Arvin Vohra has faced criticism and some calls for his resignation or removal as LNC Vice-Chair for a series of facebook posts he has made about the US military. He previously responded to this criticism but has now issued a new response, which follows, perhaps because his previous answer was criticized for being too long. For related stories see here, here, here, and here.
An Open Letter to Military Veterans:
During the last days, I’ve spoken to dozens of you, both privately and
publicly. Many of you asked for an apology, explanation, or resignation.
To those of you who believed that I considered your motivations
dishonorable, or believed that I despised or hated you as people: I am
truly sorry for making you feel that way. Of the hundreds of military
veterans that I have heard from, the motivations have been motivated mostly
by heroism, some by opportunity. With either rare or nonexistent
exceptions, no one joins the military for an actively immoral purpose.
Those who join the military want to give the best parts of themselves to a
noble cause. All of us have good and bad parts; the military demands the
best parts, the nobility, self sacrifice, and discipline.
But then it coldly misuses those best parts. It takes what is noble, and
uses it for purposes that are ignoble. It takes the parts of you that are
honorable, and uses those in a policy that is dishonorable.
Many of you have shared your stories of reclaiming that honor, which had
been misused and tainted by the military industrial complex, and the
corrupt politicians it controls. You stopped fighting imaginary foreign
enemies, and fought the real domestic enemies. You realized that those
abroad don’t oppose our freedoms, but those in our government do.
You took the discipline you learned in the military, and the honor you were
born with, and used it against the military industrial complex. You became
noble in both intention and action. You became honorable both in your
motivations and in your results.
Now I ask you to help others find that path to fighting the real enemies at
home. I ask you to help others never have their heroism deformed in service
to an evil cause. I ask you to help others recognize what you already
recognize: the politicians and corporations that control military policy
are evil. They are using the military for evil. Help others regain their
true heroism, even before corrupt military policy tries to take it.
1. If you are one of the many military veterans running for office, reflect
your opposition to the miltary’s misuse of heroism in your bio. Instead of
saying “Fred is a Korean War veteran,” say “Fred is a Korean War veteran
who opposes current immoral military policy.” Or “Fred is an anti-war
Korean War veteran.” Or “Fred is a Korean war veteran who wants to shut
down foreign military bases and bring the troops home.”
The fact is, most of you will not win. But all of you will have your bios
read by hundreds, thousands, or millions of people. If you just say that
you are a veteran, everyone will take that as an endorsement of military
policy and the military industrial complex. Your campaign will literally
encourage others to squander their heroism as part of immoral military
policy, to be a part of one of the most destructive institutions on the
planet.
If you boldly oppose military policy in your bio, then your campaign will
help people find the path to fighting the true enemies in the military
industrial complex, rather than the ones they fabricate.
2. If you want to help people find better uses for their heroism, better
rites of passage, better ways to find opportunity, while at the same time
taking easy access to manpower away from the military industrial complex,
join this group:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/militarycounterrecruitment/?ref=group_cover
3. Use your social media and traditional media to demand that the U.S.
government shut down foreign military bases, cease involvement in foreign
civil wars, and bring the troops home.
Respectfully,
(Personal, not official post)
—
Arvin Vohra
www.VoteVohra.com
VoteVohra at gmail.com
(301) 320-3634
Darryl W. Perry’s open letter:
Not sure which message from Starchild you mean but if it was to LNC list you can find it at http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business_hq.lp.org/2017/date.html
The latest from Arvin:
Well, given that we have another such maniac in the white house now….
A lot more than a third disappeared as the membership was down to 11,000 or so a year or two ago. A lot of new members signed up after that. However, even more of the members from 15-20 years ago have disappeared than that, as typically a large portion of members leave after a year or two or several. To the extent that we still have a few thousand members who have been involved continuously since then, many are no longer active, as they paid for life memberships or registered to vote LP or signed the pledge or any combination thereof years ago and are thus still members in some sense but have not been active in years. If you only count people that have been continuous dues paying members and remain actively involved all that time – I would guess it’s probably less than 10% of the overall current dues paying membership, and I would not be shocked if it was substantially less.
But it’s still true that many people (relatively speaking) became hardcore libertarians thanks to Harry Browne, even if they are no longer LP members. And even if we only count those who have stayed with the party, it’s still “a lot” as a portion of the currently active membership if we compare it to those who became involved thanks to other past presidential campaigns.
GP – “The northern-only Republican party made a show in 1856, and was in the process of collapsing when President Buchanan–not his intent–effectively rescued it thought a massively stupid series–stupid relative to his plausible objectives–of political decisions.
I’d be interested in hearing more about that. As it is, I’m skeptical of the idea that the Republicans were in danger of collapsing, and were saved only by Buchanan’s incompetence.
For one thing there was a remarkable change in public opinion in the North after 1850. In the late 1830’s abolitionism was an unpopular fringe movement; there were anti-abolitionist riots in New York. By 1855, there were pro-abolitionist riots.
I would like to post Darryl Perry’s letter with the resolution being voted on, but I wanted to include Starchild’s. I saw it on Facebook a few days ago, but when I went to retrieve it, I couldn’t find it.
I think Arvin had posted it on one of his pages. Has anyone seen it?
Andrew McCormick: “This crap is just another reason for me to leave the party. Anyone within the party that is criticizing Vohra for speaking the truth, of which is 100% within the confines of the platform, need to be the ones to go.
Now there’s a solution: Everyone who disagrees with Vohra should leave, because of him; while everyone who agrees with him should leave because of his critics.
That should end the conflict pretty fast.
Vohra – During the last months, I’ve traveled to many state conventions, interviewed many candidates, and kept track of the mood here in DC. In its current form, much of our messaging is largely opposed to our platform, and so anemic as to be politically irrelevant….
While many sign the NAP, it’s not at all clear that they understand the specific policy implications.”
Andy “BINGO!
“The Libertarian Party experienced a lot of growth back during the Harry Browne era, as the party more than doubled in size in terms of dues paying membership, and it reached its highest peak in terms of dues paying membership at 33,000 and something (which is over 13,000 dues paying members than we have now…. Also, Harry Browne inspired a lot of people to become hardcore libertarians, and many of these people are still active in the party and the movement today.”
Really? Harry Browne ran a radical campaign, and took the LP to its highest dues-paying membership, in the process inspiring many hardcore libertarians who are still active today.
And the legacy of that is: At least a third of those dues-paying members have disappeared, for one reason or another, while the so-called hardcore libertarians who didn’t leave are are pushing, or at least doing nothing about, a “weak, anemic messaging” that “has little do with the NAP.”
There’s something seriously wrong with your history.
I would urge readers to peruse Potter The Impending Crisis. there is also an Oxford history of the Whig Party. Throughout the period the Whig Party lasted, unionism trumped slavery as the issue, and the Democracy and the Whigs each had a northern and a southern branch. Division, with pro and antislavery stances, was a strength of each party, not a weakness. The northern-only Republican party made a show in 1856, and was in the process of collapsing when President Buchanan–not his intent–effectively rescued it thought a massively stupid series–stupid relative to his plausible objectives–of political decisions.
Matters were deteriorating over the last four Presidential administrations, but most of the time people did not realize where things were going, because all steps were small.
Matters really only went badly after 1858, with John Brown’s raid totally poisoning political discourse and the Democratic Party splitting in two.
The whig party came from a political realignment triggered by a genocidal “to the victors belong the spoils” maniac. it disintegrated around the next political realignment: slavery. “A House divided against itself” implies someone has to go: either the libertarians or republican-lite. I vote: republican lite. SJW “safe space” only gives appearance to conformity. The issue is not going to go away. It is only going to fester. And what’s next: can’t criticize the police b/c it might hurt Trooper Fife’s feelings?
I’ve been intending to make some new threads about this topic (especially now that LNC is voting) and some other LNC matters .. maybe someone could beat me to it.
I cast my second ballot vote for the Libertarian Party’s 2016 vice-presidential nomination for Larry Sharpe.
That’s a mistake I don’t intend to make a second time.
But I’d also like to speak specifically about third party politics. The assumption appears to be that third parties must be overly meek, unwilling to hurt anyone’s feelings, challenge anyone’s world view, or go anywhere near anyone’s cognitive dissonance. A third party cannot afford to, the argument goes, challenge a large scale immoral behavior done through a corrupted institution, because it lacks the political capital do do so.
No, the argument, or at least my argument, is that third parties–or in this case, highly ranked members of said parties–should not attempt to do things like this without any apparent gain, especially when it isn’t even an actual part of the platform.
Reality disagrees. The last successful third party was also quite rude, and challenged America on an immoral behavior in which the perpetrators suffered from considerable cognitive dissonance. This immoral behavior was done by a large percentage of the population. It was the foundation for a major part of American culture, and that culture is still romanticized today, in movies like Gone With The Wind. The issue was slavery. The rude, blunt opposition to slavery gave the Republicans the presidency, and made that “third party” a dominant party. They opposed not only the act of slavery, but the perpetrators of slavery.
Sorry, but reality disagrees with YOU, Vohra.
#1: If you were anti-slavery, sure, you’d lose a lot of votes, as there were a lot of pro-slavery people. But you’d also gain a lot of votes because there were a lot of anti-slavery people. Vohra’s comments do not seem to have the same level of popular support as being anti-slavery was.
#2: To be frank, the Republicans were never a third party. When it was founded, there was no 2-party system (and thus no third parties) because the Whig Party had fallen to such pieces with its members entering into different parties, with many going into the Republican Party. The Republican Party could not be a third party as there was no “second party” at the time of its founding. And when another party did take the place of the “second party” to the Democrats, it was them.
The Republican Party was able to become the dominant opposition to the Democrats because the previous dominant opposition was gone and because they championed an issue that there was much agreement for. While the Democrats and Republicans do seem to have lost some popularity, we’re nowhere near what the Whig Party was, and Vohra’s comments are not particularly popular. His analogy fails. Though I should also point out that the Republican platform was much less about abolishing slavery or attacking slaveholders and more about not wanting slavery to spread to the territories, i.e. it was about keeping slavery where it was, not actually ending it.
But it was the moral stance, and history has shown it to be the strategic stance. Anyone met any Whig candidates lately?
It was so “strategic” to be anti-slavery that the Democrats, which took the opposite viewpoint as the Republicans, are still around today!
The Whigs didn’t disappear because they were in favor of slavery, they disappeared because the party was so divided on that and other issues that it fell apart, a great example of how a house divided against itself cannot stand.
Could not have said it better. Vohra is absolutely right on the strategy part…
I already wrote what they are going to write…fell free to use it Dan. Save you some time.
War is a racket, the US military is an organization engaged in facilitating this racket, but we apologize to any soldiers whose motives we may have impugned with our statements. We should have clarified that just like the mob, our soldiers are “men of honor.”
I’m a liberal and don’t subscribe to any of that nonsense…unlike, say, the HoppeBots who wade neck deep in that swamp…
As far as the measure to remove what it looks like to me at this stage is that it will either not get enough co-sponsors to get a vote, or will get a vote and fail to get 2/3. Where it looks like it is headed is probably a LNC resolution addressing the concerns of veterans. Daniel Hayes first floated that he was looking for help to write one and a bunch of people spoke up to say that they would help him with doing so.
I can’t see where dL has been wrong about much of anything.
The sad thing is that over the years that I’ve been following the LNC pretty closely, which is for over a decade now, I’m aware of things that certain LNC members have done that were a lot worse (and I don’t think that what Arvin did here even qualifies as having been a bad thing), and they got away with it, sometimes without anyone even raising an eyebrow.
Shall we go back and rehash all of the things that SHOULD HAVE GOTTEN certain people kicked off of the LNC, but did not (mostly due to cronyism, and/or ineptness of party members not demanding removal)?
“dL
‘May 19, 2017 at 12:05
Arvin blatantly insulted veterans. That is about 20 million voters and their supporters (maybe another 25 -50 million?).’
Shame RE: Larry. Thought he had potential. He is now off my list. The LP should not be a SJW safe space for troop talk.”
I still like Larry Sharpe, but I disagree with him here.
I agree with dL that the LP should not be a safe space for politically correct speech about the military, but it is kind of funny to see this coming from dL, considering that he seems to be OK with left wing SJW crap.
I’m not a fan of political correctness, whether it comes from the left or the right.
I fail to see how what Arvin said was that out-of-line that he should be kicked off the LNC, or even asked to step down, or pushed into apologizing. I could see if he was celebrating American troops dying, or saying that it would be a good idea for the US government to abandon the troops who are in other countries, but he did not say anything like that. He correctly pointed out that joining the military in this day and age is a bad idea. He correctly pointed out that people who join the military get ordered to kill people in other countries for no legitimate reason. It seems to me that a mountain is being made out of a molehill.
Shame RE: Larry. Thought he had potential. He is now off my list. The LP should not be a SJW safe space for troop talk. Both from an intellectual/principle position and from a strategic standpoint. I will post again the absurd cognitive dissonance of Sharpe’s Troop PC Safe Space.
War is a racket, the US military is an organization engaged in facilitating this racket, but I apologize to any soldiers whose motives I may have impugned with my statements. I should have clarified that just like the mob, you are “men of honor.”
And on your aside regarding Lieberman, not only has he been a third party politician with his Connecticut for Lieberman party, but Trump also sought the Reform Party nomination in 2000…. so that would be a formerly third party president picking a former third party politician as head of FBI.
As I understand it the Judicial committee will only have work if the motion gets 2/3. Right now it is fishing for a second, and so far the only supportive arguments have come from alternates who are not eligible to cosponsor. Actually I think it needs more than one second – iirc; I forget the exact number but I think it’s 4 or 5. It does not sound to me like it has 2/3 support nor is that the impression I received from talking to a current LNC member last night. As far as I know, the Judicial Committee can’t hear an appeal of a losing vote to remove a member, correct?
In other news of the bizarre, the alleged current top pick for FBI director was elected to the Senate as a Third Party candidate. that’s right…it’s Joe Lieberman, he who endorsed McCain over Obama after having heavy Democratic support for his third party run, who was most recently elected as the candidate of the Connecticut for Lieberman Party.
Lieberman’s background in administering large organizations is inapparent.
The Region 8 (New England, NY, NJ) LNC representative has moved to remove (‘suspend’) Arvin Vohra as Vice Chair of the LNC.
“Therefore I must, with a heavy heart, make a motion to remove Arvin Vohra from his position as Vice Chair under Article 6, Section 7 of our Bylaws. Who will second this motion?
Thanks,
Patrick McKnight”
For some reason I see that the LNC Judicial Committee might have work again.
George Phillies
Arvin Vohara said: “It seems that this is motivated by an attempt to grow the party numerically by essentially tricking people into identifying with the word Libertarian, and then hope they magically develop Libertarian views. But the actual effect is to mislead, bring people in who do not know what Libertarianism is, then have them represent us with a further watered down message, etc. While many sign the NAP, it’s not at all clear that they understand the specific policy implications.”
BINGO!
The Libertarian Party experienced a lot of growth back during the Harry Browne era, as the party more than doubled in size in terms of dues paying membership, and it reached its highest peak in terms of dues paying membership at 33,000 and something (which is over 13,000 dues paying members than we have now, and note that the population of the country has increased since then, so in terms of percent of the population that are dues paying LP members, we are in much worse shape today than we were back then), and this was done with presidential tickets that ran on a far more radically libertarian platform than what we’ve had in the last three presidential elections (and I’m not sure if the last three presidential tickets even ran on a platform that could really be called libertarian, at least not without significantly watering down the definition of the term). Some people may say that Harry Browne’s vote totals were lower, and this is true, but also keep in mind that he ran under far more difficult sets of circumstances than did our presidential tickets in 2008 (note that Browne’s 1996 percent of the vote total was higher than Bob Barr’s, and even when analyzing the raw vote total numbers, keep in mind that US population increased from 1996 to 2008), 2012, and 2016. Also, Harry Browne inspired a lot of people to become hardcore libertarians, and many of these people are still active in the party and the movement today.
Ron Paul ran on a platform that was far more boldly libertarian than the platforms of the last three Libertarian Party presidential tickets, while running in the freaking Republican primaries in 2008 and in 2012, and he did more to expand the libertarian movement than anybody.
“Let’s grow the Libertarian party, not the ‘I want to identify with a trendy word’ party.”
I agree.
I’ve been out in the field gathering petition signatures over the last few months, and I have gotten lots of negative comments from members of the public about the Johnson/Weld ticket. These comments are about Johnson/Weld’s lack of libertarian principles, and/or about them appearing to be unprepared and/or uniformed, and/or about them being establishment shills (calling Hillary Clinton “a wonderful public servant”). All I can do is agree with these people, let them know that we had better candidates running for other offices, and tell them that we will nominate a better presidential ticket next time (I hope that a majority of 2020 convention delegates don’t betray me on this).
Arvin to LNC again:
Quoth Andrew McCarrick:
“Are you anti war or not? What’s your messaging here? If you are anti-war, then you cannot logically in good conscious support anyone under any circumstances that willingly signs up for a war machine that said recruit should have done research into before they joined. Defending the U.S. Military is to defend ignorance on the part of any and all recruits. They should, without hesitation, be criticized heavily for said ignorance. Stop defending stupidity and then maybe people will have to face the fact that they’re fucking retarded for ignoring a blatant truth for so long.”
In a word, bullshit.
The average military recruit enlists before graduating high school — in other words, as an adolescent (usually 17 — the “Delayed Entry Program” allows recruiters to get them young) who has spent eight hours a day, five days a week, nine months a year having pro-government propaganda hammered into his or her head since shortly after infancy. He or she isn’t considered mature enough to cast a vote or buy a drink yet. In what universe is it rational to expect him or her to have figured things out to the level you seem to expect?
Quoth dL:
“the ones that need to go are the ones who are demanding the LP be a SJW safe space for the troops’ feelings”
Bingo.
One can agree or disagree on the matter…the ones that need to go are the ones who are demanding the LP be a SJW safe space for the troops’ feelings. Both the Repubs and Dems already have the market cornered for PC troop talk.
I’ve engaged a couple of vets (Iraq and Afghanistan) on another message board and they both were leaning libertarian, but, both also stated when in country it’s no longer about fighting for country, or freedom, but about fighting for your brothers next to you. One of them said he missed the rush brought on by the fighting though he had come to learn the reasons for being there were false. He is, at heart, a good person who would benefit from seeing these letters. They are almost enough to make me rejoin that board just to link to them.
I’ve read all 3 of his letters, and I don’t believe I’ve ever heard (read) a more eloquent individual in my life. I’m 69 years old. I think he should run for POTUS.
And this is why the L.P. has issues. Are you anti war or not? What’s your messaging here? If you are anti-war, then you cannot logically in good conscious support anyone under any circumstances that willingly signs up for a war machine that said recruit should have done research into before they joined. Defending the U.S. Military is to defend ignorance on the part of any and all recruits. They should, without hesitation, be criticized heavily for said ignorance. Stop defending stupidity and then maybe people will have to face the fact that they’re fucking retarded for ignoring a blatant truth for so long.
The U.S. Military is 100% synonymous with authoritarianism and imperialism…. There is no separating the two any longer.
P.S. This crap is just another reason for me to leave the party. Anyone within the party that is criticizing Vohra for speaking the truth, of which is 100% within the confines of the platform, need to be the ones to go.
+1
Katz to LNC:
Vohra was right. End the warfare state! End the surveillance state!
Good response.