colliething
Thursday, March 26, 2009
The Libertarian Party: Not 'too big to fail'
I recently responded to a post at the Nolan Chart site, and thought I'd reproduce my response here.
I responded to this particular comment:
The adoption of libertarian ideas as public policy could be accelerated were the ten to twenty percent of American voters with libertarian views to exert influence en bloc in the political process. One of the several ways to do that is through a libertarian political party.
I absolutely think that a political party (and my preference is still strongly for the Libertarian Party) can be an effective way for people to speak 'en bloc' and to effect significant change. However, I think the premise of many folks - and I include Donny Ferguson here, based on his recent communications - that the LP can (and must) make that change solely or even largely by electoral means displays some perilous naivete about the American political process.
Look at the numbers. Your most optimistic estimate of "American voters with libertarian views" is twenty percent. I'd actually say it's higher, because I'm an optimist and think that everyone holds a 'libertarian view' about something. But I assume that you mean holding libertarian views to a greater extent than they hold non-libertarian views. If that's the case, I suspect that even ten percent is wildly optimistic at this point. But let us say that fifiteen percent of voters meet this criterion.
So let's look at a hypothetical case to see how this plays out in American two-party system. Best-case, wildly optimistic scenario:
- We have a district that's 'uber-libertarian', say 20 percent.
- There's no incumbent in the race.
- The district is 20% registered Libertarian, 20%DP, 20%RP, and 40%Unaffiliated.
- We have a district in an area where voters can register and vote Libertarian and candidates can run as Libertarian without any penalty or extra costs (such as petitioning).
- We have a candidate who is deeply involved in his community and can attract voters who view themselves as nonpartisan.
- We have a candidate who is well-funded and well-staffed, and lots of volunteers.
Even with this rosy scenario, voters will still take a 'hit' because their candidate will be deprived of committee assignments and other duopoly-held perks within any American legislative body. This is going to reduce the number of voters for the LP candidate - those who are libertarian-leaning but not dedicated to the Libertarian Party will (rationally) choose the major-party candidate who is most closely allied to their views.
Say there's a popular Republican in this race, and a less-popular Democrat.
If the candidate attempts to move into the issue space' of either the DP or RP candidate (in this case the DP candidate would make more sense), he will lose the votes of at least some LP stalwarts, without necessarily gaining the corresponding votes of the DP or RP opponent - because voters will know they can get the same 'commodity' in DP or RP package with all the perks of legislative alliance with a major power party (committee assignments, etc.).
Also, the LP will have a harder time attracting career politicians (or as they like to bill themselves, 'public servants'), and although that is certainly not a negative to someone who favors the citizen-leader model, it will mean that our candidates are, on average, not as schooled, not as slick, and not as marketable, as candidates from the two power parties. We're trying to play in the Big Leagues without having developed a really good Farm Team, yet.
We cannot count on overcoming these very real obstacles created by the two-Party system by simply saying that Libertarians are better people. We're not, really. We're simply regular (well, on average!) people with better ideas. We should not attempt to wholesale sell Libertarian office-seekers or holders as more ethical, brighter, nicer, etc. individuals than office-seekers of other parties - because it will only take a few counterexamples to show how silly that contention is - and I suspect we can all think of at least one counterexample if we are honest with ourselves.
So this all may sounds negative, but it's not meant to. I do think we can - and will - win elections. And I absolutely think that we should try to. But I also think our most profound effect may not be in the winning of elections - at least in the short term (next decade or two), but more in the creation and shaping of legislation, in the development of a group of citizen-activists who will think (cliche alert!) 'outside the box' when it comes to both policy and action, and (perhaps most profoundly) in the shift of power-party politicians to an adoption of more and more libertarian rhetoric and (with our vigilant watchdogging) action.
To simply take the actions and techniques that have made Democrats and Republican politicians successful in a system that was designed by them to work that way for them, and to expect those practices to make us successful in the same way, is at the least, naive. It'd be like putting simple gasoline in a two-stroke engine and expecting to get superlative results because the fuel works just dandy in your four-stroke engine. Different circumstances call for a different application of tactics.
¶ 12:55 PM 4 Comments Links to this post
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Deconstructing Donny
I couldn't resist the a little bit of gratuitous alliteration in the title, but this should more properly be called:
Deconstructing the latest LP Monday Message, titled "The most important principle is winning".
Wikipedia says that:
Deconstruction involves the close reading of texts in order to demonstrate that, rather than being a unified whole, any given text has irreconcilably contradictory meanings. J. Hillis Miller explained: "Deconstruction is not a dismantling of the structure of a text, but a demonstration that it has already dismantled itself. Its apparently solid ground is no rock but thin air."
The LP staff sends out regular Monday Messages to folks on their email list - presumably Party members, activists, and those who have expressed interest in the LP at some point. These messages often focus on what activists can do to help improve/strengthen the LP. The latest one (March 9) is on the importance of "winning" - presumably meaning "winning elections", and was sent out by Communications Director Donny Ferguson (thus the title wordplay). I wanted to do a bit of deconstruction of the text, but first, here's the original message in all its glory (well, I left out the 'postscript pitches')):
Your Monday Message from the Libertarian Party:
Dear Susan,
A lot of people ask, “What is the purpose of the Libertarian Party?”
Their first clue should be the last word of that sentence. While all successful political movements have educational arms, it’s the political party that actually creates policy. The libertarian movement has many wonderful educational organizations that teach what change is needed. But there is only one Libertarian Party that can enact change.
In short, the purpose of the “Party of Principle” is to move this country back to its libertarian roots by winning elections, because that’s the only way to change policy.
Libertarians are principled people. We believe in the principles of individual rights, non-initiation of force and limited government.
But in a nation where Democrats and Republicans work together to deprive you of civil liberties, of the fruits of your labor, and your right to create jobs and earn wealth in a free market -- the most important principle is winning.
And we must begin winning now.
Some argue that more “education” needs to be done. While you can never educate people enough and organizations like the Cato Institute are just as needed in the libertarian movement as the Heritage Foundation and Brookings Institution are needed in the conservative and liberal movements – voters already agree with libertarians on what creates jobs, lowers taxes and improves schools. The educational groups, like Cato, are doing their job.
Voters now want action. They want practical Libertarians they can vote for. Now it’s time for the Libertarian Party to do its job and win even more elections.
The only way to take back our rights is to take those libertarian ideas voters agree with us on, such as tax relief, school choice, property rights, and run winning political campaigns that identify, organize and mobilize voters.
And here’s the beautiful thing about having political power. It’s a zero-sum game. If you’re in office, even if you don’t have the votes to repeal anything, the high-tax Democrat or the deficit-spending Republican aren’t there to vote for more government. There is nothing more noble and principled than winning an election.
The good news is the Libertarian Party, now more than ever, is working every day to create a political machine that can identify, organize and mobilize the millions of voters who already agree with us. The days of self-fulfilling defeatism and pompous criticisms of electoral politics are further and further behind us.
Our liberties and our economy are in grave danger at every level of government, all the way down to town councils. The only way to protect our rights and create jobs is to begin taking power from Republicans and Democrats, starting at the local level.
We’re already seeing it work. Bob Barr won us newfound credibility and increased the Libertarian Party’s vote total over that of 2004, despite the fact the “Obama phenomenon” was supposed to drain third party votes. Indianapolis City-County Councilor Ed Coleman has joined the Libertarian Party, meaning nearly one million people in the nation’s 12th-largest city are now represented by a Libertarian. Libertarian Party membership is growing, and our new focus on practical politics is winning converts and credibility for the core tenets of libertarianism.
Conceding power to Republicans and Democrats so you can spend your time debating arcane issues may feed the ego, but it starves liberty. In this present crisis, winning elections is the most important libertarian principle there is.
Can I count on you to help make that happen?
With optimism,
Donny Ferguson
Director of Communications
Libertarian National Committee
Donny.Ferguson@lp.org
OK. Still with me? Before I begin, I'd like to point out what a great change it is to have someone (Donny Ferguson) in the national office who is a decent communicator. This is important to keep in mind because I'm just about to tear into this latest bit for (among other things) a fair bit of poor logic and wishful thinking - and yet that is still a huge improvement over our previous staff communications.
At least it's well-written poor logic and wishful thinking.
Here's the deconstruction part. My comments will be in BOLD RED.
Dear Susan,
A lot of people ask, “What is the purpose of the Libertarian Party?”
And a lot of people should be politely directed to review the LP's Bylaws, which clearly state the Party's purpose. It's the function of bylaws to, among other things, outline the purpose(s) for which an organization exists. Our Bylaws are nicely linked to from the LP's website:
http://www.lp.org/bylaws
And there's even a particular Article which addresses the question Donny asks - conveniently labeled 'PURPOSES' so that people wanting to know the purpose of the LP can easily locate it. Here it is (emphasis added):
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.
It's important to keep in mind, I think, that this "purposes" statement was chosen and ratified by the activist membership of the LP acting in convention - most recently in 2008, although the wording has been around for some time. It's time someone pointed out that it is not the function of an organization's staff to second-guess the membership.
Donny continues:
Their first clue should be the last word of that sentence. While all successful political movements have educational arms, it’s the political party that actually creates policy.
This displays either poor word choice or a dangerous ignorance of how politics works. Policy is largely created by the intellectuals who champion a particular set of goals or ideals, and is only implemented by politicians (and, occasionally, voters, in the case of Initiative/Referendum).
The libertarian movement has many wonderful educational organizations that teach what change is needed. But there is only one Libertarian Party that can enact change.
I am sorely tempted to take the snarky route here. Well, I will: How's that working out for us, then? Behind the snark, though, is an important point: the American political system is a two-party system, and to imagine that a Party that is not one of the 'top two' in such a system can 'enact change' solely by electoral means on any significant scale is just plain wishful thinking. For a 'third' or alternative party to adopt the same tactics and thinking that govern major-party strategy in a two-party system and expect that it will get us the same results they get is what Tom Knapp called Cargo Cult Libertarianism. The reality is that different conditions call for different tactics and strategies - and those who think the Libertarian Party operates under the same conditions that the RP and DP operate under are laboring under a most unhelpful delusion. That they should inflict this delusion on the activist membership - who have shown that they know better with the carefully-crafted Purpose Statement in the Bylaws - is absolutely destructive.
In short, the purpose of the “Party of Principle” is to move this country back to its libertarian roots by winning elections, because that’s the only way to change policy.
This is possibly the most dangerously wrong assertion of this entire communication.
Donny - and by extension, the national LP - is here telling local parties who work with legislators in the D/R Party to draft and sponsor pro-liberty legislative actions that they are 'not changing policy'. The national LP is here telling local LPs who work together with issue groups and concerned individuals to fight taxes and dangerous legislation that they are 'not changing policy'. The national office is telling Libertarians that those who gain appointments to local commissions and committees are 'not changing policy'. The national LP is telling local activists who run for office but who do not win that they are 'not changing policy'.
Frankly, I find such an attitude discouraging.
Libertarians are principled people. We believe in the principles of individual rights, non-initiation of force and limited government.
Finally, a statement I can unreservedly endorse.
Unfortunately, it's followed by something so bizarre as to be nearly unbelievable coming from a fellow Libertarian activist (when I mentioned this line to fellow Libertarians who hadn't seen the communication, they actually thought I was making it up to exaggerate):
But in a nation where Democrats and Republicans work together to deprive you of civil liberties, of the fruits of your labor, and your right to create jobs and earn wealth in a free market -- the most important principle is winning.
This statement surely does a lot to explain a recent 'status' message on Donny's Facebook page:
Where he writes/quotes "Donny Ferguson reminds you - anything worth fighting for is worth fighting dirty for."
My purpose here isn't particularly to excoriate Donny Ferguson, but rather to point out the dangerous direction the national LP office is taking. However, the coincidence of seeing these two very-public and rather amoral-seeming messages from a national staffer within one week was too much for me to pass by without comment.
If 'winning' was defined by the national LP as fulfilling the LP's Statement of Principles (found at the top of our Platform) - as the Bylaws Purposes statement defines it - I could agree that winning was an important principle, though without the 'fighting dirty' part. But earlier 'winning' was defined by Mr. Ferguson as 'winning elections', which I do not consider to be the primary purpose of the LP. Winning elections is an indication that we are fulfilling our Statement of Principles, not a prerequisite for it.
That's important, I think, so let me repeat and expand: Winning elections is an indication that we are fulfilling our Statement of Principles, not a prerequisite for it.
What I mean by this is simply that voters (in the main) will choose the Libertarian Party only when they already largely agree with our principles and approach, not before. Individuals who are active and popular in their communities or who are celebrities may win elections without a majority of voters supporting libertarian principles, but these scattered wins cannot be extended on a broad scale until and unless people accept not only libertarian principle, but the Libertarian Party approach to government - namely, the less of it, in every instance, the better. That's a task that will take some work, and one that we are not exactly on the verge of accomplishing on a wide scale.
That may not be the most cheerful message to some folks, but I think the practice of promising victory tomorrow! and then failing spectacularly to deliver is exhausting for activists and needs to be stopped. We're in a long war, here, and more than one or two battles shy from real victory.
Local candidates certainly can - and should! - win elections based on their commitment to local service, their exemplary behavior in their community, and their hard work communicating with individual votes. These candidates can then - assuming they have a thorough grounding in Libertarian theory and policy - proceed to demonstrate to voters the superiority of libertarian principles and their application. But this strategy only works if the Party supports local candidates not only with resources such as money and manpower, but with education and a thorough grounding in libertarian principle and its application to American government.
Donny again:
And we must begin winning now.
Note this statement carefully. I'll just point out that it implies that we have been losing up until now.
Some argue that more “education” needs to be done. While you can never educate people enough and organizations like the Cato Institute are just as needed in the libertarian movement as the Heritage Foundation and Brookings Institution are needed in the conservative and liberal movements – voters already agree with libertarians on what creates jobs, lowers taxes and improves schools. The educational groups, like Cato, are doing their job.
Voters now want action. They want practical Libertarians they can vote for. Now it’s time for the Libertarian Party to do its job and win even more elections.
A couple of points:
*We must "win even more elections"? Earlier, Ferguson said "we must begin winning now". Well, which is it? Are we winning, or not winning, at present?
*It's not entirely clear that Americans do 'agree with us' - at least in large numbers. Some do, of course, but anyone who think that American society is largely libertarian has simply not been paying attention. american society has libertarian roots, and libertarian leanings, and - I hope and believe - a libertarian future. But this is not a libertarian society. Americans still largely support the occupation of Afghanistan, for instance, while the Libertarian Party does not.
*Voters who 'now want action' know that the LP is not the right place for it. Those who want 'action' immediately or even very soon will invariably choose one of the parties - D or R - who can provide it. The LP cannot. We can provide a voice ot the voiceless - now. We can provide real, lasting change - over time. We can not provide 'action now' by electoral means. Voters know this - they aren't dumb.
*How can we win elections as Libertarians without educating voters? No one that I know in the LP argues that we should not engage in electoral activity - or lobbying, or a host of other activities that are associated with a political party. But here is our Communications Director saying 'leave education to Cato; focus on winning elections' when educational activities are clearly identified as a tool for acheiving the Purposes outlined in our (member-approved) Bylaws.
The only way to take back our rights is to take those libertarian ideas voters agree with us on, such as tax relief, school choice, property rights, and run winning political campaigns that identify, organize and mobilize voters.
This implies - and I hope misleadingly, although the evidence supports this interpretation, I am afraid - that the national LP office has determined that 'losing' issues (ending prohibition, ending US government occupation of other countries, supportingrpivate marriage rights, etc.) should be downplayed so that we can 'win elections' on (what they perceive to be) 'winning issues'. While everyone who has run for office - and most Libertarian Party activists have, at least once - understands the need to tailor our message to a specific audience - this tailoring should not happen at the national level.
To repeat and clarify: The national LP office should promote ALL of the Libertarian Party message (following the platform) rather than selected parts of it.
The reason is simple: having the national LP select 'winning' issues and de-emphasize 'losing' issues involves the judgement by the national Party (in practice, the staff of the Party) about what issues are 'winners' or 'losers'. While this is acceptable for a candidate running his own election, it weakens the Party to have, for instance, a gay rights or antiwar Libertarian see the issue that is important to him and to his contintuency downplayed by the national Party in preference to other issues. It also, I am afraid, encourages staff to essentially recraft the Platform by the relative emphasis they place on various issues and by issuing position papers that far exceed the scope of the Platform.
Yes, it is important to issue regular statements about the economy in this time of economic crisis. People are focused on that - but part of our job should be to bring their attention back to issues that the government is trying to avoid with its daily sky-is-falling approach - not to bow to this approach. And we can tie all these issues together - thus: war is bad for the economy, prohibition is bad for the economy, restricting gay couples from adopting is bad for the economy, etc. That's a fine approach, but even then, it shouldn't be the only approach. We need to address these issues straightforwardly, talking about right and wrong, because it's important for someone to stand up and say these things. If not the LP, who? That's what people - even our opponents - value the LP for.
And here’s the beautiful thing about having political power. It’s a zero-sum game. If you’re in office, even if you don’t have the votes to repeal anything, the high-tax Democrat or the deficit-spending Republican aren’t there to vote for more government.
Again, this reveals a dangerous naivete about the American political system (or an ignorance of the concept of 'zero sum game'). Simply having Libertarians in office voting 'no' on everything is pretty unhelpful in terms of 'having political power' in the sense of 'voters now want action' (see: Ron Paul). Where Libertarians in office voting 'no' on everything becomes useful is in providing an example, saying the things that need to be said, and working with others on specific issue coalitions (see: Ron Paul). That's real political power, but it doesn't come from winning votes.
There is nothing more noble and principled than winning an election.
I'm not even going to attempt to deconstruct this statement.
The good news is the Libertarian Party, now more than ever, is working every day to create a political machine that can identify, organize and mobilize the millions of voters who already agree with us.
Excellent! I wish the whole communication had been filled with this sort of positive message. Sadly, every strong positive Ferguson produces seems to be followed immediately by a strong negative; this one being no exception:
The days of self-fulfilling defeatism and pompous criticisms of electoral politics are further and further behind us.
Right - and the days of trashing the people who built the Libertarian Party and grew it for nearly four decades are upon us!
Our liberties and our economy are in grave danger at every level of government, all the way down to town councils. The only way to protect our rights and create jobs is to begin taking power from Republicans and Democrats, starting at the local level.
Agreed. Where I disagree is with the assumption that the only way to 'begin taking power' is by winning elections.
Every time Libertarians help lower a tax, we are helping individuals to 'take power'.
Every time Libertarians help romove bad legislation, we are helping individuals to 'take power'.
Every time Libertarians help fight eminent domain or forced annexation, we are helping individuals to 'take power'.
Every time Libertarians help increae ballot access for third parties, we are helping individuals to 'take power'.
And, every time Libertarians help someone understand more about freedom, we are helping individuals to 'take power'.
We’re already seeing it work. Bob Barr won us newfound credibility
Again with the implied insult: the LP was just a bunch of losers no one took seriously until the current folks arrived on the scene. Thanks.
and increased the Libertarian Party’s vote total over that of 2004, despite the fact the “Obama phenomenon” was supposed to drain third party votes. Indianapolis City-County Councilor Ed Coleman has joined the Libertarian Party, meaning nearly one million people in the nation’s 12th-largest city are now represented by a Libertarian. Libertarian Party membership is growing, and our new focus on practical politics is winning converts and credibility for the core tenets of libertarianism.
If this is the case, Ferguson will surely support changing the LP's website tagline from the insipid "Smaller government. Lower taxes. More freedom." to something more aligned with the 'core tenets' of libertarianism' (and incidentally a bit more stirring) such as "Individual Freedom. Personal Responsibility. It can be Yours!"
Conceding power to Republicans and Democrats so you can spend your time debating arcane issues may feed the ego, but it starves liberty.
Tip for the politically naive: insulting your donor/activist base is not only rude, but counterproductive.
In this present crisis, winning elections is the most important libertarian principle there is.
"The sky is falling! We must win - fighting dirty if that's what it takes! Stop talking about arcane issues like freedom and empire and the federal reserve and focus on important things like lowering taxes!" If that wasn't the intended message, either Mr. Ferguson is deficient in communication skills, or I am deficient in understanding, or possibly some combination of the two.
Can I count on you to help make that happen?
Each Libertarian Party member is going to have to decide that for himself. For myself, I will be concentrating my support to my state and local parties - which do not presume to tell me that I am an ego-feeding, noncredible, loser who needs to stop harping about the war and freedom and suchlike and start talking about lowering taxes. I will support local Libertarians for office, and talk to them (more ego-feeding, I suppose) about freedom and other 'arcane issues'.
And I will work to help place the LP national office back in the hands of people who are willing to accept, support, and promote the members' Purposes for the LP, rather than create and push thier own purpose.
¶ 6:14 PM 4 Comments
Links to this post
Deconstructing the latest LP Monday Message, titled "The most important principle is winning".
Wikipedia says that:
Deconstruction involves the close reading of texts in order to demonstrate that, rather than being a unified whole, any given text has irreconcilably contradictory meanings. J. Hillis Miller explained: "Deconstruction is not a dismantling of the structure of a text, but a demonstration that it has already dismantled itself. Its apparently solid ground is no rock but thin air."
The LP staff sends out regular Monday Messages to folks on their email list - presumably Party members, activists, and those who have expressed interest in the LP at some point. These messages often focus on what activists can do to help improve/strengthen the LP. The latest one (March 9) is on the importance of "winning" - presumably meaning "winning elections", and was sent out by Communications Director Donny Ferguson (thus the title wordplay). I wanted to do a bit of deconstruction of the text, but first, here's the original message in all its glory (well, I left out the 'postscript pitches')):
Your Monday Message from the Libertarian Party:
Dear Susan,
A lot of people ask, “What is the purpose of the Libertarian Party?”
Their first clue should be the last word of that sentence. While all successful political movements have educational arms, it’s the political party that actually creates policy. The libertarian movement has many wonderful educational organizations that teach what change is needed. But there is only one Libertarian Party that can enact change.
In short, the purpose of the “Party of Principle” is to move this country back to its libertarian roots by winning elections, because that’s the only way to change policy.
Libertarians are principled people. We believe in the principles of individual rights, non-initiation of force and limited government.
But in a nation where Democrats and Republicans work together to deprive you of civil liberties, of the fruits of your labor, and your right to create jobs and earn wealth in a free market -- the most important principle is winning.
And we must begin winning now.
Some argue that more “education” needs to be done. While you can never educate people enough and organizations like the Cato Institute are just as needed in the libertarian movement as the Heritage Foundation and Brookings Institution are needed in the conservative and liberal movements – voters already agree with libertarians on what creates jobs, lowers taxes and improves schools. The educational groups, like Cato, are doing their job.
Voters now want action. They want practical Libertarians they can vote for. Now it’s time for the Libertarian Party to do its job and win even more elections.
The only way to take back our rights is to take those libertarian ideas voters agree with us on, such as tax relief, school choice, property rights, and run winning political campaigns that identify, organize and mobilize voters.
And here’s the beautiful thing about having political power. It’s a zero-sum game. If you’re in office, even if you don’t have the votes to repeal anything, the high-tax Democrat or the deficit-spending Republican aren’t there to vote for more government. There is nothing more noble and principled than winning an election.
The good news is the Libertarian Party, now more than ever, is working every day to create a political machine that can identify, organize and mobilize the millions of voters who already agree with us. The days of self-fulfilling defeatism and pompous criticisms of electoral politics are further and further behind us.
Our liberties and our economy are in grave danger at every level of government, all the way down to town councils. The only way to protect our rights and create jobs is to begin taking power from Republicans and Democrats, starting at the local level.
We’re already seeing it work. Bob Barr won us newfound credibility and increased the Libertarian Party’s vote total over that of 2004, despite the fact the “Obama phenomenon” was supposed to drain third party votes. Indianapolis City-County Councilor Ed Coleman has joined the Libertarian Party, meaning nearly one million people in the nation’s 12th-largest city are now represented by a Libertarian. Libertarian Party membership is growing, and our new focus on practical politics is winning converts and credibility for the core tenets of libertarianism.
Conceding power to Republicans and Democrats so you can spend your time debating arcane issues may feed the ego, but it starves liberty. In this present crisis, winning elections is the most important libertarian principle there is.
Can I count on you to help make that happen?
With optimism,
Donny Ferguson
Director of Communications
Libertarian National Committee
Donny.Ferguson@lp.org
OK. Still with me? Before I begin, I'd like to point out what a great change it is to have someone (Donny Ferguson) in the national office who is a decent communicator. This is important to keep in mind because I'm just about to tear into this latest bit for (among other things) a fair bit of poor logic and wishful thinking - and yet that is still a huge improvement over our previous staff communications.
At least it's well-written poor logic and wishful thinking.
Here's the deconstruction part. My comments will be in BOLD RED.
Dear Susan,
A lot of people ask, “What is the purpose of the Libertarian Party?”
And a lot of people should be politely directed to review the LP's Bylaws, which clearly state the Party's purpose. It's the function of bylaws to, among other things, outline the purpose(s) for which an organization exists. Our Bylaws are nicely linked to from the LP's website:
http://www.lp.org/bylaws
And there's even a particular Article which addresses the question Donny asks - conveniently labeled 'PURPOSES' so that people wanting to know the purpose of the LP can easily locate it. Here it is (emphasis added):
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.
It's important to keep in mind, I think, that this "purposes" statement was chosen and ratified by the activist membership of the LP acting in convention - most recently in 2008, although the wording has been around for some time. It's time someone pointed out that it is not the function of an organization's staff to second-guess the membership.
Donny continues:
Their first clue should be the last word of that sentence. While all successful political movements have educational arms, it’s the political party that actually creates policy.
This displays either poor word choice or a dangerous ignorance of how politics works. Policy is largely created by the intellectuals who champion a particular set of goals or ideals, and is only implemented by politicians (and, occasionally, voters, in the case of Initiative/Referendum).
The libertarian movement has many wonderful educational organizations that teach what change is needed. But there is only one Libertarian Party that can enact change.
I am sorely tempted to take the snarky route here. Well, I will: How's that working out for us, then? Behind the snark, though, is an important point: the American political system is a two-party system, and to imagine that a Party that is not one of the 'top two' in such a system can 'enact change' solely by electoral means on any significant scale is just plain wishful thinking. For a 'third' or alternative party to adopt the same tactics and thinking that govern major-party strategy in a two-party system and expect that it will get us the same results they get is what Tom Knapp called Cargo Cult Libertarianism. The reality is that different conditions call for different tactics and strategies - and those who think the Libertarian Party operates under the same conditions that the RP and DP operate under are laboring under a most unhelpful delusion. That they should inflict this delusion on the activist membership - who have shown that they know better with the carefully-crafted Purpose Statement in the Bylaws - is absolutely destructive.
In short, the purpose of the “Party of Principle” is to move this country back to its libertarian roots by winning elections, because that’s the only way to change policy.
This is possibly the most dangerously wrong assertion of this entire communication.
Donny - and by extension, the national LP - is here telling local parties who work with legislators in the D/R Party to draft and sponsor pro-liberty legislative actions that they are 'not changing policy'. The national LP is here telling local LPs who work together with issue groups and concerned individuals to fight taxes and dangerous legislation that they are 'not changing policy'. The national office is telling Libertarians that those who gain appointments to local commissions and committees are 'not changing policy'. The national LP is telling local activists who run for office but who do not win that they are 'not changing policy'.
Frankly, I find such an attitude discouraging.
Libertarians are principled people. We believe in the principles of individual rights, non-initiation of force and limited government.
Finally, a statement I can unreservedly endorse.
Unfortunately, it's followed by something so bizarre as to be nearly unbelievable coming from a fellow Libertarian activist (when I mentioned this line to fellow Libertarians who hadn't seen the communication, they actually thought I was making it up to exaggerate):
But in a nation where Democrats and Republicans work together to deprive you of civil liberties, of the fruits of your labor, and your right to create jobs and earn wealth in a free market -- the most important principle is winning.
This statement surely does a lot to explain a recent 'status' message on Donny's Facebook page:
Where he writes/quotes "Donny Ferguson reminds you - anything worth fighting for is worth fighting dirty for."
My purpose here isn't particularly to excoriate Donny Ferguson, but rather to point out the dangerous direction the national LP office is taking. However, the coincidence of seeing these two very-public and rather amoral-seeming messages from a national staffer within one week was too much for me to pass by without comment.
If 'winning' was defined by the national LP as fulfilling the LP's Statement of Principles (found at the top of our Platform) - as the Bylaws Purposes statement defines it - I could agree that winning was an important principle, though without the 'fighting dirty' part. But earlier 'winning' was defined by Mr. Ferguson as 'winning elections', which I do not consider to be the primary purpose of the LP. Winning elections is an indication that we are fulfilling our Statement of Principles, not a prerequisite for it.
That's important, I think, so let me repeat and expand: Winning elections is an indication that we are fulfilling our Statement of Principles, not a prerequisite for it.
What I mean by this is simply that voters (in the main) will choose the Libertarian Party only when they already largely agree with our principles and approach, not before. Individuals who are active and popular in their communities or who are celebrities may win elections without a majority of voters supporting libertarian principles, but these scattered wins cannot be extended on a broad scale until and unless people accept not only libertarian principle, but the Libertarian Party approach to government - namely, the less of it, in every instance, the better. That's a task that will take some work, and one that we are not exactly on the verge of accomplishing on a wide scale.
That may not be the most cheerful message to some folks, but I think the practice of promising victory tomorrow! and then failing spectacularly to deliver is exhausting for activists and needs to be stopped. We're in a long war, here, and more than one or two battles shy from real victory.
Local candidates certainly can - and should! - win elections based on their commitment to local service, their exemplary behavior in their community, and their hard work communicating with individual votes. These candidates can then - assuming they have a thorough grounding in Libertarian theory and policy - proceed to demonstrate to voters the superiority of libertarian principles and their application. But this strategy only works if the Party supports local candidates not only with resources such as money and manpower, but with education and a thorough grounding in libertarian principle and its application to American government.
Donny again:
And we must begin winning now.
Note this statement carefully. I'll just point out that it implies that we have been losing up until now.
Some argue that more “education” needs to be done. While you can never educate people enough and organizations like the Cato Institute are just as needed in the libertarian movement as the Heritage Foundation and Brookings Institution are needed in the conservative and liberal movements – voters already agree with libertarians on what creates jobs, lowers taxes and improves schools. The educational groups, like Cato, are doing their job.
Voters now want action. They want practical Libertarians they can vote for. Now it’s time for the Libertarian Party to do its job and win even more elections.
A couple of points:
*We must "win even more elections"? Earlier, Ferguson said "we must begin winning now". Well, which is it? Are we winning, or not winning, at present?
*It's not entirely clear that Americans do 'agree with us' - at least in large numbers. Some do, of course, but anyone who think that American society is largely libertarian has simply not been paying attention. american society has libertarian roots, and libertarian leanings, and - I hope and believe - a libertarian future. But this is not a libertarian society. Americans still largely support the occupation of Afghanistan, for instance, while the Libertarian Party does not.
*Voters who 'now want action' know that the LP is not the right place for it. Those who want 'action' immediately or even very soon will invariably choose one of the parties - D or R - who can provide it. The LP cannot. We can provide a voice ot the voiceless - now. We can provide real, lasting change - over time. We can not provide 'action now' by electoral means. Voters know this - they aren't dumb.
*How can we win elections as Libertarians without educating voters? No one that I know in the LP argues that we should not engage in electoral activity - or lobbying, or a host of other activities that are associated with a political party. But here is our Communications Director saying 'leave education to Cato; focus on winning elections' when educational activities are clearly identified as a tool for acheiving the Purposes outlined in our (member-approved) Bylaws.
The only way to take back our rights is to take those libertarian ideas voters agree with us on, such as tax relief, school choice, property rights, and run winning political campaigns that identify, organize and mobilize voters.
This implies - and I hope misleadingly, although the evidence supports this interpretation, I am afraid - that the national LP office has determined that 'losing' issues (ending prohibition, ending US government occupation of other countries, supportingrpivate marriage rights, etc.) should be downplayed so that we can 'win elections' on (what they perceive to be) 'winning issues'. While everyone who has run for office - and most Libertarian Party activists have, at least once - understands the need to tailor our message to a specific audience - this tailoring should not happen at the national level.
To repeat and clarify: The national LP office should promote ALL of the Libertarian Party message (following the platform) rather than selected parts of it.
The reason is simple: having the national LP select 'winning' issues and de-emphasize 'losing' issues involves the judgement by the national Party (in practice, the staff of the Party) about what issues are 'winners' or 'losers'. While this is acceptable for a candidate running his own election, it weakens the Party to have, for instance, a gay rights or antiwar Libertarian see the issue that is important to him and to his contintuency downplayed by the national Party in preference to other issues. It also, I am afraid, encourages staff to essentially recraft the Platform by the relative emphasis they place on various issues and by issuing position papers that far exceed the scope of the Platform.
Yes, it is important to issue regular statements about the economy in this time of economic crisis. People are focused on that - but part of our job should be to bring their attention back to issues that the government is trying to avoid with its daily sky-is-falling approach - not to bow to this approach. And we can tie all these issues together - thus: war is bad for the economy, prohibition is bad for the economy, restricting gay couples from adopting is bad for the economy, etc. That's a fine approach, but even then, it shouldn't be the only approach. We need to address these issues straightforwardly, talking about right and wrong, because it's important for someone to stand up and say these things. If not the LP, who? That's what people - even our opponents - value the LP for.
And here’s the beautiful thing about having political power. It’s a zero-sum game. If you’re in office, even if you don’t have the votes to repeal anything, the high-tax Democrat or the deficit-spending Republican aren’t there to vote for more government.
Again, this reveals a dangerous naivete about the American political system (or an ignorance of the concept of 'zero sum game'). Simply having Libertarians in office voting 'no' on everything is pretty unhelpful in terms of 'having political power' in the sense of 'voters now want action' (see: Ron Paul). Where Libertarians in office voting 'no' on everything becomes useful is in providing an example, saying the things that need to be said, and working with others on specific issue coalitions (see: Ron Paul). That's real political power, but it doesn't come from winning votes.
There is nothing more noble and principled than winning an election.
I'm not even going to attempt to deconstruct this statement.
The good news is the Libertarian Party, now more than ever, is working every day to create a political machine that can identify, organize and mobilize the millions of voters who already agree with us.
Excellent! I wish the whole communication had been filled with this sort of positive message. Sadly, every strong positive Ferguson produces seems to be followed immediately by a strong negative; this one being no exception:
The days of self-fulfilling defeatism and pompous criticisms of electoral politics are further and further behind us.
Right - and the days of trashing the people who built the Libertarian Party and grew it for nearly four decades are upon us!
Our liberties and our economy are in grave danger at every level of government, all the way down to town councils. The only way to protect our rights and create jobs is to begin taking power from Republicans and Democrats, starting at the local level.
Agreed. Where I disagree is with the assumption that the only way to 'begin taking power' is by winning elections.
Every time Libertarians help lower a tax, we are helping individuals to 'take power'.
Every time Libertarians help romove bad legislation, we are helping individuals to 'take power'.
Every time Libertarians help fight eminent domain or forced annexation, we are helping individuals to 'take power'.
Every time Libertarians help increae ballot access for third parties, we are helping individuals to 'take power'.
And, every time Libertarians help someone understand more about freedom, we are helping individuals to 'take power'.
We’re already seeing it work. Bob Barr won us newfound credibility
Again with the implied insult: the LP was just a bunch of losers no one took seriously until the current folks arrived on the scene. Thanks.
and increased the Libertarian Party’s vote total over that of 2004, despite the fact the “Obama phenomenon” was supposed to drain third party votes. Indianapolis City-County Councilor Ed Coleman has joined the Libertarian Party, meaning nearly one million people in the nation’s 12th-largest city are now represented by a Libertarian. Libertarian Party membership is growing, and our new focus on practical politics is winning converts and credibility for the core tenets of libertarianism.
If this is the case, Ferguson will surely support changing the LP's website tagline from the insipid "Smaller government. Lower taxes. More freedom." to something more aligned with the 'core tenets' of libertarianism' (and incidentally a bit more stirring) such as "Individual Freedom. Personal Responsibility. It can be Yours!"
Conceding power to Republicans and Democrats so you can spend your time debating arcane issues may feed the ego, but it starves liberty.
Tip for the politically naive: insulting your donor/activist base is not only rude, but counterproductive.
In this present crisis, winning elections is the most important libertarian principle there is.
"The sky is falling! We must win - fighting dirty if that's what it takes! Stop talking about arcane issues like freedom and empire and the federal reserve and focus on important things like lowering taxes!" If that wasn't the intended message, either Mr. Ferguson is deficient in communication skills, or I am deficient in understanding, or possibly some combination of the two.
Can I count on you to help make that happen?
Each Libertarian Party member is going to have to decide that for himself. For myself, I will be concentrating my support to my state and local parties - which do not presume to tell me that I am an ego-feeding, noncredible, loser who needs to stop harping about the war and freedom and suchlike and start talking about lowering taxes. I will support local Libertarians for office, and talk to them (more ego-feeding, I suppose) about freedom and other 'arcane issues'.
And I will work to help place the LP national office back in the hands of people who are willing to accept, support, and promote the members' Purposes for the LP, rather than create and push thier own purpose.
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
Charleston LP meeting, 'diagonal knitting', and the Jews get what they ask for - really!
on several accounts, but more on that later.
on several accounts, but more on that later.
I did get a fair bit of knitting in during various sessions (beats
sleeping as an aid to concentration, it turns out), and played with a
small patch of 'diagonal' knitting (see pic). I also got experience
pulling out stitches (whole rows of them) and learned the valuable
lesson that the simplest sort of knitting (that is, stuff not
requiring counting) is what I should focus on when trying to pay
attention to a speaker.
I forgot to take along a book (shocking!, but I'm so enamored of
knitting these days that I thought I wouldn't need it - ever tried
knitting in the bathtub?) so I wound up in the tub with Gideon and
Samuel. No, this was BEFORE I started drinking!
Opened the bible at random to find a passage I'd read -about- but
never really -read- - the bit where Samuel-the-judge tries to warn the
Israelites that a King is Bad News, but they - the original Sheeple -
insist on having one anyway (or So Says the Bible. Ya gotta wonder. I
think peeps are smarter than that, myself).
I just looked it up to revisit the passage and here's an hysterical
description of those particular verses:
http://michaelreadsthebible.blogspot.com/2008/04/1-samuel-8-12-israelites-get-government.html
Naturally, Saul's first act as king is to institute a draft and invade
another country. Go figure :-/
