Paul heir- particularly if Paul keeps up with this infuriating policy of not endorsing either but “encouraging” both. Why add a third candidate to the mix? What exactly is it the BTP wants that they can’t get in the Libertarian or (horribly misnamed) “Constitution” Party?
May 15th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
I think that the BTP will hopefully endorse the Fringe Alliance Strategy. This is definitely the best direction for it.
May 15th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
Andy,
Good questions. I don’t have any answers for you, but good questions.
May 15th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
viz the Fringe Alliance Strategy, I have a better idea.
Since the BTP is off the bylaws tracks anyway, it could shuck its platform and instead adopt Guns and Dope Party Position Paper #23 as it’s new platform.
Then it could endorse the Guns and Dope Party’s presidential slate, which consists of everyone writing in their own name.
Of course, I’m a Guns and Dope Party deviationist—instead of writing myself in for President, I’m running as the G&D candidate for VP and declining to vote for myself.
Yrs mst sncrly,
Hon. Rev. Thomas L. Knapp, Litterarum Doctor
May 15th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
I can’t believe I let an errant apostrophe slip in there. Might have something to do with this bottle of Kentucky Tavern being mysteriously empty.
May 15th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
I really wish that the BTP was a real entity, so that the people who have more of a “book club” vision of what a political party should be would have another option and maybe not screw up the LP so much. However, it simply isn’t. It’s a blog… with 4 “state affiliates” (which are 4 smaller blogs). Their only face-to-face meeting that I’m aware of will piggyback on the LP convention in Denver this month. Bearing that fact alone in mind, let’s call a spade a spade… this is a caucus within the LP just like the Libertarian Reform Caucus (except it’s pretending to be separate for some intellectually dishonest reason). Please guys, I beg you… walk away and prove me wrong.
May 15th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
Steve,
There’s no gentle way to put this: You don’t know what you’re talking about.
– No, it’s not a “blog.” It is an organization. Its site does have blogging capabilities. So does the LP’s. Does that mean the LP is “a blog?”
– I’ve not been involved with the BTP during period in which the three new state affiliates were formed, but I know that the New York affiliate was having physical meetings when I was still involved.
– Yes, the umbrella BTP was intentionally designed with the idea that most of its official proceedings would occur online, not “face-to-face.” Its bylaws specify that the BTP’s national committee “may, and in the usual course things shall, conduct its business via Internet.”
– A “caucus within the LP” would not be holding a meeting for the purpose of nominating a presidential ticket to compete with the LP’s. Since the BTP has scheduled a meeting with precisely that purpose on its agenda, it follows that the BTP is not a “caucus within the LP.”
– Who are you begging to “walk away?” So far as I know, the only person commenting on this thread who is, or ever has been, a BTP member is me and as stated I ceased active association with the organization some time ago. I may attend its meeting in Denver to see what’s going on, but I won’t be following it down any non-LP electoral path.
May 16th, 2008 at 2:11 am
On a related note… Anyone know what’s up with the Personal Choice Party? Has it given up national aspirations to continue to focus on Utah?
May 16th, 2008 at 5:56 am
How many people belong(ed) to this New York affiliate? Were their “meetings” a couple of buddies hanging out at Starbucks, or something more legitimate (i.e. 3 or 4 guys hanging out at Starbucks)? The fact that their bylaws allow business over the Internet is not reflective of “great innovation”... it’s reflective of the fact that they HAVE to do it that way, because they’re not substantial enough to meet otherwise. Because they’re a blog.
The obvious test of credibility for a political party is whether it’s actually participated in any politics (other than the internal politics of itself and the LP). Let me propose another test… how many members of the BTP are not also on the National Committee? I’m betting zero, or close to it.
Bullshit. This “meeting” takes place at a restaurant across the street from the LP National Convention. I hate to make presumptions about the size and strength of their “Colorado affiliate” (cough)... but can you honestly say that one single person there won’t be someone who traveled there to be an LP convention delegate also?
Secondly, to my knowledge, the only “candidates” discussed or invited to speak are those individuals running for the LP nomination. They’re not selecting a “nominee” (do they even have ballot access in a single state?)... they’re deciding whether or not to endorse the LP nominee.
It’s funny how hardliners harp on Bob Barr’s PAC donations, or on the “angry Republican” wing of the LP in general… when the BTP itself is a handful of LP members attending LP conventions, endorsing LP candidates, and drifting back to the LP altogether when they get bored with it. It’s “bad” to maintain ties with another party, to sometimes be more productive in advocating for a particular issue. However, it’s “great” to maintain ties with multiple parties when that makes you makes you even LESS productive in advocating for anything. Because, really, being completely unproductive in the functional definition of “principled” that many hardliners run with.
Not talking to you specifically, Knapp. Just speaking in broader terms about anyone who says, “If the LP doesn’t do X, I’m leaving!”. When a moderate or pragmatist says that, he or she always has an option in the form of the two larger parties. When a radical says that, they’re not serious because they have no other options (other than just being a free-floating independent with no affiliation). I think it would be nice if that side did have an option too.
May 16th, 2008 at 6:00 am
Steve asks, “So, in other words, if Barr wins the nomination the radicals will walk out and run one of them on a BTP ticket?”
If Barr gets the nomination, there will probably be plenty of radicals and non-radicals refusing to vote for him, prefering instead to write-in “Ron Paul” during the general. I know many libertarians in real life, and most of them believe the government is a necessary evil—yet I don’t know even one who is interesting in voting for Barr.
I hope no one actually walks out, although I wouldn’t be surprised if they did. Barr is very unpopular amongst real world libertarians, it appears to me.
As for the Boston Tea Party, I am unfond of its platform.
Cheers,
Alex Peak
May 16th, 2008 at 6:16 am
I really wish that the BTP was a real entity, so that the people who have more of a “book club” vision of what a political party should be would have another option and maybe not screw up the LP so much.
More love for radicals from the ‘big tent’ caucus.
May 16th, 2008 at 6:29 am
Steve,
You write:
“How many people belong(ed) to this New York affiliate?”
At the time that the New York affiliate applied for recognition, it claimed five members.
“The fact that their bylaws allow business over the Internet is not reflective of ‘great innovation’ ... it’s reflective of the fact that they HAVE to do it that way, because they’re not substantial enough to meet otherwise. Because they’re a blog.”
On this, I can speak from authority—because I’ve formed political groups which meet in meatspace before, and because I wrote the bylaws. You’re just flat wrong. The bylaws were written to allow and encourage doing business over the Internet for one very simple reason: So that people could be involved without having to commit to expensive travel propositions.
In point of fact, the Libertarian National Committee and a number of state LP committees do much, maybe even most, of their business online or via teleconference, and that’s a GOOD IDEA. Why allow $50 tanks of gas or a $200 plane tickets to make participation more difficult? The main difference is that the BTP was set up to do that from the beginning in the normal course of things rather than incorporating that way of doing things into a pre-existing method. This may have something to do with the fact that it was formed in 2006 rather than in 1848 or 1971.
Then again, it may go further back than that. The colonial Committees of Correspondence were called that for a reason—rather than gathering nationally, they gathered locally and then conducted their mutual national business in written communications carried by post riders. The nice thing about a PC is that it doesn’t shit on the floor or demand oats before it takes your message where you want it to go.
“The obvious test of credibility for a political party is whether it’s actually participated in any politics (other than the internal politics of itself and the LP). Let me propose another test… how many members of the BTP are not also on the National Committee? I’m betting zero, or close to it.”
You’d lose that bet.
Since I am not the BTP’s secretary, I can’t give you an official membership report.
Since the BTP’s site happens to still reside on web space that I own (it will presumably be transferred somewhere else at some point), however, I can attest with positivity that the BTP’s national committee constitutes less than 20% of its currently registered national membership.
Presumably its actual membership is somewhat higher than that as there were nearly 300 members, more than 200 of whom I had personally verified as real human beings, at the time that the old site consploded and its registration database was lost. I don’t know how many of those members haven’t dropped by the site since that happened but still consider themselves affiliated with the BTP … but hell, the national CHAIR only re-registered at the site a couple of weeks ago.
“This ‘meeting’ takes place at a restaurant across the street from the LP National Convention.”
And the Democratic Party’s national convention will take place in Denver, too. Does that mean the Democratic Party is an internal caucus of the LP?
“I hate to make presumptions about the size and strength of their ‘Colorado affiliate’ (cough)...
You don’t have to—they don’t HAVE a Colorado affiliate, although they hope to organize one.
“but can you honestly say that one single person there won’t be someone who traveled there to be an LP convention delegate also?”
To the best of my knowledge, the BTP’s chair is not an LP convention delegate (he’s from Missouri, and I didn’t notice him on the state LP’s delegate or alternate list). As to the other national committee members, I don’t know whether they are delegates or not.
“Secondly, to my knowledge, the only ‘candidates’ discussed or invited to speak are those individuals running for the LP nomination. They’re not selecting a “nominee” (do they even have ballot access in a single state?)... they’re deciding whether or not to endorse the LP nominee.”
I suspect that they may do the latter, but they have clearly indicated their intent to do the former. As far as ballot access goes, IF they decide to run a slate they can almost certainly achieve ballot access in at least one state (Florida), and they claim to be considering an effort to achieve it in Tennessee and Louisiana as well. Richard Winger would be the guy to ask what their chances are in those states.
“Not talking to you specifically, Knapp. Just speaking in broader terms about anyone who says, ‘If the LP doesn’t do X, I’m leaving!’.”
Okay, so you’re describing a class of people. If that class exists, surely you can name at least ONE MEMBER of said class, right?
May 16th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Boston Tea Party is a AWESOME name!
May 17th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
While BTP is an earcatching name, at least the disorganized anarchists of the Lib Party USA have a telephone and mailing address! Right Sue? Hey, even the blogglidides of the Unity Party has a POB!——Don Lake
May 19th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Two previous posts to this thread don’t appear here. Not sure why. Trying again.
I’m not sure that the LP is ineffectual. It is certainly gaining
some attention now that major party candidates like Mike Gravel
and Bob Barr are attracted to it. However, I think what we saw in
2006 in Portland shows that the LP needs to be “kept honest.” I
see the Boston Tea Party as a watchdog for the LP, staying firmly
to the tip of the Nolan Chart, and giving the radical, hard core,
dedicated anarcho-capitalist LP members a place to go if the Reform Caucus is successful in pursuit of its determination to taint everything libertarian with the “we don’t wish to offend” brush.
Like any good student of history, I’m aware that politics tends to
move toward the available center. People compromise. It is in
their nature to cooperate, which is what free markets are all about.
And, in cooperating, they seek common ground.
So, our role as the Boston Tea Party is to hold down the extreme. We should push further out into the territory of less government, less restriction, more liberty, greater security for private property, and more free markets. If the Democrats and Republicans try to compromise with the LP, they’ll find us even more radical and difficult.
So, how are we doing so far?
Here’s where the Boston Tea Party stands right now. We have the
following officer core:
Chair—Jim Davidson
Vice-Chair—Tom Stevens
Secretary—Michelle Luetge
At-Large—Michael W. Reid, Jr.
At-Large—Alex Fitzsimmons
At-Large—Rocco Fama
and we have affiliates in NY, NJ, PA & now TN. I would like to
add Colorado to that set. I also have contacts in Kansas, in
Wyoming, and in Texas. I might be able to add Missouri. Dr. Tom
says he may be able to get a team in Louisiana if all goes well.
Joe Black and Bo Shaffer in Colorado contacted me about forming an affiliate there.
We actually have some people seeking to run as candidates who would finance our ballot access work in several states.
May 19th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
Because Mr. Knapp’s resignation from the national committee and his failure to organize a convention for the Boston Tea Party prior to the required Memorial Day Weekend deadline and announce it six months in advance is now being blamed by him on me, I won’t seek to chair the party after the convention in October. I agreed to do my best to organize the party for the 2008 political silly season, so loud mouth know it alls could call me names and announce their foolishness on this site, among many others. I’ve kept up my side of the deal.
What Mr. Knapp does not mention is that he left too little time when he left the organization to make it possible to meet the bylaws deadline for 2008’s convention and the announcement thereof. Pondering this difficulty, in April, we announced two conventions. The convention in Denver takes place before the Memorial Day Weekend deadline has passed. It is an informal convention. The formal, rules-burdened, online convention is in October, on or about the 24th of October, at 10 p.m. Mr. Knapp would have been welcome to read about this event at the Yahoo group where discussions were taking place while he fiddled around with permissions on the bostontea.us site, after several times threatening to end the site entirely. The event in October has the option of validating the choices we take in Denver this weekend, or not. Like all membership organizations, it won’t be any good unless it is very nearly out of control.
For my own part, I don’t particularly appreciate his self-centered ideas on how to involve other people in a new organization he can’t be bothered to organize and lead himself.
As to this idiotic idea he has that Bob Barr would be a “smaller government” candidate of any kind, I fully intend to fight tooth and nail any endorsement of any such ridiculous war mongering hateful cretin. Were Barr interested in a smaller government, he would not have insisted on a “revenue neutral” national sales tax to replace the income tax. The Ron Paul proposal for an end to the personal income tax, replaced with nothing, is the gold standard on that issue.
Finally, I think the idea of online only is unworkable. What has made the Ron Paul campaign so energizing is hundreds of Meet Up groups actually having many thousands of meetings, so far. They have discussions online, but they meet in person. Clearly, Mr. Knapp’s team’s failure to put together a working national committee after over a year of only meeting online is symptomatic of an organization that could not continue the way it was.
I shall enjoy most thoroughly the process of over-ruling him, and all the other procedural ninnies, during the course of this year’s conventions. The bylaws dependent personality is always found using the “exclusive we.”
Thus, their proposals, “We should avoid violating rule seventeen B by having those of you on the national committee agree to three motions which you’ll need to draft and which I’ll review closely….” The exclusive “we” is that group which the author never intends to lift a finger to help, but whose efforts he’s determined to damn to the flames of perdition, frequently and vehemently.
Finally, what about a modern day “Tea Party”? I wonder what the world would be like if, each 15th of April, the liberty enthusiasts of the world met outside their local post offices, in disguises, of course, and identified those trucks headed to the city where the IRS was collecting payments. And did…whatever came to mind.
May 23rd, 2008 at 2:30 am
Susan’s comment is particularly interesting. The big tent libertarians want a tent big enough for everyone who isn’t libertarian, but too small for anyone who is purely libertarian.
Or, maybe, they want to tilt the tent poles to shade those on the side nearest the Demopublicans, at the expense of us nearest the pure corner. The problem with that strategy that I see, in addition to pissing off the core libertarians, is the opportunity to have the whole tent collapse.