Posted at Last Free Voice by ENM
The following was posted on the LNC discussion group by LNC At-Large Representative Angela Keaton. Please note the following additional statement from Ms. Keaton: “I don’t begrudge Shane Cory his salary or imply that he didn’t put in very long difficult hours. I am merely stating that the way it was handled gives members the impression that the LNC is full of people without business, non profit or any real world experience.â€
From: angela at angelakeaton.com
To: lnc-discuss at hq.lp.org
Subject: The continuing crisis
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 07:48:55 +0000NOT PRIVATE
With all due respect to Mr. Starr, none of the responses to Mr. LaBianca were either well intended or even informative. Having worked for successful non-profits, I can speak to the fact the standard operating procedures of the Libertarian Party are only ’standard’ or ‘operational’ if this were a cutesy 70s sit com about the gang that can’t shoot straight.
First, tonight I attended a dinner at a donor’s house where I had to defend the Barr/Helms press release to a mixed raced woman whose black son was killed by SFPD officers. Hence, my generosity toward those who those who wish I would take a more ‘nuanced’ view of the Barr campaign is minimal. I suppose we should be grateful that David Irving didn’t shuffle this mortal coil lest I be forced to explain to my mother why Barr (or rather, his ghost writers) think we have lost the greatest historian since Thucydides. Second, a donor earnestly told me that the LP has 49 state ballot access. One can only imagine where he may have gotten such an impression. Finally, there is really little more one can say about those who do not see the public relations problem with regard to Mr. Cory’s separation agreement.
I no longer have any faith that the officers of this organization, irrespective of whether they have the best interest of the Party at heart, are competent to execute our mission.
Angela Keaton
At Large Representative
Libertarian National Committee
angela at angelakeaton.com
310-xxx-xxxx
Let’s not forget that the 2006 elected Treasurer of the party Geoff Neale quit at the Nov 2006 LNC meeting because he couldn’t get adequate information to do his FEC reports. Was it office incompetence or was someone(s) trying to hide something??
G.E. // Jul 27, 2008 at 12:56 pm
“But the rank-and-file members need to realize how expensive it is to live in/near D.C. â€
Then get the hell out of D.C.
I said “get out of Dodge” in a post to the LNC discussion group, for the very same reasons you say this G.E., and I got slammed!
I got the tired old “we have to be in D.C. if we want to be a player in national politics” argument. So, what happens as a result is, fundraising takes precedence over principle. Nominating Barr, the reformers basically taking over, etc. proves this. Right now, a watered down message plays to a wider audience, and theoretically will draw more contributions.
So this is where the LP is going . . . water down the message (just listen to Barr’s mild “libertarianism” as proof; that is, where he actually IS libertarian instead of conservative), so that “being a player” in the very expensive D.C. area can be sustained!
Thomas M. Sipos . . .
Speaks the truth, and very convincingly I might add!
Thank you for saying the things that I have been very poor at saying.
paulie cannoli // Jul 30, 2008 at 2:47 pm
For one thing, some Barr backers don’t want to be associated with what they perceive to be the “kook factor.â€
True enough. The much larger problem I see is with Barr, as the Libertarian Party candidate/nominee for president is that the libertarian message in general is “kooky” for Barr and his supporters.
Barr’s idea of liberty is “allowing “medicinal marijuana, not ending the vile war on drugs which intrudes on the right of self ownership.
Barr’s idea of liberty is “federalism”, not eliminating coercion at all levels of government.
Barr’s idea of liberty is to end the income tax and replace it with another tax which over time will be just as abhorrent, counterproductive and intrusive, instead of ending coercive taxation.
Barr’s idea of liberty is to remove the “bad” provisions of the USA Patriot Act and Defense of Marriage Act, instead of eliminating them altogether because of their intrusions into privacy and right to contract.
See the pattern here . . . Barr is either an extremely lightweight advocate of liberty, or is simply afraid of seeming “kooky” by promoting liberty truthfully and completely. He is out to get VOTES, period, not to promote liberty or the LP!
George,
Well, that’s the nature of the beast.
In any given organization, you can expect that when the organization takes a direction some of its members/supporters don’t like, some of those members/supporters are going to leave, or at least temporarily withhold material support from, the organization.
Some of those members/supporters might leave the organization entirely (“take their marbles and go home”).
Some of them may decide that they’re not interest in investing their time, effort or money in the organization at the moment, but remain members and wait to see if things start going the way they want things to go again.
Some of them may just re-focus their efforts into parts of the organization’s efforts that they don’t have a problem with.
And, yes, some of them may say “well, I still like the organization, so I guess I’ll kick in even though I think it’s making a mistake.”
The important thing here is that those advocating any given course of action realize that the above is the case. When the situation changes such that you are in control, are getting your way, etc. … the situation will also change in other ways, too. You’re in charge. It’s your ball, not someone else’s any more.
In the case of “the reformers versus the radicals,” well, the reformers have been complaining for years that the radicals dominate the party. Why would they be surprised to find that a significant portion of the party’s financial support came from what they believe to have been the dominant faction … and that less of it is coming now that that dominant faction is at least temporarily no longer dominant?
I know radical party members who are still party members and who have religiously written checks to both the party and its candidates for years. Some — not all — but some of those radical party members have decided to stop writing checks, or to write those checks to candidates other than the presidential candidate, or to libertarian organizations other than the LP, this year.
The reformer/pragmatist (they’re not the same thing, but for this particular statement they can be taken together) faction of the LP has always understood that if they had their way, the next step was turning that way into outreach that grows the party full of more people like them (or at least people who like the approach they’re taking).
They know they can’t rely on a radical support base to back and finance their project in the long run. In the short run, there seems to be a gap appearing between the downward trend in the prior radical support and the predicted upward trend in new support attracted by the new approach.
It could be that that predicted upward trend will never happen … or it could be that it just takes time. I guess we’ll see. Time is a commodity of limited supply. If the reformers’ plans/predictions don’t bear fruit, then the reformers’ agenda will likely be rejected by the party two or four or six or eight years from now. How long they have depends on how well they perform and on how strong and well-organized the radical reaction is.
This is something Carl and I agree on, and I wasn’t trying to be snarky when I wrote:
“When you fight for control of an apparatus and win control of that apparatus, the obligation to use that apparatus to produce results is on you, not on the people you wrested that power away from.”
It’s just the way things are.
When you fight for control of an apparatus and win control of that apparatus, the obligation to use that apparatus to produce results is on you, not on the people you wrested that power away from.
Hopefully that doesn’t mean “I lost so I’m taking my marbles and going home.”
Whereas, I think that his personal story and activism chops qualify him.
But will he be even better if between now and next time he succeeds in his new business and/or gets elected to local office? Absolutely.
… and, well, if you have little or no prior elected office experience on your resume, if you’re a celebrity and/or a multi-billionaire — let’s talk. We might let you into the American presidential campaign sweepstakes. All three? TRIFECTA!
None of the above? Game over. It sucks, but it’s the nature of the beast.
Kubby is a hell of a guy and he should run for state and local office every damn election year. But president? Nope.
But, yes, all things being equal, prior elected office does help.
Resume can be of various kinds. I’m not aware of Kubby having been elected to anything, but his life experience is certainly relevant.
My ideal candidate would be both radical and passionate…
… add “with something of a resume” to that (meaning the minimum credibility of having been elected to SOME kind of prior office) and we have our winner!
I understood what you meant. I was explaining what I meant. I’ll admit that I was incorrectly conflating the two concepts you distinguish here.
My ideal candidate would be both radical and passionate, and I suspect that is likely to be the case with many LP donors as well.
In other words, your ideal candidate would have no understanding of economics or moral principles?
There are two other parties for that.
Paulie: what I meant by passionate and moderate is something like this. One can be a fire-breathing advocate for legal medical marijuana without advocating legal cocaine. One can passionately advocate for tax reform (such as fair tax or something better) without calling for zero taxes.
Or, one could be extremely radical and still boring; i.e., David Bergland.
Barr is both moderate and bland. On the upside, he has more credibility than the typical LP candidate.
My ideal candidate would be semi-moderate, capable of passion and have something of a resume.
At last! Something on which we can all agree.
Tom, your last point is absolutely correct.
He’s doing a terrible job of going after the Ron Paul followers; he didn’t show up at the big Washington ralley. Where are the web ads at dailypaul.com?
I think there is a conscious effort by him campaign not to focus too much on Ron Paul followers.
For one thing, some Barr backers don’t want to be associated with what they perceive to be the “kook factor.” For another thing, many of the most fervent Ron Paul supporters have been hostile to Barr, and most of the rest have been lukewarm.
Also, there is the fact that Dr. Paul is still technically in the race, and the die hards actually do believe he has a chance to win, no matter what anyone else says.
As for the Washington Rally, Barr does have somewhat of an excuse in that he had an existing commitment to FreedomFest in Las Vegas at the same time. Different people will hold different views as to the relative importance of the two. The one objective fact is that Barr could not be in two places at once.
3. As a spokesman for liberty, Barr is weak. I agree with the radicals on this. He is weak not because he is moderate; he is weak because he uses legaleze and excessive equivocations.
That’s a lot of what I meant by moderate.
Carl,
At the end of your first bullet point, you ask “what’s the point?” Then, in your second bullet point, you answer yourself.
Whether I like it or not, if the Barr campaign produces a blowout — big money, new party recruitment, much media, large vote totals — the party will not remain “deeply divided.” Even if the radicals continue to maintain a foothold in the LP, it will have, for the foreseeable future, abandoned them and the next few election cycles will be completely dominated by the reformer/moderate faction, riding on this year’s (relative) success.
Which leads me back to one of George’s questions:
“Are Reformers not really doing their part? What facts do you have to support this?”
This election cycle is the reformers’ baby.
They got a high-profile candidate who is not a radical.
They got a platform rewrite which, so far as I can tell, is to their liking (at least its biggest boosters were “reformers”).
They got an operating majority on the LNC.
The party is in their hands.
It’s doing things their way.
“Their part” is all of it.
Some radicals will no doubt choose to chip in out of party loyalty, but that’s a gift, a bonus, a windfall, not something the reformers have any right to expect.
When you fight for control of an apparatus and win control of that apparatus, the obligation to use that apparatus to produce results is on you, not on the people you wrested that power away from.
1. That’s defeatism. Defeating ourselves before we even start is not going to do anyone any good.
Speaking as one of the non-donors, here’s my reasons, and those of some other non-donors I know:
1. While I think Bob Barr is the best candidate running, his odds of winning are miniscule, so what’s the point?
2. Bob Barr campaign as means to grow the party would be interesting if I wanted the LP to grow. As long as the party is deeply divided, and not interested in trying to win, I have no interest in this aspect.
3. As a spokesman for liberty, Barr is weak. I agree with the radicals on this. He is weak not because he is moderate; he is weak because he uses legaleze and excessive equivocations.
4. Even without 2 and 3, there is the question of whether the Barr campaign is well run. While he is getting some excellent press hits, his calendar is nearly empty. He’s doing a terrible job of going after the Ron Paul followers; he didn’t show up at the big Washington ralley. Where are the web ads at dailypaul.com?
What’s particularly discouraging is how little coverage Barr is getting in the blogosphere. Independent blog coverage is about the same or less than mainstream media coverage!
Awesome, thanks!
Paulie
You’re right about the fundraising, that must be where I got that idea.
I’m almost finished with the programming of the candidates website. I’m going to start entering the data in the db now.
http://libertarianpartycandidates.us/
So far only the state of North Carolina has any appreciable info.
It’s unpolished but I plan to get something decent ASAP and improve on it in successive years.
Tom, by all means, we must each be guided by our own principles. For some reason, I had the idea it was part of the job.
Possibly because LP.org said so.
http://www.lp.org/leadership
scroll to the bottom
” * Perhaps one of the most important task that is expected from a board member of the Libertarian National Committee is to raise funds for the organization through a combination of personal contributions and funds raised through personal solicitations. The amounts here reflect the total contributions received from or raised by the board member during his or her term so far. The amounts shown are as of 06/05/08.”
Paulie, I joined the LP Radicals mailing list and will give this issue some more thought. I’m a capable web developer so programming, etc is no problem.
Awesome! Thanks.
We can make the candidate list the first part of the wiki?
Tom, by all means, we must each be guided by our own principles. For some reason, I had the idea it was part of the job. Minor point, anyway.
Paulie, I joined the LP Radicals mailing list and will give this issue some more thought. I’m a capable web developer so programming, etc is no problem.
You bring up the interesting possibility that much of that donor core may just be tapped out from supporting Paul’s campaign.
I think if Ron Paul had agreed to accept the LP nomination, he would be getting a lot of donations right now. I even suspect Mary Ruwart would be doing better right now, although I’m not nearly as certain of that.
For that matter, if the Ron Paul campaign had not flopped its approach to Iowa and New Hampshire, and had come in, say, 2nd/3rd rather than 4th/5th, his donation totals would have been far higher – not just in general, but also from the people you are referring to – than they ended up being.
Fred,
You write:
“I agree with the bulk of your post, but not with its certainty.”
Hmmm … my post wasn’t intended to reflect much certainty at all.
The only real facts we have are that the LP and the Barr campaign aren’t performing impressively in terms of garnering contributions and, extrapolatively, that this means the “usual donor core” isn’t exerting itself to contribute at this time.
You bring up the interesting possibility that much of that donor core may just be tapped out from supporting Paul’s campaign. Good catch.
George,
You write:
“Isn’t one of the jobs of LNC members to raise funds?”
In the last few years, that job has become part of the LNC’s internal self-enforced culture, but no — it’s not in the bylaws job description or anything.
Last year, Ms. Keaton was one of the LNC’s top fundraisers. This year, she has stated that she can’t in good conscience make that effort because she can’t honestly tell prospective donors the money they give would be a good investment.
That’s obviously a subjective judgment call on her part, but it’s her call to make — and one on which her personal credibility is staked insofar as she also raises money for other libertarian organizations. If she sells prospective donors a lemon (which, at the moment, she obviously believes she would be doing if she sold them the LP), she expects them to not trust her when she comes back to them on behalf of those other organizations.
Suppose you were a car dealer, and your sales lines consisted of Porsches, Ferraris, and refurbished 1974 Ford Pintos. Once you got the bulletin explaining that those Pintos might explode if rammed, do you think you might want to drop that particular sales line?
Opinions may vary over whether the 2008 LP is the equivalent of the 1974 Ford Pinto. But apparently Ms. Keaton genuinely believes it is, and that’s a very good reason to her to not to sell it at the moment.
A really kickass collaboration website would include more than just a static website and a mailing list – you probably already knew this.
Yes.
I won’t bore you with the details.
Please do. But keep in mind all I know is basic flat html, so if there is any actual programming involved, as I suspect there would have to be, it would require some help from someone like you.
Some bigwig radicals probably need to get together and strategize a plan, short and long-term, for regaining dominance in the party, and that would dictate what steps to take from there.
I don’t know that there any bigwigs. We’ve been doing lots of strategizing, something like 5,500 comments now. A lot of it is off topic. A lot of it is on topic, but most of it never actually happens.
We could put their draft plan up on the website in a wiki, a la wikipedia, and people could make suggestions by editing it, or adding comments, and we could take it from there.
Yes, that was one of the suggestions that has periodically been made on the list. I think we do have some wikipedia-like function somewhere, but it’s not linked from the webpage so I don’t know where to find it. I don’t think it is used much.
I think your ideas are great, and any help you can give with implementing them would be appreciated.
If you want to address the “bigwigs” (and everyone else), join the LP Radicals yahoo group (if you have not already) and post your ideas. Or else just do it and let them come to you.
Paulie
A really kickass collaboration website would include more than just a static website and a mailing list – you probably already knew this. I won’t bore you with the details.
Some bigwig radicals probably need to get together and strategize a plan, short and long-term, for regaining dominance in the party, and that would dictate what steps to take from there.
We could put their draft plan up on the website in a wiki, a la wikipedia, and people could make suggestions by editing it, or adding comments, and we could take it from there.
Just a first thought.
AFAIK – ’97 was the only post-presidential year that membership did not drop, and ’04 was the only presidential year that it did not increase.
Paulie: You’re right, it’s not likely at all that the figure factors in members leaving, but I suspect the majority of those people will just let their dues lapse over the course of the year rather than go through the trouble of mailing back their cards. Even so, my understanding is that every election year there’s a boost in sign ups, and that the national office tracks that figure. Assuming there’s been any consistency on this point, earlier election cycles might be an interesting comparison.
6. It sounds like what we need to focus on is working harder/smarter to elect the right people to LP offices. What are LP Radicals doing _now_ to organize for 2010 and 2012? What’s the strategic plan? Where is the LP Radicals website where we can collaborate in open source fashion to get things moving in our direction?
(btw I volunteer to work on this.)
The LP Radicals website is lpradicals.org, and almost all the discussion takes place on the yahoo group. Lots of good ideas get thrown out, as well as lots of off-topic tangents that go on for numerous messages, and little ever actually gets implemented. If you are volunteering to help in any way, your help would be great!
5. You’re going on about the donors, and the one data point about it being down is interesting, but in order to reach any further conclusions about why it has gone down, don’t donors from 2004 who haven’t contributed this year need to be surveyed? Until that information exists, any talk of the why is speculation. Is someone surveying them? Who is in charge of that?
To my knowledge no one is surveying them. I do agree it is a good idea. But it’s pretty clear that many people are finding Barr’s moderation to be lackluster and uninspiring.
2. Isn’t one of the jobs of LNC members to raise funds? If someone won’t do it, why are they keeping the job? I am new to the LP and have nothing against anyone really, so I’m not saying anyone should quit, simply making an observation.
It’s not necessarily the job of LNC members to raise funds. There should probably be a separate fundraising committee. The job of the LNC is to govern the party.
1. Perhaps the message would benefit from less snarkiness and inside jokes and more openness and clarity. If one plans to criticize, good faith dictates that constructive suggestions for improvement accompany the criticism. I’m not seeing that.
I agree.
National’s been throwing around their “2000 new members figure†a bit, is that behind the curve too?
What does that figure mean? 2,000 new members, but an unknown number have left? 2,000 net new members? Are these dues paying members or non-paying pledge signers?
I think based on past behavior it’s not safe to assume that they mean net gain of 2,000 dues paying members. But, suppose it does. It still would not get us back to 2004 levels, much less 2000, especially if there will be a dropoff next year, as has happened every post-presidential election year except 1997.
re comment61: Or, as I told the reformist purgers pre-Denver, be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.
Actually, thanks to Tom Knapp and Steve Kubby, they did not get everything they wished for (purging us out of the party), but it should still be increasingly apparent by now that Barr’s timid Republitarian approach is neither exciting libertarians nor bringing in the Republitarian masses that our mere presence was supposedly keeping out of the LP’s grasp.
If that is not apparent to anyone yet, give it 3-4 more months.
It’s also no at as if the present economic situation is conducive to giving money away.
*It’s also not as if
1. Perhaps the message would benefit from less snarkiness and inside jokes and more openness and clarity. If one plans to criticize, good faith dictates that constructive suggestions for improvement accompany the criticism. I’m not seeing that.
2. Isn’t one of the jobs of LNC members to raise funds? If someone won’t do it, why are they keeping the job? I am new to the LP and have nothing against anyone really, so I’m not saying anyone should quit, simply making an observation.
3. If she’s being outvoted on the LNC, well, that is how democracy works, isn’t it? Harsh but true.
4. I wanted Ruwart but I still contributed, $200 to Barr, $500 to LP-USA. I know I’m not privy to all the gory details of what goes on behind closed doors, but you don’t see me running down the party just because it didn’t go my way. I find that activity to be in very poor taste.
5. You’re going on about the donors, and the one data point about it being down is interesting, but in order to reach any further conclusions about why it has gone down, don’t donors from 2004 who haven’t contributed this year need to be surveyed? Until that information exists, any talk of the why is speculation. Is someone surveying them? Who is in charge of that?
6. It sounds like what we need to focus on is working harder/smarter to elect the right people to LP offices. What are LP Radicals doing _now_ to organize for 2010 and 2012? What’s the strategic plan? Where is the LP Radicals website where we can collaborate in open source fashion to get things moving in our direction?
(btw I volunteer to work on this.)
7. Are Reformers not really doing their part? What facts do you have to support this?
“Fact #1: A significant portion of the old donor base apparently regards itself as having been abandoned by the LP, and is responding in kind.
Fact #2: The hypothetical new, broader donor base hasn’t shown up with its checkbooks in hand yet. Maybe it’s on the way, or maybe the campaign and the party haven’t figured out the proper mating call to broadcast yet … or maybe it just ain’t coming.”
Unfortunately, the matter is more subjective than you might believe. A lot of us did throw a lot of money at the Ron Paul campaign, your reservations aside. It’s also no at as if the present economic situation is conducive to giving money away.
I agree with the bulk of your post, but not with its certainty. Even if you’re 100% right and I’m just kicking around hypotheticals, which I suspect I am, these are likely to be the retorts after the fact. Of course, the other side of the coin is if Barr’s numbers challenge Clark’s, suddenly this campaign strategy garners more votes per dollar and is considered a success.
National’s been throwing around their “2000 new members figure” a bit, is that behind the curve too? I don’t know where to find that kind of data.
George,
Angela’s point is not that her associations make her “cool.” Rather I see her points as two-fold:
– She’s worked with, and been around, other organizations of the same general type as the LP, she recognizes the general principles on which such organizations have to operate to be successful, and the people she’s speaking to on the LNC are refusing (from ignorance, stubbornness or some combination thereof) to operate according to said principles.
– Specifically, she’s worked with and been around other libertarian organizations, she has some insight as to why people who are still writing checks to those organizations are no longer writing checks to the LP, and the people she’s speaking to on the LNC are refusing (from ignorance, stubbornness, ideology or some combination thereof) to recognize and respond appropriately to those reasons such that checks start being written to the LP.
You may or may not consider her claims of insight/expertise to be valid, but those are the claims she’s making, even if she’s making them in snark-speak (presumably from exasperation).
A significant segment of usual LP donors seems to be voting “no” on the Barr campaign — and on the party which gave them that campaign — with their checkbooks.
I’m not saying that to put down the Barr campaign or the LP — even if one believes that the Barr campaign is the best possible course for the party to have taken, the foregoing statement is true on its face. Contributions are down to the LP, and the Barr campaign, at this moment, is on track to raise less money than Michael Badnarik did in 2004.
For the sake of argument, I’m willing to stipulate that it’s possible that the LP might be better off abandoning its own hardcore donor base and trying to create a new, broader donor base.
That doesn’t change two facts and several subjective observations:
Fact #1: A significant portion of the old donor base apparently regards itself as having been abandoned by the LP, and is responding in kind.
Fact #2: The hypothetical new, broader donor base hasn’t shown up with its checkbooks in hand yet. Maybe it’s on the way, or maybe the campaign and the party haven’t figured out the proper mating call to broadcast yet … or maybe it just ain’t coming.
Subjective Observations:
– The LNC doesn’t seem to grasp the aforementioned facts and seems to be approaching fundraising as it always has … and not understanding why it’s getting different results.
– Some on the LNC take umbrage at the fact that others on the LNC who tend to interface with, and possibly represent, the alienated segment of the old donor base aren’t willing to blow their own credibility by crawling to that donor base and beseech them to reward what they see as a failure on the LP’s part.
– Specifically, this whole blowup took on mass when Angela, who was one of the LNC’s top individual fundraisers last year, informed her fellow LNC members that she wasn’t going to be busting her ass to raise money in support of their ongoing fiasco any more. That was when things really started to get ugly.
– A very subjective take on the LNC’s attitude: “Yo, woman — the men are busy talking and making decisions here. We don’t need your noise. Oh, but once we’ve decided, be ready to work those phones — we’re going to have bills to pay.”
– Another very subjective take on the “reform” faction’s attitude: “We won! We won! We got the candidate we wanted! We got the platform we wanted! Now, it’s everyone else’s job to make that work out the way we said it would.”
Those last two are, of course, very over the top characterizations … but I hope you can see why some people would perceive those attitudes as existing, and perhaps even see that there may be at least some truth to them.
The donors aren’t going to write checks if they aren’t happy with how their money is being spent. It doesn’t matter how right the recipients think they are, it matters how right the donors think the recipients are.
The fundraisers aren’t going to be motivated to raise funds in support of an agenda they don’t like, nor are they going to be motivated to approach donors whom they know are also not going to like that agenda. That effect is amplified if they feel they’re being treated as second-class citizens to boot.
Since at least as far back as the 2001 financial crises, the LNC has been trying to wish reality into conforming to its model rather than trying to craft a model that conforms to reality.
Let me make it clear that that organizational behavior has no “reformer” or “radical” or “purist” or “pragmatist” boundaries. It just happens to be breaking down along “reformer” and “radical” lines at the moment because there are aggravating factors.
Is LNC/HQ doing anything about that?
Thomas Knapp wrote:
“A significant portion of the LP’s usual donor core seems to be voting “no†with their checkbooks. I’m not sure what all they’re voting “no†on, but if you want their money, you should probably try to find out and do what you can to make them happy.”
Amen!
I’m trying to make sense of Ms Keaton’s comments but all I’m hearing is LP sucks, I’m cooler than you bc I have something to do with Reason, LP sucks and *@&#)$.
Doesn’t seem very constructive on the face of it.
A significant portion of the LP’s usual donor core seems to be voting “no” with their checkbooks. I’m not sure what all they’re voting “no” on, but if you want their money, you should probably try to find out and do what you can to make them happy.
Some of it could simply be PR — but no money due to bad PR is no money just the same. Maybe there’s nothing improper in the ongoing payments to Shane Cory. As a matter of fact, I suspect that’s the case. But if it looks like there might be something improper, some checkbooks are going to stay in the drawer … so you should probably be trying to get everything proper-looking instead of letting Bill Hall buffalo you into stonewalling and making it look like there’s something bad behind Door #1.
On the Barr side, that probably just goes with the territory. Some usual LP donors aren’t going to be happy with the way the nomination went and those usual donors are going to cast their votes by acting unusually and not being donors for awhile. The only solution there is to find new donors who think Barr is the greatest thing since sliced bread.
Blaming Angela Keaton for telling you to get your heads out of your asses isn’t the functional equivalent of actually getting your heads out of your asses. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Angela Keaton wrote:
“1.) The Helms press release significant coverage among activist from minorities communities (pace, Mr. Dashbach.) What does one do?”
Both the Barr campaign and LPHQ should aggressively seek and take advantage of opportunities to speak out positively on libertarian issues that matter and speak to minorities. You can’t unring the bell, but we can demonstrate by our actions that we don’t share Helms’ viewpoint.
“2.) There are member of the Barr campaign, LPHQ/LNC associates who have mislead donors with regard to ballot access.”
I haven’t seen anything misleading come out of either camp. LPHQ has said they expect to make every ballot except OK, WV, and possibly DC — the Barr campaign is taking steps to make sure we also get on in WV and DC. Unfortunately, I know from person experience that some people read goals and think it’s already happened.
Perhaps you are aware of something other than the public commincations from both camps that you feel is misleading, but I haven’t seen it.
“3.) Anyone with the slightest bit of PR savvy would note that the payments to Cory look (not are, but look) inappropriate.”
At the very least, members of the LNC and state chairs should have received a complete explanation of what was paid and why. Did they?
The amount of money paid to LP staff is a matter of public record via FEC reports — if something looks odd, providing a clear explanation is only common sense.
Of 54 comments about two addressed any of the three issues. For those of you who have difficulty reading, let’s try it again.
1.) The Helms press release significant coverage among activist from minorities communities (pace, Mr. Dashbach.) What does one do?
2.) There are member of the Barr campaign, LPHQ/LNC associates who have mislead donors with regard to ballot access.
3.) Anyone with the slightest bit of PR savvy would note that the payments to Cory look (not are, but look) inappropriate.
GE, thanks for the opportunity to rant but being the wife of a professional libertarian writer, a full time underling at the largest libertarian run website, and a responsible and responsive member of the Libertarian National Committee while hardly the activist load of these esteemed contributors, is really more than enough.
I can’t keep up with the blogs. I know my limits.
Mr. Perkins, I like you too but that’s not the point. Don’t patronize me. My election to the LNC was not a gift. I am not the entertainment around here. I am not some rack of tits for Sullentrup and Barr to gawk at. I am not here so the Reformists can feel good about themselves.
As I explained to Dr. Lieberman this weekend, “That’s just the problem. I’m an “other†in my own party. I’m not a goddamn novelty act. I’m a libertarian.
This is the party that my friends and family built, that my husband wrote about, that I raise money for, for which I took time away from my family. Now, we are reduced to Bill Redpath making an ass of himself so he can have ballot access in Guam, two circus monkeys for candidates, diminishing membership, debt, low vote totals and scandal.
Please, if this is the mission, you can hand it over to the Sonny Lanthams, Kevin Barnetts and Alicia Mattsons.
Meanwhile while the moribund and nearly forgotten old guard on the LNC can gossip about me at Redpath’s house, I know what the Christians mean(when they say), ‘When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.’
Time to put the LP in its proper place.”
Sipos, I can probably do couple of 500-800 word shorts for CF in August.
Theodore, you can spend the next 20 years confusing the Libertaran Party with political action or you can learn from my mistakes.
Over and out,
Angela Keaton
Isn’t the solution simple? To organize. Organize like-minded folks, find more like-minded folks and do everything possible to ensure we have majorities at conventions.
To train folks to run for office, to run real campaigns, just like the Republicrats.
The implementation may be complex, but identifying the solution is simple.
Yeah, it sounds simple until you try it. Any help you can provide with implementation would be appreciated.
“The Socialist Party never won a governorship, a Senate seat, or the presidency (they did win two congressional seats and a lot of local offices), but they still got virtually their entire platform enacted over time. The Populist Party got the Federal Reserve System without winning many elections.”
Even though the Socialists and Populists never achieved electoral results like the major parties, they did manage to achieve larger visibility and final percentages than the LP has – hell, it’s a bitch even rivalling their number of votes cast for them in some of those elections. They managed to do it a lot faster too. I only bring these matters up because I don’t believe either would have seen their platforms legislated if they never rose to the rank of a potential disruption to the sitting order.
That’s what I thought, but more die hard libertarians have other, odder plans. With no real end in sight.
I think it’s more like the ground is coolest before dawn. If you have a full moon, it can get pretty bright before dawn.
muahaha
Isn’t the solution simple? To organize. Organize like-minded folks, find more like-minded folks and do everything possible to ensure we have majorities at conventions.
To train folks to run for office, to run real campaigns, just like the Republicrats.
The implementation may be complex, but identifying the solution is simple.
I don’t buy this that the LP is not “a real party”. The LP is whatever LPers make of it.
The sky is darkest before the dawn, or something like that, right?
With almost everyone else, it’s a “two ships passing in the night†argument.
I didn’t see that being the case. We have had some interesting discussions in this thread. I hope they continue.
Basically a bunch of sad, bitter people having a snark contest… and looking for anything and everything to bitch about, as a means of venting steam over the literally dozens of old wounds and personal grudges and side feuds that I count in the comments.
Welcome to the LP. This is why I think it is so important to broaden our appeal to groups that we could bring in – young people first and foremost, immigrants, artists, musicians, creative people of all sorts, students and educators, people living in America’s war zones on the front lines of police state oppression – and what I get in response are inanities like “young people don’t vote and we don’t have the money.”
Young people do vote (not that voting is the only form of political participation), and we haven’t tried raising the money.
As for the content of the original post (which I had completely forgotten by the halfway point of reading comments)… how a posting a do-over of this topic?
Go for it. You are signed up to write LFV, I believe…take what you consider important from the topic and present it in a different way.
Of course, there’s already a discussion of this at LFV (link at the top of the post) if you think that is better.
I would be genuinely interested in hearing specific suggestions, plans, and alternative proposals… as opposed to, “These guys are poopy-heads, so continue supporting me because these guys are poopy-headsâ€.
I’d be interested in hearing some of those too. For example, that is why I encouraged Chris Bennett to post his proposal for what he would do as Executive Director, even if as Angela says he has no shot at getting the job. It seems to me that he is qualified, but I gather the powers that be feel otherwise.
In any professional environment, you learn that when griping about something you should bring a specific idea for a solution to the table also. I voted for Ms. Keaton and Dr. Ruwart in Denver with the optimism that would help balance out the LNC in a productive way… not simply bash and tear it down generally without doing the real work of promoting specific proposals.
Same here. I’m hoping the radicals on the LNC put forward a positive agenda that we can take to the 2010 convention and ask with credibility to elect a radical LNC slate. Even if they get voted down every time. Acting only as “no” votes does not give anyone in the middle a reason to vote for such a slate.
Plus, I doubt the Whigs would have collapsed, and been replaced by the GOP, without the crisis of the Civil War.
Likewise, it was the crisis of the Great Depression which pushed much of the socialists’ agenda through.
However, a lot of the socialist agenda was passed during Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society”, sans crisis.
Just as the crisis of the Communist economic collapse brought free enterprise to Poland and the Czech Republic (less so to some of the other former East Bloc nations).
I don’t think the economic crisis was so huge compared with, say, the way the economy was right after World War 2.
I doubt the US will return to freedom absent a crises and collapse of the current system. We’ll suffer more and greater pain, for a couple decades at least, before we re-emerge to freedom.
The crisis you speak may have already started.
Even if that is not true, it may or may not take a crisis, and if it does, it may very well be soon.
“I doubt the US will return to freedom absent a crises and collapse of the current system. We’ll suffer more and greater pain, for a couple decades at least, before we re-emerge to freedom.”
Sounds about right, sadly enough.
http://www.youtube.com/user/thesludgereport2
I subscribed to him since he opened his new account, Youtube suspended his last one which I never had the pleasure to view.
His video’s recently are centered on the disastrous outcomes of the upcoming war with Iran. Unfortunately, I see nothing good crawling out of the rubble of that mess.
Nothing.
“Basically a bunch of sad, bitter people having a snark contest… and looking for anything and everything to bitch about, as a means of venting steam over the literally dozens of old wounds and personal grudges and side feuds that I count in the comments.”
Where have you been all my life?
I don’t think I’ve seen a worse example of two sides talking “at” each other. At least Dasbach and Cannoli are representing their respective positions by engaging with the points actually being made by the other side. With almost everyone else, it’s a “two ships passing in the night” argument. Basically a bunch of sad, bitter people having a snark contest… and looking for anything and everything to bitch about, as a means of venting steam over the literally dozens of old wounds and personal grudges and side feuds that I count in the comments.
As for the content of the original post (which I had completely forgotten by the halfway point of reading comments)… how a posting a do-over of this topic? I would be genuinely interested in hearing specific suggestions, plans, and alternative proposals… as opposed to, “These guys are poopy-heads, so continue supporting me because these guys are poopy-heads”.
In any professional environment, you learn that when griping about something you should bring a specific idea for a solution to the table also. I voted for Ms. Keaton and Dr. Ruwart in Denver with the optimism that would help balance out the LNC in a productive way… not simply bash and tear it down generally without doing the real work of promoting specific proposals. The only proposal I hear implied above is, “turn back time and don’t nominate Barr”. For one thing, assumed favoritism or not, that nomination came from the *delegation*, not the LNC. Secondly, love ’em or loathe ’em, Barr’s the 2008 nominee. It’s done. If you don’t like it, turn your energy toward 2010/2012 rather than living in May and launching a new “Restore ’08!” website. I like you, Angela, I really do… but you come across like a small child in this thread.
Paulie: “there is also the Republican model, where they became a major party after one of the major parties collapsed.”
Yes, but that was 150 years ago, so it’s a rare occurance.
Plus, I doubt the Whigs would have collapsed, and been replaced by the GOP, without the crisis of the Civil War.
Likewise, it was the crisis of the Great Depression which pushed much of the socialists’ agenda through.
Just as the crisis of the Communit economic collapse brought free enterprise to Poland and the Czech Republic (less so to some of the other former East Bloc nations).
I doubt the US will return to freedom absent a crises and collapse of the current system. We’ll suffer more and greater pain, for a couple decades at least, before we re-emerge to freedom.
Out of simple yammering, let me remind all that with single payer health care, with costs as they are now, Medicare will be broke within a matter of years.
Source: The group GE calls “socialist agitators”. 😀
“So all we’re doing is lobbying the people that we don’t like to do a few things we do like?â€
If you take the Socialist Party of the early 20th century as a model, their entire platform has been enacted by the major parties in subsequent decades. The only plank remaining is universal health care, and we are probably on the verge of having a single payer system with the next administration.
We can effect change. But we must cede the glory and the power to the major parties. The Socialist parties’ model, which, like G.E., I’ve long advocated.
I advocate that too. However, there is also the Republican model, where they became a major party after one of the major parties collapsed.
Congress just passed a $300 BILLION housing bailout. Not because they’re ideological socialists, but because the American people want it. Not “welfare queens,†not “corporate welfare recipients (okay, some of them), but because millions of middle class Americans want a socialist bailout.
Yes, but millions of Americans also oppose such things. They are just not as well organized.
I guess my hope of seeing a Libertarian elected anywhere is a loose fantasy
There are several hundred local elected and appointed Libertarians. Also, it’s not outside the realm of possibility that Libertarians will achieve a breakthrough in electoral politics. However, in the meantime, they can also serve a valuable job in educating, lobbying, and putting pressure on teh bigger parties.
Sorry, I meant to enclose ‘energy independence’ in quotes, and forgot to close them.
‘The message that is actually reaching the public from the Barr campaign is strongly Libertarian and advancing our ideas.’
So far Barr’s message has included embracing autarkist demands for ‘energy independence, attacking efforts to liberalize immigration policy, and calling for taxpayer bailouts of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It has included suggesting that invading Iraq would have been okay with a better post-invasion policy, and the Patriot Act would have been okay if the Bush administration had applied it differently. It has included defending the Defense of Marriage Act, lying about it and revealing the cynicism of his last-minute flip-flop at the convention.
Thomas, the word “few” in that quote had meaning.
Mike Theodore: “So all we’re doing is lobbying the people that we don’t like to do a few things we do like?”
So what’s wrong with that? As long as Congress enacts a libertarian agenda, why should it matter which party enacts it?
Unfortunately, we have some petty egoists in the LP who want to play political Dungeons & Dragons. They’d be unhappy if the Demopublicans enacted “our “issues. They want to be the ones to enact legislation. They want to be the “players” who get the glory of political power.
I say, the LP is a third party. If you want to “get votes,” you’re in the wrong place. A third party is not about “getting votes.” A major party is about “getting votes.” A third party is about education, and applying pressure on the system.
We can effect change. But we must cede the glory and the power to the major parties. The Socialist parties’ model, which, like G.E., I’ve long advocated.
I’ve had Reformers tell me I’m in the wrong place if I believe in education; that I belong in a think tank. But they’re the one’s who are in the wrong place.
Just being a political party doesn’t make you the equivalent of a real political party.
The LP is an educational tool. Our strength is “campaign as performance art.” Not “vote getting.”
This is something that those LPers who harbor fantasies of being a “Washington power broker” can’t accept. They don’t have the clout to be a player in the Demopublican Parties, so they come to the LP’s “virtual party.” Then they get upset when someone tells them it’s not a real political party. That just blows their fantasy bubble. It’s like someone ripping the Virtual Reality goggles off your eyes.
No. If we have good candidates, we are spreading the message and philosophy of libertarianism. By nominating a conservative for president, there is literally no point to his campaign, other than pressuring the GOP into being more conservative (which IS the goal of the Barr campaign — the LP is a blowup doll for Barr to use and discard).
Lobbying for less government will never work — look at the disgrace that is the Stato Institute for proof of that. But educating the public is, at least theoretically, the point of libertarian campaigns. It can’t hurt. How did you become a libertarian? Ron Paul’s campaign. My point exactly.
So all we’re doing is lobbying the people that we don’t like to do a few things we do like?
Mike – Dollars put into campaigns can have value other than winning elections. The Socialist Party never won a governorship, a Senate seat, or the presidency (they did win two congressional seats and a lot of local offices), but they still got virtually their entire platform enacted over time. The Populist Party got the Federal Reserve System without winning many elections.
Mike Theordore: “I guess my hope of seeing a Libertarian elected anywhere is a loose fantasy.”
Of course it is! I’ve been saying so for decades.
You think the American people want a libertarian govt?
Congress just passed a $300 BILLION housing bailout. Not because they’re ideological socialists, but because the American people want it. Not “welfare queens,” not “corporate welfare recipients (okay, some of them), but because millions of middle class Americans want a socialist bailout.
Not only those without shaky mortgages, but also those whose houses are safe, but want to see their home prices propped up. (Prices fall for everyone if foreclosures rise.)
I even know a decades-long libertarian who’s gloating with joy, because this bailout will be good for him.
This is why the Reformers are all wrong when they pursue votes. It’s not about votes. The “time is not ripe” for a peaceful libertarian revolution. The people must be educated. (Not that I’m all that optimistic about that occurring either.)
______
And I’m less concerned with Paulie — a legitimate delegate — not being being present during his votes, than with:
1. Delegates’ votes being determined by how loudly they yell.
2. The fact that delegate badges aren’t checked, so that anyone can wander into the convention hall and shout their votes even when they’re not delegates.
“It’s very hard to take any of this or any of the people involved very seriously. It’s the LP. It’s a hobby. It’s not like it’s real political party.”
Once again, very depressing. So I guess the thousands of dollars people put into campaigns is useless. I guess my hope of seeing a Libertarian elected anywhere is a loose fantasy. I guess it’s all one big bloody joke, than.
I guess I just pissed a way a few months, than.
* That isn’t a dig. That style of writing just doesn’t blow my hair back.
Mr. Dashbach,
I know. I merely felt like snarking and you and Scribner were just props in my rant.
The fact is that we have a well meaning chair who has a fixation with a particular and possibly ill advised reform, a divided LNC, a dull uninspired platform*, two over hyped somewhat inept candidates and general silliness.
It’s very hard to take any of this or any of the people involved very seriously. It’s the LP. It’s a hobby. It’s not like it’s real political party.
SE near the Hill has cheaper office space in a decent area, but the buildings are older and a bit shabbier. NE too for that matter. Grassroots groups that are more frugal with money can be found around there.
I think it was SE actually.
Thomas, the HQ was in exactly the kind of location you suggest in a SW Washington neighborhood prior to the Watergate move in the mid-1990s. As I recall the media didn’t think it showed solidarity with the people, but merely that the party had no financial support. Not to mention it inhibited networking because no one wanted to visit such a place.
How about a storefront operation in one of DC’s many black neighborhoods?
I understand they were in the hood until 1993 or so, and it was not working out too well for them.
If that was the caes, then your delegation chair was flagrantly violating our bylaws, which clearly state that you have to be present to vote.
I was close by. Stepped out in the hall outside the big room a few times, walked around to other state delegations, etc. My vote was well known: Kubby until he was eliminated, Ruwart afterwards, Kubby on every ballot for VP. We had a small delegation, but many of the Barr staff were in our delegation and they even hung a Barr sign from the state placard identifying us in the hall.
My vote was easy to spot on the big screen.
First I’ ve heard of it violating any rules if it did.
There are reasons to be in DC, but that does not have to be DC proper. Rents in Crystal City, VA are typically much cheaper than in the district and it is on a metro line.
The LP should get interns from UDC, but they are not ever likely to realize why.
Ms. Keaton,
My comments weren’t directed to you, or to anything in your original message. They were addressing points made by others, both in this thread and similar ones.
As to the Helms release, I thought I made it clear that I don’t support the views expressed in it.
TMS – The LP has made it clear time and time again that it is a White Man’s Party. Or maybe your suggestion was facetious.
GE,
The line that reads, “there is no evidence that is a misperception about what our actual ballot access status” should read, “there is no evidence that there is a misperception about our actual ballot access status.”
The LP has destroyed not only my self respect but my syntax.
How about a storefront operation in one of DC’s many black neighborhoods? You’d still be in DC, yet the rents would be low.
A real 1960s, grassroots, “power to the people” approach. It’d be great PR with minorities (and liberal voters) if the LP was HQ among the working poor.
And you can save on suits and office furniture. You could wear jeans to work. The meeting room table could be a plywood board over some boxes. (I once interned at a “lefty” cable TV public access channel that had such a meeting table).
I think journalists would be impressed to see the LP so sincerely concerned with the working poor that we opened our office amid them. It’d counteract our image of being a “rich, white boy’s party.”
We do want to “grow the party,” no?
DC is the political media capital and it makes sense to have some kind of presence there. It might as well be the HQ. They really could have and should find cheaper office space in the area, though. I understand the last quest for new office space ended with th LNC moving one or two stories up in the Watergate to smaller offices, and paying more. Ridiculous.
Thank you, Messrs Dashbach and Scribner for your helpful responses. I would have continued to walk this veil of tears called life in complete ignorance without your wisdom.
Yes, nappy haired, hooked nosed bisexual hicks like myself with law degrees who live in West Hollywood and married to Reason Magazine editors would have no understanding whatsoever about how the Helms release was perceived by minorities, the cost of city life or what salaries are commensurate with non-profit work. None. In fact, my message was a muddle as clearly Jesse Helms is a great patriot, there is no evidence that is a misperception about what our actual ballot access status, and there was nothing clumsy in the way Shane’s separation agreement was handled. None.
I apologize for my Latoya Jackson moment.
Once again, my humble apologies for my ill informed opinion,
Angela Keaton Doherty, Idiot
As long as a delegate casts his vote in his delegation, it doesn’t matter where he is the rest of the time. However, a delegation chair cannot record a vote for an absent delegate just because he knows how that delegate would vote, which is what I understood Mr. Cannoli claimed happened.
As for George’s characteristic smear-by-inuendo, anyone interested in facts can read the minutes of the relevant LNC meeting(s). Suffice it to say that his understanding is at best incomplete.
Nor is it clear what possible relevance his implied accusation would have on the point I made, which was that casting a vote for an absent delegate violates our bylaws. Last time I checked, two wrongs don’t make a right.
Finally, George’s claim that by supporting a candidate for office, people have “…affixed themsleves at the hip to his positions” is one of the silliest statements I have ever heard. When you support a candidate for office, the only statements you are making is that that he/she is a good choice for the nomination and that you consider that candidate to be a better choice than any of the other people running.
Personally, I thought we had several good choices for the nomination (sorry George, but you weren’t one of them). Of those, Bob Barr offered the best prospects for advancing the cause of liberty.
That doesn’t mean I agreed with all his pre-convention views (e.g. I oppose the “Fair Tax”) nor that I agree with every decision he’s made post-nomination (e.g. the Helms release).
However, the same can be said about every previous LP nominee, though the example are different. Hell, with the benefit of hindsight, I don’t agree with every decision I’ve made.
Fortunately, thus far, the media has elected to ignore stuff like the Helms release. The message that is actually reaching the public from the Barr campaign is strongly Libertarian and advancing our ideas.
And if you think the lamentation for Jesse Helms was post facto, then perhaps your should note the 2007 campaigning, while sitting on the LNC, for teacher-led prayer in the public schools.
Surprisingly, the Watergate is not an especially expensive location for DC. It’s an older building that is nice, but well below the standards of many newer buildings.
The location has the advantage of being on a metro line (making it easier and less expensive to hire staff) and near George Washington University (making it easy to hire student interns).
SteveDasbach // Jul 27, 2008 at 1:34 pm writes
“If that was the case, then your delegation chair was flagrantly violating our bylaws, which clearly state that you have to be present to vote. ”
Of course, we have many rules. For example, in the run up to the if I recall correctly 2002 National Convention the LNC passed a rule creating a special events financial account into which presumably income from the special event such as the National Convention was to be deposited. It was my impression, but perhaps I misunderstood, that after the National Convention when the LNC went to that account to pay convention expenses little money had been deposited into it as a result of which the LNC found itself with an unexpected difficulty paying its bills.
So we have a lot of rules around here.
And if Mr Cannoli was on the floor of the convention when he cast his vote, well, does the bylaw say exactly when a vote must be cast? Or is that like the lack of a rule saying that income from special events needed to be placed into the special events account established for that purpose.
Perhaps more attention should be paid to practical rules, for example the practical rule that when someone and their six henchmen recruit a candidate, nominate him for President, and/or second his nomination, then they have affixed themsleves at the hip to his positions, such as his reasonably anticipated lamentations for that racist homophobic bigot Jesse Helms.
Steve is right. Moving out of DC would be a mistake, although moving out of the Watergate might make sense.
Yes, it does cost a lot to live in or near DC. I worked part-time at LPHQ for a year and my primary reason for quitting was that I could make 50 percent more at a different job (doing a lot less stressful work, I might add). I really couldn’t afford to keep the job. I live in an “up-and-coming neighborhood” in DC and you don’t want to know what I pay in rent every month (with rent control, too)…
The same arguments about moving the HQ out of DC were made in the early 1980’s. The HQ was moved to Houston Texas, which provided more space for less money, access to more volunteers, and a lower cost of living.
The result? Dramatic reductions in membership, revenue, ballot access, candidates, election success, etc.
When the HQ was moved back to DC, we saw dramatic improvement in all these areas.
I’m not suggesting a cause & effect relationship. I am suggesting that blaming the location of the HQ for our lack of success is completely misguided.
Our declines since 2000 are, IMO, a result of a failure of will. We have been adverse to taking risks and have tried to avoid making mistakes instead of aggressively pursuing growth and success.
IMO, the question isn’t “why is the HQ located in DC?” The question should be “why aren’t we taking full advantage of the media and outreach opportunities that are uniquely available to us there?”
Eight years ago, the median compensation for the Executive Director of a non-profit organization with revenue and staff comparable to the LP’s was well over $100,000, plus benefits that significantly exceeded those provided by the LP.
That median compensation is probably well over $125,000 by now, far more that the LP paid Shane Cory, or is likely to offer a new ED.
Any organization that provides compensation that is well below market rates shouldn’t be surprised when it is has difficulty recruiting and/or retaining high quality staff.
This is especially true when the organization is a political party, which provides zero job security.
G.E. has a point. There’s no reason for the LP to the headquartered in DC.
Why should the LP HQ be in DC? Because it’s the Empire’s capital?
But consider:
* The Demopublicans are HQ in DC so they can manage their assets (elected officials) in Congress. But the LP has no elected officials. Nothing to manage. No reason to be in DC.
* Image? Is that why the LP is in DC? To pretend that we’re a “real” political party?
Yet is there not great image value in being seen as an “outsider”? Do not all politicians paint themselves as “outside the beltway” types?
It seems the LP can save money, and improve its “outsider” image, but being HQ outside of DC.
Yet I suspect some LP officials fantasize that they are already “insiders.” Being HQ in DC assists in their fantasy. To them, the LP is the political version of Dungeons & Dragons. And the cooler your fan costume, the realer the fantasy.
It’s kind of like Hollywood, where wannabes acquire status symbols, such as a Beverly Hills office address — or PO Box if that’s all they can afford — maybe rent a Mercedes, open a “production company” — albeit one that’s never produced anything, etc. The purpose being to create the illusion that one is a “player.”
An illusion both to fool real players, and also to stroke one’s own ego.
I suggest we move LP HQ to Omaha, or Buffalo, or some other “less glamorous” and less expensive city. Tell unhappy staffers that they can return to DC once they’ve elected some people to Congress. Give them some real incentive to show results.
Paulie Cannoli wrote:
“Others, such as myself, may have appeared to be gone, but my state delegation chair knew my vote and recorded it every time whether I was there or not.”
If that was the caes, then your delegation chair was flagrantly violating our bylaws, which clearly state that you have to be present to vote.
Fortunately, as far as I could determine, most delegation chairs respected our rules and required delegates to cast their votes in person.
“But the rank-and-file members need to realize how expensive it is to live in/near D.C. ”
Then get the hell out of D.C.
Carl is correct on all points here.
I didn’t get into the social club aspect of the LP until after about 15 years of membership. And during my days as a county LP activist, I have found that well less than half of the donors/members participate in LP social events.
LP conventions are disproportionately represented by social-clubbers, so there is some truth Sipos’ argument. But do note that libertarian social-clubbers have options other than the LP. Indeed, my local LP affiliate is on the edge of officially dissolving as an LP affiliate but remaining active as a social club.
—-
Regarding Angela’s comments, I somewhat agree. I think the LP would be better off with a more open-book style of management. Those who don’t like having their incomes publicized should stick to the for-profit sector. (But the rank-and-file members need to realize how expensive it is to live in/near D.C. The 2006 median family income in Fairfax County VA is $119K.)
—-
The threat of a walkout by reformers is real. I walked out some time back. I may vote for Barr and Munger, but I have no intent to rejoin the party. The threat by radicals is also real. Just read lewrockwell.com.
Kubby lost the VP nomination mostly because a good amount of Radicals walked out.
I’ve heard that said. Not entirely true. Of course, some radicals did not care who the VP is and wanted nothing to do with a party that nominated Barr. Others, such as myself, may have appeared to be gone, but my state delegation chair knew my vote and recorded it every time whether I was there or not.
The longtimers of every faction will stay, because, as I’ve said before, the LP is not primarily a political party, but a social club.
Many LPers hate to hear that, but it is so. Both Reformers and Radicals participate in the LP chiefly because it’s a social club.
It depends on if they stand their ground and actually go to the conventions. Kubby lost the VP nomination mostly because a good amount of Radicals walked out. They left to take a stand, but in the end harmed everything further.
Some will stick around, some won’t. A lot of the libertarians are already leaving. Some will be back, some won’t. The 2010 and 2012 conventions could accelerate the existing trend, or reverse it. We’ll see.
On Bob Barr: do you really think the alleged conservatives infiltrating the LP are going to stick around for very long? Knowing the LP, they’ll be gone in a matter of months, tops, after the Barr campaign wraps up — maybe they’ll stick around until the next convention. However, we have Bob Barr as presidential candidate. He may very well be able to get party status improvements in numerous states, which means we won’t have to waste as much time, money, and energy on ballot access in the future.