admit to being nearly stunned last night when I went to stop my phone
from persistently beeping and realized the message it was trying to
get me to read was that Ron Paul was considering a presidential bid -
as a Republican.
I was at a Wake County Libertarian Party meeting when I glanced at my
phone for that message, which I think can only be considered irony.
Ron Paul is probably the person I can most directly give the credit
(or blame, if you like) to for my presence at that meeting. His
presidential race in '88 took him to some pretty strange and wild
places, including somewhere in western Kansas where an unfocused young
farm wife (that would be me!) first heard real live people speaking
political sense and from that moment on considered herself a
Libertarian (not a very good one for a long time, but that's another
story).
Naturally I shared the news with the folks at the meeting, and it was
right then - with the war drums of Bush's escalation beating and the
still-stunned sense of seeing in my own life the war madness I'd only
heard and read about - that the perfect description of Paul's
candidacy came to mind: Paul is the Republican Dennis Kucinich. That
was a happy thought, as it seems as if the Republican Party has
suffered from not having a 'conscience candidate'. His bid, along with
that of other limited-government Republicans who are finally rising in
response to the Bush threat, can only be good for the Republican
Party.
But what does Paul's bid mean for the Libertarian Party, and more
importantly, for the freedom movement? For the movement as a whole the
answer is very clear: having someone stand up and say the things Ron
Paul will say to the Republican Party and the people of America will
only grow people's understanding of freedom and its potential - as it
did for me back in '88. That's an unqualified good.
And for the Libertarian Party? Again, I see only good news in a Ron
Paul candidacy - even if he is running as a Republican, and perhaps
because he is running as a Republican. When Paul stirs a love of, and
a longing for, justice and freedom in the hearts of those who listen
to him, many will find that the Republican Party will never be serious
about freedom, preferring to struggle for power instead. Many of these
folks will - because of Paul's candidacy - have heard about the
Libertarian Party for the first time. After the presidential race,
they will seek us out. It is vital to the success of our movement and
its goals that when they come to the Libertarian Party it catches
their inspiration rather than quashes it. We cannot disappoint these
new idealistic folks with nonsense about new taxes and replacement
taxes and regulating drugs and regulating travel and regulating ...
freedom. They will be leaving the Republican Party precisely because
that's the sort of talk they got there. When I joined the Libertarian
Party, I still had many very un-libertarian ideas, and kind,
intelligent, and more-or-less patient folk in the Party helped me to
learn to think consistently about freedom. They did not try to
re-orient the Libertarian Party to center around my muddled
understanding, but helped me to really understand freedom and its
implications.
The Libertarian Party must position itself to take a new wave of
idealism created by Paul's candidacy and offer the people whose hearts
and minds he will surely stir a crystal clear vision of real freedom
and how it can work in America. I want to be here - and I want other
Libertarian Party folks to be here with me - to welcome them home
properly.
--
Susan Hogarth
http://www.lpradicals.org
Labels: LP
¶ 11:10 AM 2 Comments Links to this post
These LP friends were nice enough to let me 'pose' them at last week's county party meeting. It was a bit evil of me to bully them into it, I suppose. I just could hardly resist when I saw how nicely they framed up in the first picture.
Labels: LP
¶ 11:24 AM 0 Comments Links to this post
Libertarians:
The people must lead, and the leaders must follow.
The press release is for the use of any Libertarian Party affiliate or organization wanting a rapid and forceful response to Bush's call for escalation in Iraq. Please feel free to place your group's name and contact information on it and release it to your local media. If you would like to make changes, feel free to do so. No credit need (or should) be given - release this under your own group's name. The LP should be providing affiliates with platform-compliant, forceful statements on current news events. The LP should be taking a strong antiwar stand. The activists of the LP Radical Caucus offer this release to help LP affiliates make a strong Libertarian statement on current events.
Labels: LP
¶ 6:43 PM 0 Comments Links to this post
I want to point out something I think is important and that is being missed in many intra-LP discussions. I have never heard anyone say that the LP should soley focus on education or activism as opposed to running candidates. Every radical Libertarian I have spoken with wants a mixture of those activities. I have heard several people within the LP say what Sean Haugh put into words so well when he wrote that "[R]unning Libertarian candidates to win is the first item on our agenda, if not the only one."
So it seems to me that the internal debate we are having isn't no candidates vs candidates - although it is often framed that way - but is rather a mixture of methods vs sole focus on electing candidates. The radicals I know within the LP seem to favor a mixture of methods, while there seems to be an increasing push from some more moderate members of the LP toward an 'elections only' focus. To support this focus, they tend to cite a single (election) focus 'mission statement' which I have never seen in an LP member-voted document such as the platform or bylaws.
I have seen a lot of talk running around about a mysterious LP mission statement and similar 'action plans' and 'strategic plans', but those statements seem to me to be the transitory products of committees rather than the express long-term goals of the members of the LP.
When I look for what is written by and for the membership to be the Party's goal I find this unambiguous statement in the Preamble to the Platform:
As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others. ... These specific policies are not our goal, however. Our goal is nothing more nor less than a world set free in our lifetime, and it is to this end that we take these stands.
And in the Bylaws I find a section labeled Purposes, which says in its entirety:
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.
So those who favor elections-only should in fact be quite pleased, because the emphasis here is heavily on elections. And radicals are pretty much OK with that. However it is not soley on elections. It seems to me that if people believe the LP's focus/mission/whatever should be solely focused on elections, or, again in Sean Haugh's words, that "running Libertarian candidates to win is the first item on our agenda, if not the only one," the burden of proof is on them to go to the party membership and have the bylaws and/or platform changed to reflect that understanding.
Of course I hope that does not happen, nor do I expect that the membership would make such a choice. Furthermore, I think moderates who want an election-only focus know this, which is why I think they have tried to work through committees, etc., thus creating a tension between 'insiders' and the Party's base, who naturally feel that the Party's mission and purposes are spelled out quite clearly in the documents THEY approved by voting.
And, as an appendix, let me take note of this statement in the Bylaws section labeled Purposes: ... functioning as a libertarian political entity separate and distinct from all other political parties or movements ... . This statement is the basis of my contention that reprinting articles from Republicans (complete with links to their site) on the front page of the LP website (as was done as recently as last week) is contrary to our bylaws as well as to common sense.
Labels: LP
¶ 4:57 PM 0 Comments Links to this post
Also good is the reprinted/linked article about elected Libertarians (as opposed to the whinging maunderings of some Republican) featured on the page. And of course there is the Party press release about the Iraq disaster. I do have a couple of issues with that press release, though, and I wish the Party would take the time to have its press releases proofread (I have politely volunteered, but I guess my help is unwelcome). It is not good practice for people to edit their own work no matter how good at writing and/or editing they are. Perhaps two pairs of eyes do see every LP press release, but if so, they should probably get a third set :-/
Here are the main issues I have with that press release. It's not that I think the PR is a disaster; it's just that stuff like this can almost always be improved with good editing:
- I just noticed this one, but it's a biggie. I can see how it might slip by in a review, but I think we need to work on this as it is a big blind spot many Americans have. The title of the press release is Bush’s Shock and Awe: Iraq Death Toll Surpasses 9/11 Body Count. The Iraq death toll passed 3K long ago, even if we just count this present (Bush) period of aggression.
- This paragraph can be greatly improved: "The invasion and continued occupation of Iraq was based largely upon speculation and conjecture created and promoted by a powerful Republican regime and approved by a spineless Democratic minority," said Libertarian Party Executive Director Shane Cory. "The case for war with Iraq was sold to the American people, with award-worthy theatrics, through the exploitation of hate and fear." I would convey essentially the same message this way (Of course I'd keep in the 'said Shane Cory, LP ED' part): "The invasion and continued occupation of Iraq was sold to the American public by creating and exploiting an atmosphere of fear and hatred. A powerful Republican regime created the lies and half-truths, and a spineless Democratic minority either fell for them or went along with them to increase their own political power."
- The next paragraphs are fine, but probably should be condensed to one; or even a line saying that the 'evidence' mustered by Bush et al. was a pack of lies.
- This paragraph is a bit troubling, because although as a Libertarian I understand that the evidence was insufficient for attack even if true, I'm not sure that comes across to someone who is not a Libertarian. The PR reads "Regardless of the evidence that was eventually proven to be false, the Libertarian Party stood firmly positioned against the invasion as it was, without question, an unnecessary and offensive engagement." I would instead write something like "The Libertarian Party was opposed to the invasion of Iraq even before these lies were obvious to all. Even had all the charges been true, they would not have provided justification for attacking another country and setting up a puppet government."
- It's probably better to not hyphenate 'preemptive'. The trend is toward decreasing hyphenation. Instead of saying "... states a section of the Libertarian Party Platform," I would just say "... states the Libertarian Party Platform." Actually, I'd probably move that phrase to the beginning of the paragrpah and say something like "The LP platform is noninterventionist, stating ...."
- In the next-to-last paragraph, I might have pointed out that the Democrats were probably going to go along with this 'surge' nonsense to try to get a draft going, and used that to demonstrate the 'ratchet' effect of the D/R system.
- Last paragrpah is fine except for an embarrassing error where the word 'lead' was used when 'led' was probably meant. The closing could be a bit punchier, too.
Labels: LP
¶ 1:00 PM 0 Comments Links to this post
"... We've also changed the paper on which LP News is printed. The brighter paper costs a bit more, but we are more than making up for the cost difference with the new leaner format. ..."
Which I interpret as "We're producing less content, but the paper is shinier!!!"
Labels: LP
¶ 4:41 AM 0 Comments Links to this post
offsite article from an Alan Keyes website written by an avowed
Republican. Here is the reply of the LP's executive director, Shane
Cory, to me, mixed with my reply to him. Shane's comments are prefaced
with >s]
Shane,
Thanks for taking the time to reply. I think you missed the point of
my criticism, so I'll try to clarify that and a few other points.
First, though, I want to point out that responding to an activist with
either silence or insults is probably bad policy all around. I hope
that you will grow into your job and develop a more professional
manner. It will do the Party good for you to respond to criticism with
real thought and consideration rather than the defensiveness and
condescension you have shown here.
On 12/30/06, shane.cory@lp.org <shane.cory@lp.org> wrote:
> Wow, Susan. Now you're judging the websites that we link to? Regardless
> of content??
A link is one thing - and might (*might*) be appropriate for a more
informal setting such as the blog, but this was more than 'linking' -
it was featuring a story from a Republican website as if it was part
of the LP website. It was my hope that you could appreciate the fact
that such features make it difficult to interest Democrats in the LP,
as they quite naturally on a superficial reading of the first few
stories on the LP website will conclude that we are simply another
sort of Republican Party. This has in fact happened to me once this
week already, where a Democrat had 'read up on' the LP and felt we
were simply Republicans who weren't big on religion. After looking at
the LP website with a unprejudiced eye, possibly you can see his
point. I certainly can :-/
> I guess we should stop linking to WaPo, NYT, WT, WSJ and all others that
> aren't explicitly Libertarian. Or maybe you're saying that we should just
> rule out partisan sites. We could just live in our own little bubble and
> point fingers at everything else.
We should definitely rule out partisan sites. I have heard a lot of
concern expressed that we should do things 'like the big boys do
them'. But does the DP feature articles from the websites of avowed GP
activists? It strikes me as strictly amateur, as well as damaging to
the efforts of those of us actively working to recruit people from the
left who may be looking into the LP.
Let's look at the content of that piece:
The fellow is making the point that as someone who loves the RP, the
LP can be used as a tool to make the RP 'better'. He takes pains to
explain what a loyal Republican he is. The only connection to the LP
is that he suggests that conservative Republicans use the LP to
'punish' the RP and show it that it needs to be more conservative.
Now, as an aside, this is exactly what I think a major role of the LP
(and third parties in general) *is*, but do we really want some guy
blathering about how much he loves the 'real' RP to be featured on the
front page of our Party's website? It just doesn't make sense to me.
> Maybe that's too harsh. I think what you're saying is that we should only
> post articles written by our own members.
Yes, certainly that's what I am saying. Stuff under the main
front-page section "WhatsNew" on the *LP website* should be LP
content. In fact, except for a possible "LP in the news" section and
possibly a small section on organizations (NOT political parties) that
share our goals, I think all content on our website should be LP
generated.
Do we pass out flyers for Alan Keyes in our outreach booths? *I*
don't, though you may.
> Hmmm, when was the last time
> you submitted a column, Susan?
Since my last blog post was deleted and my offer of professional
proofreading was not even *answered*, I am naturally reluctant to
spend too much time laboring for the LNC. But this brings up an
interesting point: did the author of that Keyes-site piece *submit*
his article to you? Can you explain to me why it was chosen for
posting?
> I would be hesitant to do that as we may end up offending some group or
> member if the published views of the member submitted piece don't mesh
> with everyone else's.
Sarcasm isn't becoming in a professional reply to an activist Party
member. The point isn't to avoid offending people; it is to avoid
advertising for other political parties and their candidates and to
stick to advertising *our* platform and principles.
> How about we just run everything by you and you can
> be the judge of what is appropriate and what is not according to your
> vision of what a Libertarian is.
How about we simply publish platform and principle-compliant content
written by members of the LP on the LP website? But if you want help
in deciding what that content might be, I am by all means ready and
willing to help you with that editorial task. I can also work to
solicit content *from Libertarians* for the website. Thanks for
suggesting a fruitful way I could offer my volunteer services to the
LNC.
> Maybe we could pull it off with different sections for right-leaning,
> left-leaning, anarchist, minarchist and other Libertarians? If we do
> that, why don't we just give individual sections and posting authority to
> the people who complain the most. Forget the donors, the loudest and most
> obnoxious should get their way!
>
> Maybe we could just poll the entire membership before putting anything on
> LP.org. That would get expensive and would eventually lead to the site
> being shutdown due to a lack of funds, but that would solve the problem,
> right?
Again, this sarcasm helps no one and gets up no where. You are
supposed to be a professional; why don't you start acting like one? I
- a strong activist - have offered a serious criticism, and you
bluster and sputter like it's some sort of playground quarrel.
> Now, I'll stop being a smartass for a minute.
It's about time. If only you hadn't stopped being a smartass only to
be overtly rude, that would have been some progress. But, alas, it was
not to be.
> Susan, you complain way too
> damn much.
Your *opinion* of my criticisms is interesting to me, and I will in
the future try to take time to point out the positives (such as the
other featured frontpage content on the site), but as a professional
you might reflect that compliments are really dead time (though they
are of course pleasant to receive), while criticisms can help you make
the site - and the Party - better.
> For over a year you've sent your whines and moans about
> everything from press releases paragraph formatting to now, sites that we
> link to.
OK. So now I see that you do not view criticism as a way to make the
LP better, but simply as 'whines and moans'. Incidentally, my
criticism of the press release that you mention wasn't about
formatting (though I may have mentioned it) so much as about an
apparent lack of editing and proofreading revealed by some
embarrassing mistakes. And as *part of that criticism*, I offered to
volunteer my time as a proofreader. From you I got no word of thanks
or even acknowledgment. And you wonder why I do not 'submit articles'
for you to publish!
> On the positive side, my skin is rhino thick thanks to a people like you.
You have a hard and relatively thankless job; there is no doubt about
that. I hope that your skin hasn't become so thick that good ideas or
valid criticisms cannot penetrate it, but I fear that is exactly what
has happened.
> Live a week in my shoes and try to get something done. On day one you
> could issue a statement saying that peanut butter and jelly were a widely
> accepted mix and then be attacked by one faction for mentioning peanut
> butter and another for talking about jelly. A third faction would call
> for your firing for not giving consideration to the role of bread and
> crackers. After day two you would be paralyzed by fear.
I hardly think I would, but I certainly hope that has not been your response.
> Let me ask you this, aside from complaining and attempting to stir up
> controversy, what do you do for the Libertarian National Committee? What
> POSITIVE thing do you do for the LNC? How do you move the LP forward?
As I mentioned before, when I politely pointed out ongoing issues with
the evident lack of proofreading of LP releases, I offered my services
as a proofreader. And... let's see... your response was... dead
silence. I suppose that was better than a sarcastic tirade as I
received this time, but at least now I know you GOT both criticisms. I
just know you have a demonstrated unwillingness to accept help.
And then you have the nerve to berate me for not helping! If this is
the way you routinely treat party members, I am seriously concerned.
> Let me tell you what I do.
>
> - I work my tail off every day (except Sundays) for the LP for about us
> much money as I made when I was 24 years old.
>
> - On top of that, I donate at least $1,000 a year to the LP and then a bit
> more to LP candidates.
>
> - I then raise tens of thousands of dollars for the LP every single month.
> I also save them about ten thousand a month in professional fees by doing
> things myself. As far as cost savings, you can throw in a few thousand
> more for administrative services because I do everything from opening the
> mail to printing the membership cards.
>
> - I promote the party at every opportunity. Whether through the media or
> friends and family, I'm a living LP billboard.
Wonderful. Thank you for your efforts for the Party.
> The points above really aren't unique. Just about every staff member has
> significant commitments of time or money that go above a normal job.
> That's the life of an LPHQ staffer.
Of course; such is natural for political work.
> Another thing that I do is tolerate people like you.
If this is your idea of 'tolerate' - and if 'tolerate' and a string of
justifications is all that activists can expect when dealing with out
executive director - I am not happy with the way the LP is being run.
> People who seem to
> never be pleased and appear to be on a mission to hinder the LP simply
> because things may not be done in their preferred manner or according to
> their narrow ideological viewpoints and without respect for our broad
> Statement of Principles.
I am sorry if it seems to you that I am never pleased with the LP's
work, but that's rather beside the point. The more pertinent issue is
how you respond to perfectly legitimate critiques of how things get
done. You and I may disagree about what is right, but the fact that
you respond to suggestions not with thanks or even lively discussion
but with rationalizations, insults, and sarcasm is very disturbing. It
is extremely unprofessional.
> Susan, to be completely honest with you, you are nothing more than a
> critic. When it comes to the LNC, you do nothing and try nothing aside
> from criticize those of us who are actually getting things done.
Even if that were so (and it is not, as I explained earlier), there is
no reason for you not to welcome criticisms *if they are valid*. And
if they are not, there's no reason for you to respond with rudeness.
> Rather than offering suggestions or productive assistance, you spend your
> time and energy complaining . . . on the Internet.
>
> Unfortunately, even when I try to go above and beyond to listen to you . .
> . well you know how that goes. My ears are still ringing.
>From our phone call? No doubt they are; and I am still trying to
understand why you called me; as it was really the same sort of
rationalizing and attacking *me* as you've displayed here. Your call
accomplished *nothing* except to get Stewart Flood to write one civil
note asking what he could do to get my questions answered; only to
answer with nothing but more rudeness and non-answers when I asked the
questions.
> So, I'll leave you pooled with all of the other unproductive critics to
> the LP until you're ready to step up and do something positive for the LP.
OK; give me a subject and I will write about it. The war? The economy?
Also, I still am happy to offer (again) my services as a proofreader
and/or copyeditor.
> If you can't do that, move on and do something good for yourself or a
> neighbor. The next time you feel the urge to complain, go plant a tree or
> hit the gym. Do something positive regardless of its relation to the LP
> and I think we would be all better off.
>
> As for me, I'm going to take this Saturday afternoon off and spend it with
> my three beautiful children and my bride. Maybe I'll have them create a
> nice, happy card to send to you as an example on how to spend your extra
> time in a positive fashion. Heck, if it puts a smile on your face and
> gets you away from the keyboard for a moment, it's worth it.
>
> Happy New Year.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Shane
More rudeness and unprofessionalism on your part; capped by
'sincerely', of all things! Nice.
--
Susan Hogarth
http://www.colliething.com
Labels: LP
¶ 8:52 PM 6 Comments
organization that might be in some respects libertarian-sympathetic,
but is explicitly NOT Libertarian:
(second article down as of Friday afternoon):
"Two-party Quandaries - RenewAmerica.us article by Ken Marotte --"
which is a link to:
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/marotte/061227
"RenewAmerica is a grassroots organization that supports the
"Declarationist" ideals of Alan Keyes."
Shouldn't there be some sort of policy that the LP 'news' should be
stories written by members of the LP and posted to the LP site?
Linking to EXPLICITLY Republican sites like this only makes it harder
for those of us trying to reach out to members of the Democratic and
Green Parties, many of whom already believe that the LP is nothing but
a haven for atheist Republicans.
Seeing Republican websites like Keyes' featured on the front page of
the LP website makes me think maybe they have a point.
As much as I long to have the LP take a stronger stand against ALL the
wars the US government is prosecuting (including the forgotten war
against Afghanistan and the coming war against Iran), I do not ask
for, expect, or want the LP to feature the websites of peace groups
that combine their peace work with issues like increased government
social spending or that explicitly support another political party. Is
the LP a political party in its own right, or simply an advocacy group
that supports the work of other political parties and advertises for
them?
The Libertarian Party has so many eloquent, impassioned, and
experienced writers who can speak movingly about freedom. Why do we
feature the writings of our competitors instead? Perhaps the LP could
work to develop a writers' bureau as several local parties have done
or are doing. But for heaven's sake; take down the front-page feature
article lifted from a Republican websites!!!
--
Susan Hogarth
http://www.colliething.com
Labels: LP
¶ 5:43 PM 0 Comments Links to this post
Welcome to the LP!
As one of the activists you represent in the SE region, I am glad to have you in the LP. I am, however, a bit disconcerted about the way you were asked to serve as representative; with little or no input or discussion among the region's activists. I outlined the process here:
http://www.colliething.com/2006/12/bob-barr-appointed-to-lnc.html
I bring it to your attention as it's possible you were not aware that your nomination and acceptance as SE region represetative was not a result of wide acclaim, but was accomplished pretty much behind-the-scenes. I hope that you find the information as distressing as many of us in the region have.
Despite the rocky start, I look forward to having you work within the LP. A previous SE region rep had a great suggestion for putting folks like you to work for the LP which I mentioned here:
http://www.colliething.com/2006/12/more-on-bob-barr-and-lp.html
Lastly, I am curious about the drug policy debate in NY you are scheduled for:
http://www.drugpolicy.org/events/event.cfm?eventID=661
Many LP activists are concerned that you may have been engaged to take the anti-freedom position in this debate, so if you could clarify a bit what your stance is on prohibition, that would help folks out a lot. Everyone understands that most people come to the full-freedom position in fits and starts (and most don't make the entire journey at all, alas), but we do feel that it's especially important that someone in a leadership position in the Party should not be speaking publicly contrary to either our platform or our principles.
Thanks again for jumping into the LP and for your willingness to serve!
Labels: LP
¶ 3:44 PM 66 Comments Links to this post
Ideally, I would like to see Barr and other higher-profile defectors from the D/R Party used in such a way that their expertise and other resources are available to the Party, and that the Party is there to help them become more than disgruntled D/Rs, to become in fact active Libertarians. So I was very pleased to see a similar - and better-developed - thought in the comments section of an article on Barr at LFA. Michael Gilson (aka Michael Gilson-De Lemos, aka MG), who served as SE region rep on the LNC from 02-06 (Barr's position now), had a great suggestion for bringing folks like Barr into the LP in a manner best suited to both their own personal development and that of the Party. MG wrote:
Re: Barr–I did my part in bringing him into the movement. Without offering an opinion on Bob’s qualifications, I have long advocated creation of an advisory board of eminent persons to shuttle these ’stars’ so that…
a)They’re not disheartened by criticism or being expected to understand organizational detail, and members are not outraged by placement of people who have at best a general understanding of LP culture and Libertarian ideology in key positions; and
b) They and our fundraisers can use their strength–publicity and goodwill–to best effect.
The Democratic party loves Barbara Streisand. But they are unlikely to appoint her to an executive board or a platform committee.They do appoint her to other goodwill boards.
By all means we should develop and appoint 100% Libertarians conversant with ideology, practice and organization to the most key positions whereever available. The result of not doing so are ‘leaders’ with limited understanding who therefore de-educate members while proudly re-inventing the flat tire.
Libertarianism is a body of knowledge, like medicine, to preserve human rights, rebuild bonds through the pledge, and replace coercive government management with the voluntary approach. Anything less is a path to statism, gangsterism. There are plentry of parties advocating less–we should not join them. There is theory and practice. It takes time to acquire.Labels: LP
¶ 1:50 PM 0 Comments Links to this post
What this is NOT about: Bob Barr's suitability for the position he was appointed to.
Essence of the matter: The chairs of the SE region did not act against rules in the appointment of Bob Barr to the LNC, but they did act inappropriately. They should have let the alternate take the position, asked for nominations, and opened a dialogue with activist members of the Party. They should not have acted (or attempted to act) in secret regarding the appointment, should not have acted in haste, should not have speeded up the process when it came under scrutiny, and should not have enlisted the help of Party members outside the region while ignoring or insulting people within the region who raised concerns. They should not have been in such haste to appoint a newcomer to the Party with a controversial political record in another party without consideration for the concerns of LP activists.
My interest in this matter: I am an LP activist from North Carolina, and a member of the LP of NC's Executive Committee.
Background:
The LNC is the governing body of the Libertarian Party (LP). It is composed of the Party's officers and representatives from geographical regions of the US. These regions are formed at each national convention, where each region selects an LNC representative and an alternate to serve in the representative's absence. In the SE region (at least), the state chairs have the duty of replacing a representative who leaves office between conventions. The SE region is composed of the state LPs of TN, NC, SC, GA, AL, FL, MS.
At the last LP convention in Portland, the SE region representatives selected as our representative Mark Bodenhausen, with Stewart Flood as alternate.
Mark Bodenhausen resigned on the 10th of this month (December) during a conference call
among a quorum of state chairs. There was some private discussion among the chairs about the possibility of Mark's resignation beforehand. When Mark resigned, Stewart Flood, the alternate, expressed his willingness and ability to serve in Mark's stead as needed. Discussion moved to a replacement for Mark. Bob Barr was nominated by Alicia Mattson, chair of the TN LP. No other nominations were offered. It was decided to reconvene the meeting on Sunday the 16th to hold a vote on Mr. Barr's nomination. This would give state chairs time to discuss the situation with their committees. The chairs were urged to keep the process confidential other than sharing with their executive committees.
I am not sure if other executive committees were informed, but whe Phil Jacobson (chair of LPNC) reported this information the LPNC executive committee, there was a fairly significant degree of concern about both the speed and secrecy of the action and the nomination of Bob Barr. Phil shared this concern with his fellow SE region chairs, as well as a sampling of the questions about Mr. Barr. Phil Jacobson received a phone call from Aaron Starr of California lobbying him to vote 'yes' on the Barr nomination.
On the evening of December 11 (Monday), Phil reported to the LPNC executive committee the vote on Mr. Barr was to be moved up to Tuesday the 12th, the next day (over Phil's objections). The primary justification was to get better press coverage sooner. Phil also indicated his intent - to both the other chairs and to the LPNC's executive committee - to vote against the nomination because of the concerns of the LPNC executive committee. At this point (early Tuesday), the chair of TN, Alicia Mattson, wrote the following to Phil:
I am displeased with NC's intent to vote against a Bob Barr nomination. The region as a
whole seems poised to vote in favor of the idea, and the thought of one of our states
playing the contrarian presents a particularly unpleasant image. It would be better for
public image sake for us to present a unified front, for us to show goodwill towards Bob
Barr in exchange for what he can bring and has brought to our party. I would strongly
encourage Phil to reconsider his intent to oppose the nomination in order to present a
better image of our region. For my part, I'll be inclined to change our regional makeup at
the next opportunity, rather than have a contrarian state that doesn't mesh well with the
rest of the region and seems determined to oppose a move that would be so positive for the
LP.
The [phone] meeting Tuesay the 12th convened at 7pm and was over in about an hour, by which point Bob Barr had been elected to the position by a vote of four to one [Phil voting against]. Phil indicated that he also asked his fellow chairs to give the nomination more time for consideration to allay the concerns of state LP activists. This motion was defeated. The state chairs in attendance were Dick Clark (LPAL), Jason Pye (LPGA), Phil Jacobson (LPNC), and Alicia Mattson (LPTN). Also in attendance and presiding was Stewart Flood, the regional alternate rep. Missing were the chairs from Florida (Doug Klippel), Mississippi (Harold Taylor), and South Carolina (Tim Moutrie). Stewart Flood, who is the LPSC's vice chair, acted for SC's chair and voted 'yes' for Barr, as they had discussed the vote earlier. By midnight on the 12/13th, Alicia Mattson had sent a letter to Mr. Barr, inviting him to become our region's representative on the Libertarian National Committee.
When I questioned the speed and secrecy of this process and wrote out a timeline to explain my concerns, I was subjected to comments such as:
Your questions are inapropriate and contain very subtly phrased accusations that are
unjustified. - Stewart Flood
The suggestion of Bob Barr was not even made to me by a member of the Georgia LP. I'm sure that they're probably kicking themselves for not thinking of the idea first, but it was
brought to me by other people. And no, the names of the people who suggested Bob and the
names of everyone who had input on this is none of anyone's business. - Stewart Flood
I find that I must agree with Alicia that your state is not part of our political climate
and should probably be put in another region in 2008. My opinion may change, but it will
take a complete turn-around in the attitude of your party both as a member of this region
and as a state affiliate of the Libertarian National Committee. - Stewart Flood
And my favorite:
If you want to work some more details into the timeline, since Sunday night I've also:
eaten some soup, turkey, an apple, potatotes, ham, broccoli, junk food
drank some Mountain Dew and orange juice (not together)
bought some dog food & Christmas cards
worked on a newsletter
gone to work
etc.
Yesterday I was wearing black pants and a striped shirt. I think my bedtime last night was
around 2:30am CST, pretty early for me, actually. - Alicia Mattson
I have no idea who you and really don't care to know why you seem to be the spokesperson
for people in your state party. I recall now that this isn't the first time you've tried to
tear messages of mine apart to find fault. Start looking at the forest, not the trees.
I believe you are intentionally trying to cause controvery. And I also believe your reply
indicates that you have no idea what is going on. Do I think that you're lying? I think
that you are well versed in the art of twisting things out of context. You'd probably make a
good political speech writer for a non-indicted co-conspirator congress critter, but other
than that your words have no meaning.
I have no further comment on this subject other than to close this discussion by saying that
you should direct all questions to your state party chairman. - Stewart Flood
Phil Jacobson contributed this about the process:
One thing I will comment on is that in some matters, members of the LPNC SE Region Chairs
group have expected me to take the opposite extreme from the "prosecutor" model - to simply accept the ideas of the majority of SE Region chairs and go along with them, ignoring the opinions of LPNC members entirely. At that point, it seems, these out of state chairs
expected me to take on the burden of arguing their case before the LPNC EC and LPNC members, to sell their ideas as if my will was their will.
In other words, they expected me to represent them to LPNC rather than for me to represent
LPNC to them.
Believe it or not, I actually have the power to do that, by the rules we operate under
(seemingly inspired by the philosophies of many government legislators). But I do not feel
it appropriate for me to use such a power, without an emergency to justify it (none being
present in this case). Instead I have tried, to the extent made possible by the system I am
forced to work within, to make sure that the true ruling body of LPNC (between state
conventions, as provided by the LPNC bylaws) - the LPNC EC - is allowed to exercise maximum influence on any vote I cast "for LPNC".
After Stewart Flood declared his unwillingness to communicate with me further, I received a call from Shane Cory, the Executive Director of the LP. He wanted, he said, to know if I had concerns or questions. He also, it seemed, wanted to spend a fair amount of time denigrating the leadership style of the LPNC chair Phil Jacobson. When I asked him about the secrecy surrounding the Barr nomination, he said that 'key people in the LP' were aware of the nomination and invitation. He refused to name any of these people.
After I spoke to Shane Cory, I got this in email from Stewart Flood (on the 14th):
Shane Cory called me this afternoon and told me that you have additional questions that you
would like addressed. He asked me to contact you and reply to any questions that I am able
to answer. He indicated that you need clarification on several issues and may have further
questions that have not yet been asked.
I will certainly try to answer all of your questions. If any of them require answers that I
do not know, I will try to find the person (or persons) that will be able to give you an
accurate answer.
I had - and have these questions for Stewart. So far no answer:
- You indicated that nominating Barr was 'not your idea', but declined to say whose idea it
was. Who nominated him? Was it that person's idea?
- Was Mr. Barr consulted during this process? Did he accept the nomination?
- Were you willing and able to serve as our primary representative until someone else was
found? Were you willing to serve as representative if you had been nominated for that
position?
- Why wasn't more time given for other nominations to come to the chairs from the activists
in their state party organizations?
- Why was only a week given for consideration?
- Why was the week shortened to less than three days *after* concerns about both the
nomination and the process were raised?
- Why was it considered important to select a representative without opening discussion on
the issue among the people who will be represented?
- Shane mentioned in our conversation that 'key people' were consulted about the Barr
nomination. Which people where they? What makes them 'key people'? Were all the 'key people'
members of the SE region?
- If the SE region chairs were told to keep the Barr nomination quiet *within* the SE
region, why was Aaron Starr from California informed about it? Was he a 'key person'? What
gave him this status?
- Is Shane Cory a 'key person'? Is he a member of the SE region? When did he know about this
nomination?
Labels: LP
¶ 11:20 PM 8 Comments Links to this post
Argh. Second try as I inadvertanly erased the first one. I hope the battery holds.
Live from the DC Fair in Winston-Salem!
Last night Bev Wilcox, Paul Elledge, and I got the booth materials (pretty much) in order, and this morning Paul and I came down to W-S to set up and work the firts day.
Pictures:
1) Paul chatting it up with a fairgoer.
2) The booth setup.
3) My exciting find - a new kind of coffee lid! I love coffee lid technology (and the coffee guy assured me on seeing my LP button that none of the money I paid was 'for taxes').
4) Extravagant purchase #2 - Happy Feet inserts from a neighboring vendor. So far i'm loving them. I definitely wore the wrong shoes today!
As always, the Fair is an extremely mixed bag - wonderful people mixed with somewhat less-than-wonderful folks mixed with just plain weird people (no doubt they think the same of us)
Labels: LP
¶ 6:27 PM 0 Comments Links to this post
