Third Party Watch has been supplied with a series of documents believed to be from the Mises Caucus presenting their organizational arrangements to prospective members. As there is great interest in the Mises Caucus, we are presenting these documents as a series here. The original PDF with color images is here.
* This document is a supplementary document to the Organizers Agreement as is the Platform, the Mises Caucus Core Values and Culture document, the Mises Caucus Structure document, and the Mises Caucus Business Plan. These documents should all be read within the context of being related to each other and before signing off on the Organizers Agreement.
Purpose of this Document
This document is to explain the expectations the Mises Caucus has of its organizers regarding their public conduct with the Mises Caucus brand, including its logos, videos, events, and social media. It also includes their conduct working on behalf of Libertarian Party Affiliates and Libertarian political campaigns.
Responsibilities
Consistency with the Mises Caucus Platform
All content generated by Mises Caucus leaders or members should be consistent with our Platform, whether the leader or member is acting on behalf of the Mises Caucus, a Libertarian Party Affiliate, or a political campaign. In the case of acting on behalf of an LP Affiliate or a political campaign, it is appropriate for a member or leader to prioritize libertarian issues not mentioned in our Platform due to local context. It is never appropriate to contradict our Platform.
When explicitly representing or serving the Mises Caucus, our priorities are the focus; when serving an affiliate or candidate, their priorities are the focus. For example, you might be working with the social media accounts for a candidate who needs to be pro-life or pro-sex work to even be given the time of day in their district. In that case, the needs of their campaign take priority. If the candidate feels that they must tweet in favor of something that violates our Platform, then the Mises Caucus Executive Committee should be informed.
Even when acting in a non-Mises Caucus role, as long as you are still an organizer or other representative of the caucus, you may not speak positively about a position that violates our Platform, such as socialism or military interventionism. Our Platform is broad enough and reasonable enough that you should not encounter any conflicts. If you do, please talk to Mises Caucus leadership about it.
Expectations for State Chapters
State chapters are subsidiaries of the Mises Caucus organization and brand. They are given a very large degree of discretion on how to carry out their mission, but are not autonomous organizations. As such, we expect the conduct and representation of the brand on a state level to represent the principles and values of the national organization as laid out in the Core Values and Culture document. We also expect them to represent, or not contradict, the particular objectives of the national organization, such as endorsed candidates for political and party office. The Mises Caucus brand and Platform are proprietary, and cannot be “customized” by its subsidiaries. To use a real world example, a McDonald’s franchisee cannot start serving pizza, change the company colors from red to green, or use Pennywise instead of Ronald McDonald as the mascot. Concerns and suggestions about the brand are what our communications channels are for.
Cohesion with Other Teams
You are part of a nationwide network and team, which means that, in some sense, everybody represents everybody else, however unfair that may be. Think about that when making statements or posts under the Mises Caucus brand and how it might reflect on the other teams. We want to do our best to stay out of each other’s way or not make each other’s jobs harder. Every state is unique, with its own culture and challenges, but we’re all part of the same community and movement. We’re not asking for rigid uniformity, just conscientious consideration of others.
If another state’s account is being attacked for something you agree with that doesn’t violate our brand or Platform, feel free to support them. Showing support for each other helps to maintain and strengthen cohesion and community. It also shows that we will fight for each other against external attackers, and shows our members that we will fight for them, too.
We work out our disagreements and form consensus using internal community channels such as our chat server, or direct communication with other organizers, especially in the case of strong disagreements. Argue and debate privately, while projecting a united front publicly. Within that private debate though, challenge each other and hold each other accountable in a professional manner as needed. Do not let disagreements devolve into public disputes among branded pages. Public disputes project disunity, weakness, and incompetence.
Public Disagreement
On rare occasions, a state affiliate, candidate, or Mises Caucus account controlled by one of our members or leaders may say or do something that creates problems in your own area of responsibility—not just one or two irrelevant complainers but a substantial number of people being angry, important local relationships being damaged, etc.—it could be because that statement violates the Platform, this brand document, or something else that is particularly egregious. If you absolutely must respond publicly to forestall serious damage to your own area of responsibility, follow these guidelines:
- If the precipitating action (usually something on social media) is not going viral (engagement metrics such as likes, comments, retweets in the single or double digits), do not engage it directly, so as not to provide an algorithmic boost to the offending action or statement. Our goal is to de-escalate bad situations, not escalate them. Make an independent statement not linked in any way to the original post so that your team is on public record not agreeing. The statement should avoid directly referencing the offending entity when possible, again to avoid assisting whatever it is in spreading. We control the burn, but have evidence of disagreement on record to be used as needed. This action does not require any consultation outside of your team and can be done at-will.
- To use Twitter as an example: Do not reply tweet, quote tweet, respond to a quote tweet, or respond to a reply tweet you were tagged in. Make your own completely separate, stand alone tweet on the matter and reference the issue there. Do likewise on other types of social media; make independent statements that do not mechanically tie or call back to the original offending statement.
- If whatever it was has already caught fire and is running wild anyway (triple digit engagement numbers, news articles, major celebrities chiming in, etc.), the “don’t throw fuel on the fire” concern goes out the window because it is already out of control. Reach out to Executive Committee leadership to discuss whether or not a direct public reply is appropriate and what kind of reply should be made. This takes time, which is why the independent response option is always available without consultation. In situations this serious, the Executive Committee leadership is typically already aware of it and should be available to give some kind of guidance. Unilaterally having public fights with other MC or MC controlled accounts is not acceptable for the reasons mentioned in the previous section.
- To use Twitter as an example again: You see that the offending tweet has had triple digit likes, high double digit retweets, a news article, some celebrity enraged in the comments, etc. You talk to an Executive Board member and explain why this tweet is causing actual problems for you in your state and they agree that it’s fine to disagree directly. You reply-tweet directly under the post, sticking to our band guidance and Platform in your response, seeking to de-escalate whenever possible.
Vulgarity
Vulgarity exists on a gradient from mild to extreme. A real-world example would be a gradient from Mister Rogers to Legion of Skanks. The Mises Caucus brand is not quite so clean as Mister Rogers, but not as wildly inappropriate as Legion of Skanks. Generally speaking, PG-13 is what we are going for, which draws the line at “fuck”. You can express vehemence without it. If Ron Paul can do it, anyone can do it, by thunder! (In fact, considering what Ron Paul would think about it is a good baseline to start from if you’re in doubt about something.) Work on your creative writing skills. We agree that Samuel L. Jackson is one articulate motherfucker, but he is not our brand.
The Mises Caucus community includes and appeals to people who swear. We don’t police it (unless people are swearing at and flaming each other), but the caucus also includes and intends to appeal to those who do not use colorful language. Refrain from its use on branded accounts. The same goes for strong sexual content (i.e., a meme that clearly refers to pornography).
Also, refrain from slang that has colorful meaning if said in plain English. While it might be fun (and potentially hilarious) to talk about “running a train” on a duopoly party candidate in the next election cycle, the meaning of that statement falls outside the more professional standard we are aiming for.
The bottom line: Keep the adult language and imagery to your own personally-owned accounts.
Finally, one of our Platform items is a rejection of identity politics, which we take seriously. Do not use insults that are based in racial, sexual preference, gender, or religious characteristics.
Handling Libertarian Controversies
The Caucus goes by the 80/20 rule with a focus on the 80 percent of issues that pretty much all libertarians agree on with a general agreement to de-emphasize the small minority of wedge issues that we disagree on. Issues like abortion and immigration that have multiple good-faith principled positions within the libertarian framework spanning the spectrum from minarchist to anarchist should be handled with that understanding in mind. It is for this reason that we are agnostic towards these positions within our Platform. If and when they do come up, try to stick to core principles without committing the brand to any one position that falls within the libertarian spectrum. If you can, steer the conversation toward areas where interference by the State makes things worse and leave the specifics to the candidates. Ask people questions about what they think, facilitate reasonable discussion, and de-escalate when necessary.
Endorsements
As covered in the Structure Document, state organizers’ domain of decision making lies within their state and only their state, though input from elsewhere is important. State teams do not have the authority to make endorsements of national candidates or national party office-holders or use the branding to oppose endorsements made by the Mises Caucus Executive Committee, but can always remain silent. If there is a case of conscientious objection to a national endorsement or decision, remain non-committal from the brand and work with ExCom or a Division Director to seek resolution if needed. State teams making their own endorsements of national candidates has the potential to create unnecessary division.
Trolling/Edgelording/Shitposting
Trolling according to Wikipedia is defined as: “…inflammatory, insincere, digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as social media, a newsgroup, forum, chat room, online video game, or blog), with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses or manipulating others’ perception.”
Trolling can be used judiciously and strategically to illustrate a point. It should not be a “go-to” tactic and trolling should not be done for trolling’s sake. Trolling should not be used on friends or allies, except when it is very obviously being done in jest. It should not be used on people or entities we might actually be able to convince or work with unless it is very easy for them to tell we are joking. It is generally reserved for enemies. You don’t want to cross the line and make our brand synonymous with trolling. Recognize your limits; most likely you are not a master of the craft like Michael Malice. Consult other members of your team before provoking some kind of engagement using trolling, and have a plan for the consequences of doing so—for example, have reams of strong proof lined up to back up your position.
Do not use official Mises Caucus social media accounts to harass or bully detractors. Our general policy is to ignore them unless they are bigger than us, in which case we take advantage of them punching down. Engage in debate, criticize their position, and even make use of trolling, but use your judgment. Do not cross the line into slander, dogpiling, or harassment.
Muting and Blocking
Make use of mute and block functions to curate your feeds. However, do not block other Mises Caucus accounts or accounts belonging to Executive Board Members.
Attend Monthly State Organizer Meetings!
The monthly state organizer meetings are where we discuss the goings-on of the Mises Caucus around the country. It is also where you can best find out what our plans are and where we can discuss issues that need addressing. We ask for active feedback and input from our organizers in the state organizer meetings and in the internal communications channels. That is how we can make the best decisions that have the closest approximation to a consensus of our leaders.
