Mon 26 Jun 2006
This weekend, the Libertarian Party will have an opportunity to turn around their ongoing decline. But the list of candidates seeking to lead the LP is not particularly inspiring. Even if the best of the party is selected this weekend to lead us into the future, we have regressed so far that it will take 10 years just to get us back to where we were 5 years ago.
And then, once we reach that point, the know-it-alls will launch their attacks and bring the whole thing to a screeching halt again. I have no hope that this cycle will end.
But, I am a libertarian. I believe in the libertarian philosophy and I believe in the non-aggression principle. Joining the Republicans or Democrats is not an option for me.
We need a new paradigm for creating a libertarian society.
Certainly I am not the first one to think this. Several other people have recognized this and launched their own efforts at a new paradigm. The Cato Institute is one such organization – financially the most successful, but still, they have had limited effectiveness.
The Advocates for Self-Government is another such organization. They are an extraordinary organization, but their mission of teaching Libertarians to be better communicators is like casting pearls before swine. Many people may recall the visceral response I received when I suggested that a candidate “flashing for cash” was an embarrassment.
And, of course, there is the Free State Project. It appears to be a failing project and they seem to have created a lot of animosity in New Hampshire. And, face it, the Free State Project is the libertarian equivalent of Zionism.
One reader has suggested to me that we start a new political party – with bylaws to protect from these hostile, destructive takeovers. But I don’t believe the destructive egomaniacs can be kept away. There are people who will destroy a thing just to prove they can.
Right now, I feel like all the time and money I invested in the Libertarian Party is being stolen by people who aren’t libertarians. I’m not ready to invest my time and money again until I know that investment will be secure.
So I begin the process of looking for a new paradigm. Suggestions are welcome.
44 Responses to “Seeking a New Paradigm”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
June 26th, 2006 at 11:21 pm
Administrator wrote:
“Even if the best of the party is selected this weekend to lead us into the future, we have regressed so far that it will take 10 years just to get us back to where we were 5 years ago.”
Our current “membership” (pre zero dues definition) is approximately at the level we were at in 1996. In principle, with the right strategy and execution, we should be able to regain the ground we’ve lost in about four years.
In practice, it will likely take somewhat longer. People aren’t going to be as inspired the second time around as they were the first time, which is going to make fundraising more challenging. OTOH, if we will learn from our previous successes and avoid past mistakes, we could grow even faster than before.
June 27th, 2006 at 12:14 am
Greg:
You sound pessimistic. You know more about what’s going on than I do, so I’ll assume that’s an accurate estimation.
For most of my life I followed Browne’s admonition in “How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World”,that to avoid engagement in anything governmental, as much as practical. And as such, found involvement in the Libertarian Party, of which I was only peripherally aware, an excercise in futility.
Then, as I have frequently elaborated, came the 2000 “presidential” “elections”.
Then came 911, which consequences I fully anticipated:
http://www.smallgov.org/?p=69
One thing you can do is continue this blog (count on my continued support). If the Taliban can mount a comeback, so can we.
Additionally, the reformers must, of necessity, fail. If they achieve complete control, they will fail, as their approach cannot, by it’s very nature, be made to work.
Beyond that, there’s the problem of the reformers actions giving Libertarianism a used car salesman-bad rep. At least as a form of political activism.
But I think a solution for that lies here:
http://www.smallgov.org/?p=172
After all, Libertarianism is about promoting Liberty, no? But isn’t Responsiblity just as significant and important? Aren’t they really inextricable essential recipricals of the same whole?
You can’t expect the reformers to grasp that, can you? Thus they stumble, inevitably.
So, perhaps Libertarianism, so besmirched, must be left behind, in pursuit of Autonomy.
Perhaps this is the new paradigm you seek; just a thought.
Now shut up, Robert.
—The Bikemessenger
June 27th, 2006 at 6:52 am
Greg blathered:
And, of course, there is the Free State Project. It appears to be a failing project and they seem to have created a lot of animosity in New Hampshire.
Greg, you, as usual, have no clue about what you are talking about.
The Free State Project is not failing, and has not generated a ‘lot of animosity’. In fact, the opposite of both.
Success is measured in how many people have moved or are planning on moving. 150+ people have already moved, and (based on data collected from those at PorcFest (350+) this past weekend), many dozens will be more moving in the next year or two. At this rate, we can count on a steady stream of movers for years to come. In fact, the successes so far are based on handfuls of activists… give us double handfuls and watch out… we have learned we don’t need 20K, a mere 1K would be more than enough.
The FSP is not about taking over NH, it’s about getting involved in the process, and at that, we’ve been a huge success. For every negative attack by the Democratic Chair or the incumbent Republican Senator because he was on the wrong side of an issue, there have been dozens of positive responses from locals, many of whom are saying things like ‘We could use a few more of you FreeStaters here in town’. Those who have been elected to various offices, or even who have run (such as myself), have found that the positive sentiments far outweigh the negative, because we are part of a grand tradition already here in New Hampshire, and we are simply an further expression of a native sentiment of smaller, more responsible, locally controlled government.
I’m a proud supporter of Libertarian reform.
It’s people like you that are the problem, frankly, and perhaps it’s time you DO find a new party. The extremist positions and planks have to go, because the only way you win is to get elected, and losing voters who otherwise support you over one extreme view they don’t agree with is a plainly losing strategy.
June 27th, 2006 at 7:20 am
And, BTW, this past weekend, I had a long argument with a fellow FSPer, both of us Jewish by birth, arguing over the FSP as Zionism issue. He supports Israel and Zionism, and felt that a ‘little bit of police state’ was acceptable for the greater good of Israel’s existence. I, on the other hand, feel that any amount of police state is a bad thing, and that Israel’s good is far outweighed by what it takes to survive there. If the FSP attempted to create a society in which the only way to maintain a ‘libertarian’ society was by force, by armed guards and id cards and curfews, it would be a failure. Many of those who desired a “Galt’s Gulch” approach also favored moving to Wyoming or other Western states, for just such a reason: they wanted to be left alone first and foremost. Those moving to New Hampshire want to be “good neighbors” first and foremost. Most of us are working within the system, and those who aren’t interested in the system are being activists in other ways, such as non-violent resistance, newspaper publishing, and protests. We don’t have a miltia minded crowd here.
When someone moves in, and dozens of ’selfish libertarians’ show up to help them unload the truck, it’s clear we’re about community. When we hold a free BBQ, and voluntary donations more than pay for it, we know we’re on the right track. When our parties and monthly get-togethers are already drawing more people than most states’ annual LP convention does, we know we did the right thing: we made the move.
June 27th, 2006 at 7:28 am
And yet, you folks couldn’t get Badnarik on the ballot. Only two states didn’t - Oklahoma, which has one of the most difficult ballot access requirements, and New Hampshire, which has one of the easiest.
Great bunch of activists!
June 27th, 2006 at 7:42 am
The Free State Project set a goal of 20,000 people moving to a specific state. You can’t even get that many to agree to it in theory. If I recall correctly, the goal was 20,000 signed up by 2006 (what year is this)?
And within 5 years, those 20,000 are to be relocated to New Hampshire.
You had 5,000 people signed up in 2003 when you selected New Hampshire. Now, 3 years later, 3% of that 5,000 have moved there. I don’t really think we can trust your projections. I suspect the first Free State settlers will be dying of old-age before you get 1,000 moving to New Hampshire.
Not everybody is happy about FSP’s presence in New Hampshire. See: http://www4.fosters.com/june_2004/june_20_04/sports/ap_nh0620a.asp
I guess it’s a matter of perspective. You consider that success. I consider it failure. After all, Jim Jones got 914 people to drink the Kool-Aid.
June 27th, 2006 at 9:52 am
Greg continued blathering:
And yet, you folks couldn’t get Badnarik on the ballot.
1) In early 2004, very few had moved yet. By fall 2004, we’d just reached 50 movers. Of the few who had moved, many helped collect signatures.
2) Badnarik’s ballot access was sabotaged by the paid signature collectors (hired by those outside of NH) [Gee, perhaps you had something to do with that Greg?] who didn’t understand that having the same registered voter sign for both Nader and Badnarik to get access was illegal (only the first signature counted, and when Nader got his submitted first, that created a mess, which the Democrats took advantage of to help Kerry’s potential totals).
3) There is ample evidence that even validly collected signatures were not certified in a timely manner by local election officials. The machine did not want Badnarik on the ballot, since NH was heavily invested in by Kerry forces.
In other words, Badnarik’s ballot access had nothing to do with the FSP’s success or failure. Putting Badnarik on the NH ballot wouldn’t have mattered anyway, in the long run, thanks to neo-luddites like Fred… My favorite keepsake from the Badnarik Campaign is a email diatribe from Fred to me saying that “The Internet doesn’t matter.”
June 27th, 2006 at 10:30 am
Greg rambled on:
The Free State Project set a goal of 20,000 people moving to a specific state. You can’t even get that many to agree to it in theory.
The FSP set a number based on a calculation Jason Sorens made in theory: ~20K to influence a population of one million. He’s since realized that major factors, including open access to government, can greatly change that number. Here in NH, we don’t need 20K… and NH insiders said that from the beginning, though few understood. In other states, with an equal population, it might take far more, but NH’s unique political makeup reduces the figure substantially.
If I recall correctly, the goal was 20,000 signed up by 2006 (what year is this)?
Incorrect, but I won’t blame you, as there was a _vast_ perception of a 2006 deadline, despite that it was never official. (Even FSP officials repeated it a few times). The FSP board addressed that earlier this year: In Sept 2006, those who wish to withdraw, due to their misunderstanding that 2006 was a cutoff, are welcome to do so.
And within 5 years, those 20,000 are to be relocated to New Hampshire.
Within 5 years of reaching 20K. Since that hasn’t happened, _no_one has to move. All of us who have are _early_ movers.
You had 5,000 people signed up in 2003 when you selected New Hampshire.
And after the vote, those who opted out of NH prior to the vote were removed from the list… so the total number dropped ~1500 to 3500. Since 2003, we’ve regained numbers back to 7100+, so that’s at least roughly doubling, all of whom know exactly where we plan on moving this time.
Now, 3 years later, 3% of that 5,000 have moved there. I don’t really think we can trust your projections. I suspect the first Free State settlers will be dying of old-age before you get 1,000 moving to New Hampshire.
hehehe, far from it. The ‘official’ count is low, given those who don’t want to be ‘put on a list’ even one FSP owned, so I know for a fact the number is higher than we publicize… despite ZERO obligation on anyone to move.
The First1000 pledge is focusing on people who will move in the next 2 years… The number of pledgers is already over 1/3 of the way, and many of those plan on moving regardless of having 999 others sign, so even if nobody else signs the pledge before the end of the year (unlikely), we still can expect to roughly double our number of movers in the next 2 years.
As those who attended PorcFest last weekend discovered, this is working already, and more people are making up their mind to move based on that…. so I expect it will accelerate, as those “waiting to see” see more results, decided to take the plunge and get involved themselves.
Not everybody is happy about FSP’s presence in New Hampshire.
I never said _everybody_ was. Of course, you focus on the one major negative event, from which the main troublemaking individual who stirred up a hornet’s nest intentionally was removed from the FSP rolls, and he’s since moved on to try Texas with little better PR results.
I guess it’s a matter of perspective. You consider that success. I consider it failure. After all, Jim Jones got 914 people to drink the Kool-Aid.
Oooh… Cult reference. I’m scared. (grin)
Anyone who doubts the FSP’s successes has never visited and seen for themselves. Here’s an open invitation to anyone who wishes to find more… Contact me or any of the other FSP mover already in NH and we’ll be glad to help you. Contact Info can be found on the website.
June 27th, 2006 at 11:20 am
BikeMessenger:
“Beyond that, there’s the problem of the reformers actions giving Libertarianism a used car salesman-bad rep.”
Interesting allusion.
I’ve been told, but haven’t verified, that prominent “libertarian communicator” Michael Cloud does, indeed, have a background in used car sales. Cloud is hardly part of the “reformer” crowd.
While I’d be among the last people classified as a Close Personal Friend of Michael Cloud, even I won’t argue against the claim that he’s achieved some noteworthy results in his own campaigns and those of others.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
June 27th, 2006 at 12:51 pm
In order to succeed in actually reducing the size, power, expense, and intrusiveness of government, we have to find strategies that can unite Libertarians from across the spectrum of libertarian thought. Strategies that divide us are dooomed to fail, whether advanced by “reformers”, “purists”, or any other party “faction”.
June 27th, 2006 at 3:01 pm
It just tears at my heart to not be attending this year’s convention - especially because it’s just up the street from me. I just couldn’t live with myself and stay a member of a party which advocates positions which directly contradict its platform.
That said, if the “reformers” are successful in changing (aka watering down) the platform, then more power to ‘em - they got involved and they fought the fight. In a sense, I should really shut up and not criticize because I was the chicken - I quit the party instead of standing up and yelling at the top of my lungs that the IES was the most colossal mistake the party’s ever made (and there have been some doozies). I did make my statement, tho, when I wrote the national chair (enclosing my membership card) and cc’d the state chair.
As a six-time recipient of a Lights of Liberty award from the Advocates, I am a fan of their great work - but as you said, it is rather limited in scope. I think they take on a very difficult mission, because so many Libertarian candidates are clearly unqualified to represent the party to the electorate. Unfortunately, I think those people are either beyond the reach of the Advocates, or don’t think they need any improvement at all! I celebrate the Advocates (and other organizations) - and while I am no longer a “L”ibertarian, I am still a “l”ibertarian, and a member of a number of organizations which aren’t officially affiliated with the LP.
The LP is at a very critical moment - whether to jettison its principles in a vain search for electability, or to stand true and tall as the only political party which *has* principles. I certainly hope it’s the latter.
June 27th, 2006 at 3:23 pm
It will be interesting to see which players emerge on what fields and in what kind of uniforms after the convention.
I don’t find the lines of division to be nearly as clear-cut as Greg seems to. For all the kvetching about “purists” versus “non-purists,” most party conflicts over the last decade or so have included members of both putative factions on all sides. Ideological purity isn’t a good benchmark on which to measure competence of corporate governance, acumen for marketing, or any number of other issues which are relevant to the LP’s situation.
Tom Knapp
June 27th, 2006 at 3:27 pm
New paradigm? Here’s my $0.20:
1) Help build counter-government institutions. Not institutions desgined to knock down big interventionist government, but institutions which will replace the services government provides now. Private schools, private libraries, private parks, private roads — the things people thing *have* to be done by government… start doing them yourself. Go into business. Start working to improve social welfare in ways that don’t involve government, rather than (like most libertarians) ranting about “how much better things could be.” Demonstrate the world that it *is* possible, and success will follow success. Help build up the institutions which will “take over” the provision of services in non-forceful ways — this makes the libertarian argument easier, because people will see that it *is* possible, and it eases any potential pains of the transition.
2) Stop being so negative. Even if you are right, Greg, nobody likes or wants to listen to a whiner, which is what you are.
June 27th, 2006 at 3:51 pm
Zionists chose Palestine because the geographical location had certain historic and mythic associations, not because they found anything attractive about the indigenous society and culture. They didn’t want to join that society, participate in its institutions and transform them from within. The wanted to replace it.
When Russian, Polish, and German Jews came off the boat in Tel Aviv, they set about learning the language of their new nation - Hebrew, not Arabic.
Not surprisingly, the outcome was armed conflict between two alien societies. As observed by many, particularly the exasperated British diplomats who tried to work out some solution, the problem was that there were now two ‘nations’ in one country.
I don’t know much about FSP. From what’s been said above I do see some interesting parallels with the Zionist experience. But I think ‘libertarian equivalent of Zionism’ is overstated and quite misleading.
June 27th, 2006 at 7:53 pm
Seth Cohn: It is always wise to revise projections and strategy as new data makes itself available. Now that you have new data, what are the new goals?
June 27th, 2006 at 8:08 pm
Tom Knapp: It is “you people” that started putting labels on everybody.
If somebody opposed zero dues they were accused of being a purist who wanted to keep the party small.
If somebody opposed the Iraq Exit Strategy they were accused of being a purist.
If somebody favored the pledge they were called an anarchist.
You and your buddies drew the lines. I didn’t even start my blog until long after you folks drew the lines.
Seth Anthony: Get off your double standard. When “you people” complain and criticize you consider it constructive, but if I do it, you call it whining.
Understand that the things I am saying represent the views of a significant part of the LP membership. They may not agree with me 100%, but we share a vision that “you people” are destroying.
There are many people that call me up and say they won’t comment on my blog because they can’t stand to be attacked the way “you people” attack me. Then they urge me to keep blogging.
Some people, will only comment via an alias.
Is that the kind of LP “you people” want to create? A party where people are afraid to speak is what “you people” are turning this into.
June 27th, 2006 at 8:11 pm
David Tomlin: But I think ‘libertarian equivalent of Zionism’ is overstated and quite misleading.
I’m not the first to use that phrase, and if you read the comments, you will see that the Free Staters made the comparison before I ever did.
June 27th, 2006 at 9:22 pm
Greg,
You write:
—–
Tom Knapp: It is “you people” that started putting labels on everybody.
If somebody opposed zero dues they were accused of being a purist who wanted to keep the party small.
—–
You really, really, really need to define who the hell this “you people” and “you and your buddies” are.
Being a “purist” and an anarchist myself, why would I “accuse” people of being those things? When it comes to me, personally, you’re picking a fight that just doesn’t exist.
I wasn’t even in the LP when zero dues was under consideration. I believe I made a mild comment or two in its favor, but I didn’t regard it as an issue of “purism,” nor did I ever accuse those who opposed it of “wanting to keep the party small.”
Yes, there is a dividing line in the party between “purists” and “pragmatists,” but not every conflict in the party can be magically sorted out by looking at who’s on either side of that line and assuming that they are on a particular side of a particular issue.
Even given a reasonably narrow definition:
Bumper Hornberger is a purist.
Harry Browne was a purist.
Michael Cloud is a purist.
L. Neil Smith is a purist.
Are you suggesting that the four of them comprised a group or part of a group that agreed on everything circa, say, 1998-2000? I think you know better.
Now, here’s the thing:
There are few enough libertarians that if we’re ever going to get anywhere, we have to eventually start burying the hatchets somewhere besides in each others’ skulls.
Yes, I’ve spent my share of time on the warpath — mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
And yes, my point of view does often cause me to take issue with others, or move others to take issue with me.
While YOU are on the warpath yourself, taking scalps and avenging past perceived wrongs, I don’t expect you to take me at my word when I say I am looking for a place in the movement that doesn’t involve being on the warpath against anyone other than the enemies of freedom.
But, once your arm gets tired and that tomahawk starts feeling heavy and you decide to take a break, I hope you’ll consider the possibility that that may be true, and then weigh such evidence as you can find to reach a conclusion as to whether or not it is.
In the meantime, I broadly share your concerns about the future of the LP, and probably for SOME of the same reasons.
If the LP tanks completely (and to be honest, I think it probably has until Labor Day or so at the outside unless something drastic that I don’t foresee happens), I’ll accept any share of the blame that can be reasonably assigned me, I’ll try not to be too quick to assign blame to others, and most importantly I’ll look for opportunities to work and/or support others in working to achieve the ends which the party was founded to achieve.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
June 27th, 2006 at 11:28 pm
Seth Cohn:
Thank you for your discription of the FSP; I had been seriously considering joining.
Now there’s one less trouble-making undesirable to worry about for you.
And a really bad decision on my part avoided.
—Thank you
To me, it doesn’t remind of Zionism, but it does smack of this:
http://www.parecon.org/thissite.htm
To which I say this:
http://www.solopassion.com/node/469#comment-3100
Mr. Cohn continues:
“The extremist positions and planks have to go, because the only way you win is to get elected, and losing voters who otherwise support you over one extreme view they don’t agree with is a plainly losing strategy.”
This is classic reformers sloppy, simplistic logic that fails to account for the historical purpose of third partys in American politics.
The Dem/Rep factions of the war party succeed by winning elections, therefore, for the LP to “succeed”, it must also win elections.
But the LP’s goals are not the crass, mundane lust for personal prestige and power of the war party. (Or at least, that’s the supposition).
They are more akin to the goals of American socialists of a century ago, in that the goal is to effect changes in the social structure.
Ultimately, goals of this nature cannot be achieved merely by advancing one’s self (or one’s party) up the power structure as it stands (although that may serve as a secondary contributory factor), but to change the opinions of a sufficient number people to garner support for fundamental change.
And no, you cannot “change” “public” opinion; only sentient individual entities,by nature, can have opinions. “The public”, not an entity, cannot have an opinion. These metaphysical abstracts seem lost on the reformers, but at least a servicable intuitive grasp must be achieved for a working understanding of the situation.
There is no point to employing marketing tech to make LP candidates attractive to voters if said voters are not supportive of Libertarian changes.
Ultimately, public support must be acquired BEFORE meanigful change can accrue.
But all the reformers can focus on is winning elections. Invariably, this is spoken of as an end in itself. Clearly, as this seems to exhaust their capacity to focus at all, appearing to them a comprehensive whole.
Recently, LP founder David Nolan gave a speech to the Ohio Libertarian State Convention 2006:
http://www.ernesthancock.com/archive/media/2006-06-18-bonus.mp3
Part of that speech:
“It is time for us to recognize that for the foreseeable future, our mission is NOT to win elections, but to build a mighty cadre of dedicated libertarian activists who stand uncompromisingly for liberty, and who are willing to do something about it. When the Libertarian Party has 50,000 or 100,000 active members, we will be a force to be reckoned with in the political arena.”
Contrary to reformer epistemology, this is not purported here to be true because “David Nolan says so”, but because it is the objective truth.
More importantly, Nolan quotes Mid-20th century socialist Party Presidential candidate Norman Thomas, when questioned why he declined to run again after 1948, to the effect that there was no need, as his policies were already in place. Thomas, of course never won a presidential election.
Would someone kindly explain how Mr. Thomas “failed”???
Seth Cohn again:”…the only way you win is to get elected…”
The criteria for truth here; that which I prefer stands.
Reformers are unable to grasp that their whims cannot change the abstract structure of reality. That they cannot get by on mere simplictic, concrete bound, history-denying logic-of-the-moment.
There are historical patterns that must be addressed; there are entities and social structures who’s nature must be understood if sense is to be made of cause and effect relationships.
—The Bikemessenger
June 27th, 2006 at 11:30 pm
Tom wrote: “If the LP tanks completely (and to be honest, I think it probably has until Labor Day or so at the outside unless something drastic that I don’t foresee happens),…”
Your prediction reminds me of what a long-time LP member told me about Mike Dixon and his ilk regarding the decline of the LP of Illinois: that if they weren’t sent in to destroy the LPI by political opponents (or the goofermint), they sure acted as if they were.
June 27th, 2006 at 11:45 pm
Thomas L. Knapp Says:
June 27th, 2006 at 11:20 am
BikeMessenger:
“I’ve been told, but haven’t verified, that prominent “libertarian communicator” Michael Cloud does, indeed, have a background in used car sales. Cloud is hardly part of the “reformer” crowd.”
Tom:
Be that as it may, thank you for putting me in my place.
As a pursuer of a vocation often derided (pun intended) for ignorance and suicidal foolishness, I should be above that sort of insensitive stereotyping.
Thanks again for the lift.
And apologys, if due, to Mr. Cloud, who I appreciate and respect.
Oh, and BTW, to outsiders, no, it’s not “death wish”; it’s a combo of skill and sublimation of fear to competitve excitement.
We view it as a fair fight, you get to drive cars, and we get to kick your butts! HA HA HA
—THE Bikemessenger
June 28th, 2006 at 12:24 am
Steve Dasbach Says:
June 27th, 2006 at 12:51 pm
“Strategies that divide us are dooomed to fail, whether advanced by “reformers”, “purists”, or any other party “faction”.”
But it is not strategies that divide us. As I avered in an earlier comment that has yet to appear as I write (although a succeeding one has—very weird, if you ask me).
The conflict is at a very fundamental philosophical level; it amounts to us understanding where we’re coming from, and them denying that they are, metaphorically speaking, coming from anywhere.
Rather, like the chimp-from-hell in the White House, they’re always “moving forward”.
“we have to find strategies that can unite Libertarians from across the spectrum of libertarian thought.”
That’s an impertinent paradigm. You’re not trying to unite from “…across the spectrum of libertarian thought.”
You’re trying unite Libertarians who think critically and “libertarians” who deny the very efficacy of thought.
I can understand how that might be obscured by our avowal of common end, but it is the case none the less.
And besides,as I frequently ask my fellow commentators at ADS, why do they (we) need to “unite” anyway?
Look at prominent and emerging movements in the world today; the Iraqi insurgency, al-Qaida.
They drive the Washington facsists nuts, due in part, no doubt, to their lack of unity.
“Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet deprecate agitation, are men who want rain without thunder and lightining. They want the ocean without the roar of it’s many waters.”
—Fredrick Douglass
Can the dirigisme.
—The Bikemessenger
June 28th, 2006 at 12:43 am
Seth Cohn Says:
“Greg continued blathering:”
“Greg rambled on:”
Is it me, or do these people always preface a quotation from our side of the argument with a flowery epithet?
June 28th, 2006 at 4:57 am
New Hampshire Ballot Access
The NH ballot access drive was run by a long-time NH Libertarian, not someone who the nonpartisan (includes Democrats, Republicans, and Greens) Free State Project had persuaded to move to NH. So far as I could tell from one state over, the LPNH leadership did not view Presidential Ballot access is their first priority, and the fellow running it thought he was going to have enough signatures until the Nader/Badnarik issue cropped up.
This year, the LPNH appears likely based on filings to elect a half dozen or so of their members to the state legislature, replacing the one they had three years ago (elected as an L).
June 28th, 2006 at 10:14 am
George,
A bit off topic, but can you elaborate on the LPNH state legislature candidates? Are they running fusion campaings as Libertarians and Republicans/Democrats?
June 28th, 2006 at 1:02 pm
Jim: No,they aren’t running Fusion, they are running as pure D or Rs…
Fusion is only useful when you have a ballot line regardless. When Harry Browne costs the LP their party status in 2000, it’s been an uphill battle to get it back… Which is why John Babiarz, LPNH Chair, is himself running as a Democrat - to show that the ballot access laws need reform. His wife, Rosalie is running as a Republican.
June 28th, 2006 at 1:04 pm
RNoval: I preface my quotes, and the tone used is a reaction to Greg’s verbals attacks on me and others with words like ‘Goons’. If he was more polite, rest assured, I would be as well. But he’s not.
June 28th, 2006 at 1:27 pm
Greg asked:
It is always wise to revise projections and strategy as new data makes itself available. Now that you have new data, what are the new goals?
Ther Board did so back in November 2005
The First1000 idea is one piece of changing the focus and goals.
I’m not a board member, so I don’t claim to speak for the org. I do know that the idea of reducing the ‘official’ number from 20K isn’t a popular one, since it would be seen by some (similar to your original post) as lowering expectations or admitting ‘defeat’.
Focusing on early movers is one way to have cake and eat it too.
June 28th, 2006 at 3:55 pm
Seth,
Precisely how did Harry “cost” the LPNH their ballot line in 2000?
Even if the presidential campaign is the only race on which the ballot line is based (haven’t the foggiest), that doesn’t mean that the presidential candidate is the only one responsible for turning out voters for the party’s line.
In Missouri, our ballot access threshold is fairly low (2% in any statewide race secures access for the next four years), but we’ve maintained it since 1992 without a presidential candidate ever meeting it for us (and I doubt you’ll hear us blaming a presidential candidate if we lose it).
Regards,
Tom Knapp
June 28th, 2006 at 9:03 pm
What about KOS ?
Why not go after his ilk instead of ours ?
What about KOS ?
His minions have a whole convention.
What about KOS ?
I’ll be the candidate with a red goatee at the convention. See you soon. Thomas Kuhn session on paradigms in the VIP lounge.
June 28th, 2006 at 11:22 pm
Because KOS and his ilk have done far less to destroy the LP than Dixon and his ilk.
I won’t be at the convention. I’ll be the guy doing what he can to support his local Libertarian Party in their local Independence Day Parade outreach, one of the most important outreach days we have, in my arrogant opinion. That’s why most candidates spend it meeting voters, rather than holed-up in a third-party national convention.
All politics is local. Most of the LP has no “local.” But, the LP plenty of petty politicians at the top.
June 29th, 2006 at 6:10 am
Actually, I’m not “going after” anybody. I was making comments on the LP’s new Communications Director — somebody I believe is only fit for a stint on the Jerry Springer Show — and the same people who defended the flashing for cash, pantiless, peeing off the back porch gubernatorial candidate starting commenting on my blog in his defense. As far as I’m concerned, that proved the Jerry Springer point completely.
June 29th, 2006 at 6:18 am
Tom Knapp: You can say you are an anarchist and a purist until you are blue in the face, but your walk doesn’t match your talk.
Your rationalizations in defense of the Iraq Exit Strategy are not statements that would be made by a purist or anarchist.
Your arguments against the non-aggression certification, where your obvious disdain for the “anarchist pledge” comes through, is yet another example.
I’m not a purist (though it is something I aspire to) and I am not an anarchist (and don’t care to be one), but judging by your writings, I can certainly tell that you are neither a purist nor an anarchist.
June 29th, 2006 at 7:21 am
Tom wrote:
Precisely how did Harry “cost” the LPNH their ballot line in 2000?
He directly refused to run in New Hampshire. I have this on good authority from people in the know. The New Hampshire political climate is such that his refusal to campaign here guaranteed that he\’d do poorly here.
You\’ve heard of the NH primary, but you might not realize how important it is here, and how critical to candidates it is here. The joke \”I\’m not which Presidential Candidate I\’m voting for, I\’m only met all of them twice\” is quite true at the core.
With a 4% statewide ballot threshold (so only President and Senators), yes, you can directly attribute Harry to the LPNH losing party status. Once lost, it\’s hard to regain, since the signature requirement kicks in, the party status is missing (ie no straight ticket option, etc). John Babiarz\’ running as a Democrat now is a direct end result of Harry\’s refusal to run in NH, since the D+R created quicksand of ballot access has made it near-impossible to gain that status back.
June 29th, 2006 at 7:59 am
Greg,
You write:
“Tom Knapp: You can say you are an anarchist and a purist until you are blue in the face, but your walk doesn’t match your talk.”
It’s not a matter of “saying” I’m an anarchist and a purist. It’s a matter of whether or not I AM an anarchist and a purist. I am. You don’t have to like it; it will remain a fact whether you like it or not.
“Your rationalizations in defense of the Iraq Exit Strategy are not statements that would be made by a purist or anarchist.”
Since I’m a purist and an anarchist, they are not just statements that “would be” made by a purist or anarchist, they are statements which were, in fact, made by both.
“Your arguments against the non-aggression certification, where your obvious disdain for the ‘anarchist pledge’ comes through, is yet another example.”
How is “I am an anarchist and purist, and I’m happy to take the pledge, but I don’t see any reason why non-purists and non-anarchists should be excluded from the LP” an example of me not being a purist and an anarchist?
“judging by your writings”
So far, the evidence militates toward the conclusion that you aren’t competent to judge my writings.
Your error is that you are attempting to classify libertarians along the same sort of spectrum that libertarians deny the efficacy of with respect to politics generally (i.e. a two-point spectrum of “left” and “right” with gradations between). You are attempting to make numerous conflicts fit along a spectrum between “purist” and “pragmatist” (or, as the term is lately, “reformer”).
There are, in fact, (at LEAST) three axes along which internal LP conflicts can and should be measured. Aside from the purist/pragmatist axis, there’s also the politics/anti-politics emphasis axis and an axis of evaluations of personal ethics. You’re mistaking past and present disagreements as to the placement of various individuals on that last axis for differences on the first.
Tom Knapp
June 29th, 2006 at 11:10 am
Hmm. tag problems still. I wish we could edit posts before submit.
Ah, much better? I hope so.
June 29th, 2006 at 11:41 am
Greg:
I *agree* with most of what you’re saying.
But I find this blog an utter pain to read because it seems to be “all negative, all the time.” You’re turning off people who agree with you *and* the people who disagree with you.
Even if the pot is black itself, it can still speak the truth about the kettle.
June 29th, 2006 at 3:54 pm
RE: Seth, in #34
NO PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE IN LP HISTORY EVER GOT 4% IN NEW HAMPSHIRE. If Harry Browne had moved to NH, put on a plaid shirt, and done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ELSE but walk the entire state over and over, he still wouldn’t have gotten 4%.
Ignorance, particularly of party history, is just one of a hundred reasons this party is in the shape it’s in.
The 1996 Browne campaign attempted a New Hampshire strategy. It didn’t work financially. It didn’t get votes. They had to abort.
Here’s the lesson: Top of the ticket campaigns aren’t about winning - or even winning votes. In a winner-takes-all system, people don’t vote for what they want until a certain critical mass is achieved. Instead, they vote against that which they fear.
A vote is just a vote. But a prospect who requests more information, and a new member, well, that’s valuable. And that’s why you run state-level and presidential campaigns!
Seth, are you unredeemable in your ignorance? I’ve read your other comments and so I expect nothing but name calling because I’m pointing this stuff out to you. Prove you can learn something. Here are the facts…
Harry did over 800 interviews in ten months time.
More than 30 of those were on national television.
He traveled and did events in nearly 60 cities and appeared at nearly 20 state conventions. At virtually every stop, the local TV showed up.
He published a book.
His campaign produced five first class TV ads (one of which got a Telly Award, and another of which got honorable mention). One of those five ads is still used by better local candidates that Don Gorman claimed to represent (Battered Voter).
That campaign also produced a video/infomercial and a tabloid newspaper - outreach tools that local coordinators and activists loved.
Ah, and it had local coordinators all over the country, organized and supported by the campaign. Many of these folks did a fantastic job.
But the most important thing Harry Browne did for the party was generate more than 35,000 leads for the party. In fact, even though ALL Archimedes-style prospecting had been killed by the Messrs. Tuniewicz, Givot, and Dehn (through the imposition of a “reserve policy”) during 1999, the party did not shrink in 2000 because Harry Browne was out promoting it.
But apparently Seth, you would throw all of that away for a New Hampshire handshaking campaign.
Now, in the past, New Hampshire activists were worth their salt. They did what it took to be on the ballot. They were a vital group. Seth, I don’t know if you’re part of the NH LP. But if you are, you’re unwillingness to accept reality and assume responsibility is the problem.
Now let’s see if you’re a man who can take criticism and adjust accordingly.
June 29th, 2006 at 11:16 pm
Seth Anthony: Has declining membership and revenues reversed yet? Has the LNC or LPHQ staff acknowledged the mistakes that put us in this position?
Nothing has changed yet. And I will keep writing and criticizing until something actually changes.
June 29th, 2006 at 11:29 pm
Greg:
Criticising is fine. That’s not what turns people off, and I’m not suggesting you stop levelling valid criticisms. It’s the attitude with which you do that, the reckless way in which you insult people (yes, including those who insulted you first — be the better man and turn the other cheek), call names, employ harsh sarcasm, and generally don’t win friends.
You come across as an angry misanthrope with a persecution complex, Greg. I don’t believe you are, but that’s the tone that comes across on your messages in this blog.
Kindness, politeness, civility — are all virtues. They make it easier for people to get along as easier for disputes to be settled. They make people less defensive and more succeptible to your rational arguments. As it is, you’re only stirring up anger, animosity, and unfounded prejudice — none of which are productive.
Use a sober tone of voice. Don’t be so defensive, but seek common ground and work from there. But as long as you continue to stir discord, you’re hurting your own cause.
June 29th, 2006 at 11:44 pm
Hmmmmm…
I’m re-reading my comment trying to figure out what part of it prompted you to refer to me as an “angry misanthrope.”
Pot — kettle — black.
June 30th, 2006 at 12:32 pm
SETH ANTHONY: \”Criticising is fine. That’s not what turns people off, and I’m not suggesting you stop levelling valid criticisms. It’s the attitude with which you do that, the reckless way in which you insult people (yes, including those who insulted you first — be the better man and turn the other cheek), call names, employ harsh sarcasm, and generally don’t win friends.\”
Seth, the above is all well and good. Most of us try to refrain from calling people names, but we\’re human and often fail at the ideal.
I have witnessed much of the same behavior Greg describes. Greg and I both endured several months of various opportunists calling people like us names and spreading flat-out falsehoods (ie \”lies\”). We were the people being talked about. Were we supposed to remain quiet?
Admin didn\’t start blogging — and I didn\’t start commenting on his blog — until most of the so-called \”reformer\” websites had been up and campaigning rather nastily against principled Libertarians for a year or more.
SETH ANTHONY: \”Kindness, politeness, civility — are all virtues. They make it easier for people to get along as easier for disputes to be settled. They make people less defensive and more succeptible to your rational arguments. As it is, you’re only stirring up anger, animosity, and unfounded prejudice — none of which are productive.\”
And once again, great advice. But maybe you should read some of the bile that froths forth from some of the reformer websites, and supply them with the same advice. Mssrs. Overstreet and West have taken - to entirely new heights - insulting people who have done nothing to them. The most revealing commentary has been taken down by its author, probably because he realized that his opponents could point directly to text that pretty convincingly revealed his his hatred of libertarians.
I do not believe any rational argument will sway the True Believers of the Milsted Way. Their minds are made up and they utterly refuse to admit when their conclusions are just outright wrong. Their prescriptions for what ails the LP are nothing more than their emotion-driven theories that they can\’t be bothered to prove before battering them upon the rest of us.
An easy \”for instance\” is the claim of one state Party that says it abolished its pledge requirement and is now bigger than it ever was before (which isn\’t true by just about all measures — the number of donors, the number of candidates, fundraising, and so on). Yet the folks who successfully got their \”abandon the pledge\” obsession written into the state party\’s rules are still crowing about how much better things are now.
As I said, nothing will change the minds of these people.
If they could point to some clear and convincing evidence that shows their ideas, once implemented, will bring the success they claim, then they might persuade me to join them. But their entire mantra is one of telling fibs, half-truths, and exaggerations about people like me, and at the same time making wildly inaccurate claims about thir own pet strategies.
This is a cult for them; an obsession. There is no talking to them, there is no compromise. They are much more interested in planting their tooshes in a chair behind their computer and letting fly at \”purists\” than in organizing anything political (like even their own precinct).
I have not taken up the pen to convince them; but rather, to attempt to demonstrate to readers other than the extremists of the reform caucus that there are two sides to every story, and perhaps allow the airing of the holes in the reformist agenda.
July 1st, 2006 at 9:26 am
NEWS FLASH! I arrived in Portland last night to learn that current LNC Chair Mike Dixon announced at that afternoon’s LNC meeting that he has decided to NOT seek reelection.
I’ll let everyone know if anything else interesting developes, including how many delegates actually show up. Thus far, it looks like attendance will be less than 500, possibly less than 400. Sigh.
July 2nd, 2006 at 10:34 pm
“Heywood” pointed out that:
NO PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE IN LP HISTORY EVER GOT 4% IN NEW HAMPSHIRE.
No argument here. That is a fact.
So is that I made clear President or Senate.
In 1996, Ken Blevins made 4.5% for Senate.
Heywood continues to go on to talk about how much good Harry Browne did elsewhere. He’s clearly part of the “What would Harry Browne do?” cult that Carla and others are now pushing onto people… Perhaps not, but going on and on about how much Harry did do, in the light of the fiscal questions that others have written about in details, rings quite hollow to me.
As for the ‘lesson’:
Top of the ticket campaigns aren’t about winning - or even winning votes.
I disagree. That’s why the LP has continued to lose, because they never plan on winning. Plan to lose, expect to lose, and don’t wonder why you lose.
Heywood mentions Don Gorman… to which I can only reply, I know Don Gorman well, and I respect his informed perspective on the ground here, far more than your attempts to rebut, and he’d be far stronger in his opinion than I’ve been.
And finally:
I’m not officially a member of the LP, in that I’m not a dues paying member of the LP or LPNH.
What I am, simply, is a moderate. As I like to point out now, prior to moving to the Free State, I was a ‘radical’, by sheer virtue of those around me (the People’s Republic of Oregon) defining the norm as growing socialism with a hint of anti-capitalist anarchists thrown in for spice, but since moving to New Hampshire, I find myself more and more a moderate, without having changed my own views at all, since the ‘radicals’ now are far far more to the extremes than myself. I’m now told how I’m too close to the system, too willing to accept half a loaf, etc. I view the LP’s (attempted) reform movement as a very good thing, a welcome thing. I support a variety of candidates, whether they are Democrat, Republican, or Libertarian, so long as it moves us toward liberty, large or small steps.