This is taken from a post in the Libertarian Party History Group on Facebook from D. Frank Robinson:
Original Intended Purpose for the LP Judicial Committee
As Chair of the Constitution, Bylaws and Rules Committee at the Denver convention in 1972, I claim credit and culpability for the Judicial Committee in the original Bylaws. I originated it and the CB&R Cmte agreed decisively to report it to the floor.
The original intent was that JC function primarily only during a national convention. The JC was to function as a court of arbitration on platform planks as consistent or inconsistent with the Statement of Principles. The JC’s decision was to be in the nature of an advisory opinion to the whole convention to questions referred to it by vote of the convention. When a proposed platform plank was referred to the JC it was in effect send to committee for hearing off the floor of the convention before a final vote was taken on the motion to adopt the platform plank. Thus referring the plank question to the Judicial Committee meant that a vote need not be taken and then revived only by a difficult motion to reconsider.
The intention was to allow the convention to continue to consider other presumably less controversial, but essential, planks without getting bogged down on one or two highly contentious questions. The JC had to report before debate on the platform was adopted in one final comprehensive vote on the whole. When the convention adjourned the JC essentially ceased to function although it might be asked to offer opinions at the request of the LNC on platform and SoP issues only.
In short, the JC’s was a peer review panel of national party ideology, not LP administrative operations and NEVER the administration of affiliate parties.
Over time, it appears that efforts have been made to broaden the authority the of the JC to matters far beyond its original jurisdiction. I think this is a serious mistake.
I don’t know who this history lesson from a “Founding Father” will offend or gladen, but that’s my best effort recall of how the question was explained to the Denver delegates. In the future I intend to have audio tapes available to make public which either substantiate or refute my recollection of the Judicial Committee place in LP organizational structure in 1972. I have not yet been able to access that audio and I will accept responsibility if my recall is defective on any substantial point.
The IPR article on the status of the work on these tapes can be found here.
I have the 1972 Bylaws in hand now… and yep. The original purpose of the JC was not the monstrosity it has turned into.
Branding your company is one thing, but knowing your customer is exponentially more important.
Turn offs for passers-by of the current LP.
1. Candidates: either rejects/cast offs from other parties or they have their own “form” of libertarianism.
2. Ballot access: Can’t vote for someone if they are not on the ballot.
3. Lack of political pedigree: voters have no sense of what a Libertarian would do on the big stage.
4. LNC: for an organization known somewhat for fighting for individualism or Liberty, their infatuation with centralized planning is a contradiction that most can’t figure out.
5. Once bitten, twice shy: someone used to support the LP by running for office or joined someone’s campaign and discovered the overt dysfunction of the LNC and state affiliates.
Examples: Oregon, Georgia, Arizona, LNC Building/office/closet fundraising, etc.
6. Jealousy of NOTA: the voter realizes that what they can do at the convention should be done at the Federal and state elections.
As long as I have paid attention to the LP (1996) it has never had a strategic marketing plan that operated on the premise that not everyone wants Individualism or Liberty. In business school you are taught to avoid assumptions. You base all decisions on empirical data.
If a customer eats at a restaurant and gets sick shortly thereafter, then they might suspect food poisoning. If this proves to be correct, then the customer would only return if we assume that their main goal of eating at a restaurant is to get sick.
Eventually people get sick of the LNC or LP or state affiliate. Changing your logo or acronym will not affect the outcome of the internal problems of centralized top-down planning.
It’s better than, “maximum freedom, minimum government.”
I wonder if our prospects would improve if we changed our name to “No Free Lunch Party?”
The first person who told me about the Libertarian Party was my friend in Scouting Bill Hartman. What I remember from that most vividly was his excitement that there was a political party with the TANSTAAFL slogan (and flag) as I remember. This would have been around 1977 or 1978.
I look at the current LP brand image and specialty merchandise, and, for what it’s worth, I’d be far more likely to buy something with TANSTAAFL on it, than any of the current, slicker . . . stuff.
THANKS for what you created in 1972. It has impacted me in many positive ways, and is our destiny (well, that or death).
Joe