Ernie Hancock, candidate for chair of the Libertarian National Committee, has opponent Wayne Allyn Root in his front sights.
In a video released earlier today, Hancock showcases his new campaign theme … and his intention to take that theme to a “Tea Party Express” event this weekend in Searchlight, Nevada, where Root is scheduled to speak.
The video also includes practical stencil/sign-making instructions, in keeping with Hancock’s “hands-on activism” approach.
Hmm, looks like Hancock’s been reading the gloomanddoomatarians’s stuff. Could happen, I spose, but seems like I heard this Chicken Little stuff in the late 70s, too. Americans are an inventive people, and even with the latest round of roadblocks, liberty works. Adjustments are made. Capital flows to its highest and best use. The invisible hand is an amazing thing.
“On the subject of LNC Chair candidates issuing investment advice”
Nice catch.
On the subject of LNC Chair candidates issuing investment advice:
Maybe this is all too intellectual, maybe we should be trying to convert members to the Party. And if you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all, tell us why YOUR Candidate is good, not why our Candidate sucks!
tb 106, not sure how to respond….
I disagree with Boortz on Iraq. I somewhat disagree with Badnarik’s interpretation of the Constitution, as I understand it.
I think everyone’s doing their best always, yet everyone could stand to improve their performance.
I encourage everyone to consider L-ism as their political philosophy, but I realize that not everyone will reach L conclusions. Some will reach different conclusions even if they prefer liberty to statism. I do want the L tent as big as possible because liberty needs as many allies as it can get. Yet I do reserve the right to not support someone who claims to be a L if their views differ too much from mine. I don’t know anyone who agrees with me always, including me! I sometimes change my mind, based on new information and new insights.
Hope that helps.
“I am saying Boortz shouldn’t be taken seriously enough to feature his neocon nonsense at a LP convention.”
Why in the hell does Boortz keep getting invited back to speak at LP conventions? He’s spoken at several conventions so why not give some other people a turn? This is especially so given that a lot of LP members don’t even like the guy (and yes, I know that other like him, but the fact is that he’s been given the platform to speak from at conventions on multiple occassions).
“He also thinks that a website that called for activism against the estate tax for months before the Obama-style Iraq Exit Strategy was featured is some sort of bastion of the anti-war movement.”
I remember back when the Iraq War was starting up getting mail from LP National about repealing the estate tax. I remember thinking, “Repealing the estate tax is fine, but why in the heck is LP National focusing on this issue when an unnecessary war is starting? Shouldn’t speaking out against the war be the #1 priority issue for LP National right now?”
Michael makes good points above. I also think the current group at LPHQ is much better than those who preceded them.
These days the LPHQ is criticized by Root’s followers for not publishing Root’s media schedule. This should give LP members an idea about what the cult of Root thinks is important.
Maybe now that the LP platform has been significantly shortened, LPHQ could publish it in a brochure for the general public.
At least that would be a better indication of what the LP actually is about, as opposed to what many LP candidates, including Root, advance. Or would the pragmatic moderate reformers that pushed the new platform through object to the general public having that information?
Capozzi, you are so busy trying to read between the lines, you don’t actually read the lines.
So you’d like Root/Boortz/Beck types out of the L tent, yes?
Badnarik/C4L/Paul types are in, yes?
I guess you see no difference between Badnarik and Boortz, yes?
You see no difference between someone who is a Republican and someone who claims to represent the LP, yes?
You also believe that C4L somehow represents the LP, yes?
You think I wrote that Ron Paul and C4L are in the big “L” tent, yes?
Holt seems to believe that it is not LP candidates and self-appointed spokespersons like Root that are on TV and radio, but rather the LP website that is featured in the media on a regular basis.
Holt has this fantasy that a website that is basically for LP members is widely reported on by the media and read by the general public. He also thinks that a website that called for activism against the estate tax for months before the Obama-style Iraq Exit Strategy was featured is some sort of bastion of the anti-war movement.
In addition, Holtz apparently believes that it is the LP Platform that influences public perception of the LP, as opposed to what LP candidates and “spokespersons” say on radio and TV.
Holtz also seems to think Republican Ron Paul was running on the LP ticket in 2008, as he tries to make the point that Paul wasn’t as libertarian as Barr, who actually was the LP candidate.
Perhaps the lines between conservatism and libertarianism and the lines between the Republican party and the LP have become so blurry to you guys, that you mistake conservative rhetoric made by a libertarian as being libertarian and mistake libertarian rhetoric made by a conservative as conservatism.
I find it odd that Holtz and Capozzi go apoplectic when I say that Neal Boortz or “Reagan libertarian” Wayne Root use right-wing rhetoric which doesn’t represent an accurate picture of libertarianism to the general public. Yet, both Holtz and Capozzi analyzes, classifies, categorizes and labels EVERY libertarian, the vast majority of which are not and have never been the public face of the LP.
I am accused of making “rules” and citing “violations”, yet Holtz and Capozzi feel free to malign and marginalize anyone they disagree with. They invent words they think are clever pejoratives to hurl at anyone who holds opinions not to their likings. The smarmy and condescending remarks flow from their keyboards like a river of sludge as they both try to position themselves as intellectual giants, despite their apparent inability to even comprehend simple statements made by others.
The intellectual dishonesty, double standards, and hubris these two display never ceases to amaze me.
Especially bizarre is how Holtz links to his own opinions on his own websites to prove his “facts”.
The fact is, I’ve never said someone should be kicked out of the LP for holding opinions not to my liking. I’ve never said that people like Root or Boortz don’t have a right to say or think whatever they like. What I have said repeatedly is that it does the LP and the libertarian movement harm to embrace their nonsense and provide them with a soapbox.
Apparently, holding that opinion is a thought crime in the cult of Holtz and Capozzi. It is punishable by endless tirades, verbal assaults, tantrums, and being compared to murderer Timothy McVeigh.
NOTE to neolibertarians who will interpret my remark about giving people like Root a soapbox as saying the LP should prevent him from selling his book:
I am saying that Root should not be the LNC Chair or nominated to run for office. I am saying Boortz shouldn’t be taken seriously enough to feature his neocon nonsense at a LP convention. The LP shouldn’t promote these guys.
For an opinion on what our ultimate goal should be, please see my past column on GoldAmericaGroup.com and LibertyForAll.net — that goal is “become the majority party”.
For one step to moving this way, see my current column in the same places: The step being discussed is ‘removing obstacles to volunteerism’. You may recognize the first obstacle ‘people thinking they need permission’, because Ernie correctly identifies it and says the first thing to do about it.
There are other obstacles; see my list with partial cures.
@ 103 Robert writes; “Are there other rules for who should be in or out of the tent? How many violations can one have? Are moderations in what you consider an L direction also violations, and do they count as much as directionally “incorrect” violations?
Please help us understand.”
While I am not Mr. Blanton please allow me to jump into this one. Last time I looked the Libertarian Party was centered on the idea of individual rights. Everything else stems from the principle that individuals have the right to live as they choose both socially and economically as long as they don’t infringe on the rights of another.
Lot’s of the people who jump into the party from elsewhere have failed, it seems, to think that idea through and unfortunately they all too often want to be in charge. They simply want to be a big fish in the little pond that is the LP. In my opinion neither Mr. Boortz, Mr. Root, nor Mr. Beck have thought this through.
If I took all the statist ideas that different libertarians have supported over the years, such as the wars, zoning, public education, light rail, etc. and added together we would have a larger state then we have today.
Much of the problem is with the LP itself. The LP has let its literature package decline over the years and has little in the way of specific information to hand out on many, if not most issues.
I have also been led to believe that this problem was going to be fixed but I have seen little in the way of actual progress in doing so.
Whether one is a radical or a reformer clearly explaining an idea is important. One of the worst things any management team can do is to be vague about what the goals are and in my opinion the LP has been vague in recent years. And for the record I am not faulting the present team in the LPHQ office.
tb, just tryin’ to understand your perspective here. So you’d like Root/Boortz/Beck types out of the L tent, yes?
Badnarik/C4L/Paul types are in, yes?
Both use the term “conservatives” at times. I recall Badnarik’s congressional campaign website having an appeal to conservatives, liberals, and other special interests, for ex. And Paul uses the word “conservative” all the time.
Are there other rules for who should be in or out of the tent? How many violations can one have? Are moderations in what you consider an L direction also violations, and do they count as much as directionally “incorrect” violations?
Please help us understand.
Blanton is long on vague characterizations, and very short on quotes and other actual facts.
Fact: the LP web site has for years been consistently anti-war and anti-Right.
Fact: in his 2008 campaign, Ron Paul was saying many of the same things that Bob Barr was saying, and on some issues (Social Security, immigration, DOMA) said things that were demonstrably less radical.
OK, back to your regularly-scheduled strawmen and vague characterizations, already in progress.
Another thought going back to C4L. In my opinion, the C4L seems to be moving conservatives in a libertarian direction, while the LP is trying to move libertarians in a conservative direction.
Another irony in the ongoing saga of self-defeating political tactics gone awry.
Let me add this. Harry Browne espoused a rather pure vision of libertarianism when he was the face of the LP. He did not change his message when addressing conservatives, such as his column that appeared in World Net Daily.
The only people who claimed Harry Browne was a crazy radical extremist were the warmongering neocons. A lot of them thought Bush wasn’t tough enough either.
The LP grew between 1996 and 2000. Sure, there may have been other factors but Browne’s message didn’t seem to prevent this growth. Keep in mind this growth also occurred between presidential elections when membership often dwindles.
Capozzi takes a portion of a sentence I wrote and comments:
I don’t have a problem with L from the constitutionalist school evoking the Constitution, btw. I’m surprised you do, Tom, as you so frequently reference Ron Paul and C4L.
Robert, I supported Badnarik – a constitutionalist. Not the perfect candidate, but he did agree to use the LP platform as his own for the campaign.
The constitutionalists aren’t a big problem with me. I’ll repeat what I actually wrote:
It is obvious that LP candidates that do the “true conservative” bit, wrap themselves in the flag, wave the constitution, and call themselves patriots are not winning elections.
What I am referring to is those candidates who rely on appealing to those who emotionally react in an orgasmic frenzy of nationalism (some might say patriotism) through the worship of founding fathers, etc – sometimes referred to as wrapping oneself in the flag. “Waving the constitution” is merely a part of that political charade. Even Obama pulled it. It rarely entails discussing the constitution, merely promising to uphold it or restore it. I wouldn’t consider Obama to be a constitutionalist, though.
Usually when I invoke the name of Ron Paul or C4L around here, it is to point out that they are not afraid to provide a mix of fairly hardcore libertarian articles to their people. These articles contain some ideas that would be considered to be too purist, too radical, or too extreme by many LP members.
The irony is that these LP members think those ideas, when expressed by libertarians, leads to failure, yet the rather conservative C4L promotes these ideas and is demonstrating far more success at attracting members than the LP.
As for Root, it would be different if there were a large number of people on radio and TV who identify themselves as libertarians and discussed some of the libertarian ideas (found in the current LP platform) that some (Capozzi) claim are too radical or extreme. The general public would at least know there is some range of opinion within libertarian circles.
The reality is that people like Boortz, Root, and even Glenn Beck dominate the public airwaves with a brand of “libertarianism” that is virtually identical to conservatism or neoconservatism. Stossell is a little better. People rarely hear anything remotely resembling “purist” libertarianism. I don’t believe that it is people not wanting to hear these ideas. Most aren’t familiar enough with them to know. And it’s not like they don’t slurp up the pablum the media shovels out. The media just doesn’t present it for whatever reason. If these ideas are so truly controversial, I would think the media would want to air them being as how they go all out to make the mundane controversial.
JT writes:
You can criticize Root justifiably, but the notion that candidates espousing radical libertarianism are doing better electorally than those who don’t isn’t consistent with reality.
I never said that. But, I would like to know who these radical LP candidates are. Can you name any running this year so I can check their website for myself?
I would very much be interested in seeing what these “radical” LP candidates are saying.
bh, better put. To clarify, when I said “purism,” I was referring to 70s-style Rothbardianism, which has been held up by some as THE plumbline by which all Ls would be measured as to their “purity.”
And, while Holtz-style geominarchism has much to commend it, it’s less serviceable, flexible, and powerful than theoretical asymptotic anarchism/applied lessarchism, with green tendencies and war aversion. It need not be endorsed in the platform, either 😉
Bob @93: “purism” is no longer valuable, it’s now a hindrance to advancing liberty
I respectfully disagree. I think there is more than one kind of libertarian purity, and I’m just as convinced of the value of my geominarchist kind as anarchists are convinced of the value of their kind.
The important thing is that the LP’s foundational texts not declare one kind of libertarianism as better than the rest. I have zero problem with individual anarchist Libertarians declaring their kind to be the best, because I plan to continue declaring mine best too.
But I’m not so intellectually insecure that I need the LP to officially endorse my kind as best.
Nor do I worry that LP anarchists will embarrass the LP to the general public, because most of them hide their anarchism from the general public. Me, I defend the exact same theory of government to LP and non-LP audiences alike. Geominarchism means never having to be embarrassed about your principles. 🙂
necessity: I don’t argue that the extreme view set is popular, but their function is valuable to balance the more popular populist viewed people that are just as extreme.
me: Balance is important. Is that what we have now? I’d say no. The intra-party rhetoric has gotten as or more heated than it was even in 1983. I’d say things have gotten MORE imbalanced as the party has become more polarized. Too much tension leads to paralysis, not healthy interchange of ideas, and I’d say we are paralyzed.
That can change, and should change.
I cannot speak to your assertion of “false positions” without knowing what they are. The extreme view is valuable for the extreme view set.
I don’t argue that the extreme view set is popular, but their function is valuable to balance the more popular populist viewed people that are just as extreme. Their value lies in the philosophic side.
Now, you might argue: “What value is the philosophic extreme?”
And I would argue: “Bright, solid contrast”
It feels to me like the fanatics that define and have defined this party for a long time give form to the blurry soft lined, say anything types.
I do not say that the fanatic is necessary… alone. Everyone is needed and the extreme on each side (and I count more than two) has its place and none should be strangled out at the convenience of the other.
agree: We often get so caught up in trying to prove our own point by proving the other guy wrong, that we lose our own purpose in our tactic.
me: Yes, that does seem to be the human condition, not just a syndrome among Ls. My practice is to defend the truth the best I can, and to not make communication a dualistic duel. I believe that abolitionist and non-abolitionists Ls articulate their perspectives, and neither is “right” or “wrong.”
agree: a few reasons why the “unrefined” and purist point is valuable. Please note that I said valuable did not say necessary.`Hyperbole is illustration with fine lines and hard edges like a technical drawing. Soft sells are popularly appealing paintings of elvis on black velvet. Both are immature expressions compared to Di Vince, Picasso, Rembrandt, or Dali. Masterful composition and will communicate hard, even controversial positions while at the same time appealing to a more common sense of understanding.
me: We agree! Except I’d say “purism” is no longer valuable, it’s now a hindrance to advancing liberty. I’m for the NEXT thing…L Rembrandtism, if you will. I honor the value of our atomistic, absolutist predecessors and their views, but it rings hollow for me, certainly, and I submit it does so for most of the population, which finds liberty attractive but who don’t necessarily buy some of the shocking conclusions that our old platform espoused.
Ls and Lism is evolving, and individual Ls will evolve at differing rates and in slightly different directions. I’m suggesting putting some of the bracing and false positions behind us, the sooner the better.
Ta Da!
@91
And we both perfectly illustrate the disconnect.
We often get so caught up in trying to prove our own point by proving the other guy wrong, that we lose our own purpose in our tactic.
The discussion has been a delight and you rightfully bring the topic back.
Hancock versus Root and Hancock’s approach therein.
But first you asked a question I think I can answer:
@91 “I’ve been met with silence after repeated requests of abolitionists as to WHY it’s imperative that the LP publish extreme extrapolations of L theory in our foundational documents like the platform. But I am all ears, Games, if you care to take a shot.”
Letting the absolutist statements go I can tell you a few reasons why the “unrefined” and purist point is valuable. Please note that I said valuable did not say necessary.
Hyperbole is illustration with fine lines and hard edges like a technical drawing. Soft sells are popularly appealing paintings of elvis on black velvet.
Both are immature expressions compared to Di Vince, Picasso, Rembrandt, or Dali. Masterful composition and will communicate hard, even controversial positions while at the same time appealing to a more common sense of understanding. A master will appeal to the heart and the mind.
The answer is that we need both that far out extreme libertarian philosophy and the easy to digest libertarian perspective to there here and now. Denial of either, is short sighted and the tactics used in that denial (from both sides) are almost always far more unjust than the injustice they mean to correct in society.
On one side our LM has a group of people that are shouting for more peanut butter and on the other side, they are crying for more chocolate. When you get both together it is really yummy.
But all of our troubles seem to stem from one side screaming “You got chocolate in my peanut butter!” or the other way around. The twits don’t seem to realize… neither the chocolate nor the peanut butter is theirs alone. You like PB… dude likes chocolate… great I like PB cookies with chips. I suggest that we stock both into our platform.
This Hancock thread seems to be going the same way. This guy got a bunch of people together to make signs and put em up along a highway. He thought up a campaign, executed it, got others involved and led them. Here there are detractors using hyperbole saying that he is taking personal shots. Yet, really, he is not. The punditry here is far more personally leveled than his clever signs.
Hancock’s message is unquestionably pointed at WAR but, not unfairly. It is not a personal attack. It is an illustration of a relevant difference between the contenders.
Heck, the thing even makes sense from a third direction, the one most people are going to project into it: “Love not War”. With one swoop and only three words Hancock addressed multiple sets of people and delivered them each a different but relevant message.
Hancock’s jab, is IM(NS)HO brilliant and respectful. It is a masterful example of what good activism looks like pragmatic and radical at once.
I’d love our platform to take the same example.
BTW I could give not a single grain of concern for the platform of yesteryear. I care only that it represent ALL interests in the party including the radical purist, and the pragmatic populist.
games: “takes fanaticism” is not the same as “L’s need to be ‘fanatics’”.
me: Fair point. Although I’d note that aaa also said “I would argue that it is impossible for that many fanatic individualist[s] …”
The fair-minded reader would need to read the whole post to get a sense of what aaa meant. I took my best shot at interpreting his/her post, but I surely admit that my take may be off the mark.
But, I’ll engage your apparent main point: “The movement needs hard-line fanatics and it needs flexible pragmatists… BOTH. The core is not defined by a single mind but as a conglomerate and common set of many individuals that are head strong, and seeking purity.”
I respect your opinion, and I don’t necessarily disagree. A collective will attract who it will attract, and there will be a range of views that seem to line up at a mean. The current platform does that a LOT more accurately than the 04 one, IMO.
But, some abolitionists seem to set themselves up as “purity police,” who may or may not tolerate those Ls who are more interested in engaging the mainstream of voters. I really don’t have a need to be lectured about my purity or lack of it! If I advocate incremental step X, it’s because I believe X is indicated in this time and place as a means to advance peace and liberty. I don’t feel I need to advocate a theoretical utopian destination Y for a host of reasons, but mostly because this hombre doesn’t do constructs. I’ve been met with silence after repeated requests of abolitionists as to WHY it’s imperative that the LP publish extreme extrapolations of L theory in our foundational documents like the platform. But I am all ears, Games, if you care to take a shot.
Please note that I’m neutral on the chair’s race. I do admit that I find Hancock’s personal attack on Root dysfunctional and highly inappropriate.
games: In the mean time, I hope that more Libertarians start concentrating more on what they DO like about each other rather than what they don’t like. It is the only reasonable, and philosophically justifiable way they have of influencing each other.
me: Could not agree more. I’ve suggested a St. Louis Accord to that end.
@89
I understand your interpretation of an apparent contradiction. We are discussing that interpretation. It is my contention that the interpretation illustrates a general problem in Libertarians.
For instance: You better define our disconnect in understanding of the role of fanaticism. @89 you claim that @71 need to be fanatics. But that is not at all what was said.
from @71:
“Like the abolitionist movement, the LM is interested in changing the world. That takes time. It takes hard work. It takes determination; and it takes fanaticism at its core, or it will deviate along the long path to success.”
“takes fanaticism” is not the same as “L’s need to be ‘fanatics'”.
Again you take a generalized statement noting one need out of many (having the presence of fanatics), and try to apply it as a specific statement of absolute purpose then argue against your incorrect rewriting and reinterpretation.
Not a truthful nor fair projection and a wholly unfair tactic for finding truth or understanding.
Saying that we need fanatics is not the same as saying we need to all be fanatics.
Somy assertion is:
The movement needs hard-line fanatics and it needs flexible pragmatists… BOTH. The core is not defined by a single mind but as a conglomerate and common set of many individuals that are head strong, and seeking purity.
On the other hand the public face is also made up of individuals trying to fit the core philosophy to situations pragmatically.
To try and define these generalized statements as absolute projections into specific cases or individuals is fallacious. That fallacy seems to be the keystone to nearly every “pragmatist” versus “radical” and vice-versa, argument made.
The fallacy seems to me to be constructed as a device to make other submit to whatever the person is exclaiming. I see the tactic as divisive and not at all constructive. It also seems to exist in a metaphoric schizophrenic break in Libertarian philosophy and it’s application.
As an illustration:
Mr. Root takes a LOT of flack from people who claim he is way off of the core.
I happen to agree with them that Mr. Root is not selling the philosophy as strongly as I would like to see it sold.
However, unlike those detractors (illustrated in general above) I (an individual in a specific illustrative case) do not express than displeasure as “WAR is not a libertarian”.
I recognize that I do not have the authority to claim that. No matter how many years I have in the party. No matter how may times I ran as a candidate, or how many protests I have gone to… even no matter how much money I have contributed to campaigns. I have no more authority over another individual than they have over me: NONE.
The tone and frame of many posters is that of claiming some sort of authority, and that kills me. It comes from both generalized camps.
On the other side I can just as easily say that Mr. Root’s supporters are wholly intolerant of people that are trying to promote a more “pure” message and some of those supporters seem to have engaged in purges and attempted purges of Mr. Root’s detractors (or perceived detractors).
Me, I am caught in the middle. I get “it” – the core philosophy. I also get “it” – that populist expression and marketing are a necessary part of selling the philosophy in easy to chew bites.
I am both a radical and a pragmatist depending on the task at hand. Therefore depending on the task at hand, half of the Libs around me, lost in their peevish approaches, seem to want to attack what I do.
Talk about frustrating…
Then when we get one camp in at National forming a hegemony for one side, half of what I try to accomplish is attacked by the very people that are supposed to be making sure that this coalition of different people doesn’t fly apart.
I am deeply disturbed that the one camp has resorted to so much purging in what appears to be an attempt to entrench themselves. An entrenchment that is destructive and limiting.
Thus I support Hancock strongly this time around. We need an activist, radical, membership and grassroots oriented person playing referee for a while.
In the mean time, I hope that more Libertarians start concentrating more on what they DO like about each other rather than what they don’t like. It is the only reasonable, and philosophically justifiable way they have of influencing each other.
half: The pure principles of Libertarianism are fairly basic and in contrast to the “politics as usual” of the Democrats and Republicans is easy to discern. Libertarians will need to keep the core upheld to have a “center”. This is the general case defined in the first statement.
me: The “pure principles” as defined by WHOM? aaa made an impassioned case that Ls need to be “fanatics,” which is his/her OPINION, and yet we are not offered either what we’re supposed to be “fanatical” about NOR why we need to be “fanatical” at all. Why can’t we be, for ex., clear and consistent advocates for more political liberty and yet reasonable and practical as to how we advocate and attain more liberty? And, if you and aaa say we cannot take such an approach, I’d ask by whose authority can you define who is and who is not an L?
For ex., I’m a longstanding and proud L, but I have no interest in being a fanatic. My opinion is that being a zealot is an ineffective approach to politics and political change. I’m with Gandhi when he said, “There is no way to peace, peace is the way.”
Half, I do appreciate that you admit that aaa has at least appeared to have engaged in a contradiction. I’ll stand by that assessment.
Tom: “It is obvious that LP candidates that do the “true conservative” bit, wrap themselves in the flag, wave the constitution, and call themselves patriots are not winning elections.”
Are any other of the hundreds of LP candidates for partisan offices every election cycle? I’m talking about state or federal races. You can criticize Root justifiably, but the notion that candidates espousing radical libertarianism are doing better electorally than those who don’t isn’t consistent with reality.
@84
RC, the two statements do not at all contradict each other. They might seem to, but only if you project an assumption on the situation that Libertarians should not.
The pure principles of Libertarianism are fairly basic and in contrast to the “politics as usual” of the Democrats and Republicans is easy to discern. Libertarians will need to keep the core upheld to have a “center”. This is the general case defined in the first statement.
The demand for sign-on of “all” for one particular plan is a specific case that may appear to fit in the general case but does not negate it with an absence.
Fallacy.
But not at all an uncommon one.
It assumes that the Party is a one ship fleet with only one port of call to reach. For most people this association is just natural. After all, falling in line, towing a single rope is the pattern of social action we are taught in school. If you do not follow the commands of the guy with the whistle, you are out of the game.
Not so libertarian.
That philosophic core does not have to be a command and control unit to function. For Libertarians, a core does not have to be on top to be effective.
That the “ideas” are central in understanding, and action is individual; that each persons understandings of the core may vary some with their own experiences; that people’s engagement of the world through education, outreach, or campaigning provide a wide range of interpretations of that kernel of philosophy as it is applied to the real world.
Any one centralized plan for “saving the party” or “moving us forward” is doomed.
Libertarians will not be centrally controlled. The closest you might get is much like the situation as it seems to be now: a small group of people putting a strangle hold on the organization demanding capitulation or purge.
tb: If the LP isn’t winning elections and isn’t putting out a clear and strong libertarian message, what’s the point?
me: I’d say that most L candidates DO put out clear and strong L messages. Sometimes L candidates put out less strong messages. And, of course, “clear and strong” are subjective descriptions, agreed?
Since our candidates are generally have shoestring budgets and are paper (or, at most, part-time) candidates, it’s no surprise that our standardbearers sometimes are not as “strong” as we’d like them to be.
I don’t have a problem with L from the constitutionalist school evoking the Constitution, btw. I’m surprised you do, Tom, as you so frequently reference Ron Paul and C4L.
Capozzi asks, presumably because he doesn’t know:
Who are “actual” Ls, and how would we know?
The actual libertarians are those people who describe themselves as libertarians, read libertarian books and websites, and so forth. Many of them have been LP members in the past and left.
You don’t know who they are, but they are part of the general public and are rarely found at gatherings of Republicans.
The LP can target them by merely representing them as opposed to modeling itself after Freedom Works or the tea party movement and by encouraging candidates to stick to the platform and quit calling themselves “true conservatives.”
You don’t have to go looking for actual libertarians because they will come to the LP or come back to the LP if they believe the LP represents the ideas they believe in.
The LP appears to be generally in decline and its candidates are not being elected. It is obvious that LP candidates that do the “true conservative” bit, wrap themselves in the flag, wave the constitution, and call themselves patriots are not winning elections.
The idea is to sell libertarianism, not traditionalism, conservatism or neoconservatism. If the LP isn’t winning elections and isn’t putting out a clear and strong libertarian message, what’s the point?
It goes back to not encouraging people to believe the LP (or any third party) can win congressional or presidential elections. This destroys credibility in the long run and leads to watering down the message. If the LP truly wants people to accept the ideas presented in the LP platform, the ideas must be presented to people. It is as simple as that.
The “God, guns and tax cuts”, or the “little bit liberal, little bit conservative” memes aren’t cutting it. It isn’t working.
aaa #1: It takes determination; and it takes fanaticism at its core, or it will deviate along the long path to success.
aaa #2: I would argue that it is impossible for that many fanatic individualist to agree on anything much less a pill color. Any plan anyone has in the LP for total sign on, is folly. Any observation that lumps the LM into one direction, is myopic.
me: So, which is it? You appear to contradict yourself in the same post! So, thanks, you illustrate why plumbline-ism needs to be let go, and why a course correction is indicated.
tk 76, thanks. I don’t have the patience to sit through the whole thing, but I doubt Root ran the chiron or had power over the final cut or anything like that. Looks like he’s an anchor for hire in this one, and I’d say from what I saw he did a good job.
tk: I doubt that many Libertarians think that Root is as crazy as LaRouche or as evil as David Duke.
me: Yes, great point. It’s a subjective judgment about who is SO off the reservation as to be damaging to the party. Root could, for ex., say that Hancock, Phillies, or Hinkle are also way off the reservation, too. These aren’t facts, but opinions, which are very hard to escape in politics.
tb: The LP should use its limited resources to target actual libertarians and younger people who are not already totally indoctrinated conservatives or liberals.
me: Hmm, that begs the question: Who are “actual” Ls, and how would we know? The LP does county fair booths, gun shows, and tax day protests. I’m not sure those target Ls, either. Near as I can tell, Ls fit no demographic, although the current universe skews heavily male and techie.
Chuck,
You write:
“My opposition to Root’s LP Chair bid aside, I agree with Matt @2 and @5 that Tea Party rallies are better venues for outreach than for attacks on LP internal office candidates.”
This seems to assume that an attack on an LP internal office candidate can’t be “outreach.”
That’s not a sound assumption.
“Defending the brand” by publicly dissociating it from someone who tends to tarnish or devalue it is a variety of outreach.
If it was Lyndon LaRouche or David Duke running for chair of the LP, I don’t think many would disagree that it can be a NECESSARY variety of outreach.
I doubt that many Libertarians think that Root is as crazy as LaRouche or as evil as David Duke. However, at least some Libertarians perceive an association between Root and the Libertarian brand as at least detrimental to, and possibly suicidal for, that brand. And they’re acting on that perception.
Tom Blanton said: “While conservatives and libertarians may share some issues on a very superficial level and for different reasons, the two schools of thought are different. It is dishonest to recruit conservatives by claiming that libertarians are actually conservatives. This is nothing more than bait and switch. In the long term, it alienates people, it damages the LP, and most importantly, it damages the libertarian movement as a whole.
The LP should use its limited resources to target actual libertarians and younger people who are not already totally indoctrinated conservatives or liberals. To target actual libertarians, the LP can simply quit pretending they are conservatives to attract those libertarians who still believe electoral politics is worthwhile. That costs nothing.”
This hit the nail on the head!
My opposition to Root’s LP Chair bid aside, I agree with Matt @2 and @5 that Tea Party rallies are better venues for outreach than for attacks on LP internal office candidates.
Wow, Dick Morris, Christopher Ruddy, and Wayne Allyn Root all together. Never has so much credibility been gathered together in the entire history of wealth building infomercials.
Bob,
You write: “Your stock-picking link just has Root being interviewed. Is there some deeper connection?”
Yes. I’ll try to embed Wayne’s infomercial (he “anchors” the thing) for it below; if that doesn’t work, you can see it here. As you’ll note, each time Wayne is identified, the caption specifically notes what? Not his record as a corporate CEO. Not his record as a handicapper. Just “Wayne Allyn Root: Former Libertarian Vice Presidential Nominee.”
Interestingly, he gets the national debt figure right in the video.
tk, the MLM connection I’m seeing. Your stock-picking link just has Root being interviewed. Is there some deeper connection?
Separately, I find it ironic that a person calling him/herself “KS sniper” links to “peaceblimp.com.” Seems incongruous.
In addition to Thomas L. Knapp’s list, I would add that Root continues to hold positions which are directly contrary to the Libertarian party platform. He continues to be an interventionist and war monger. The party should stick to peace, freedom, and free markets. Which makes Ernie Hancock my choice for LP chair.
“That [Root]’s been on the other side in his recent past doesn’t trouble me …”
It’s not about where he’s been in the past, nor should it be.
Root was publicly referring to himself as a “libertarian” at least as far back as about 10 years ago (as a guest on Bill Maher’s “Politically Incorrect”).
While I opposed his campaign for the LP’s 2008 presidential nomination, I also pointed out that he was not quite the newcomer some of his opponents claimed he was, and cited letters to the editor from him published in Nevada newspapers in the early 21st century taking libertarian economic positions.
The problem with Root is not that he used to be a Republican. Even when he was a Republican, he was certainly a “libertarian-leaning” Republican.
Some of the real problems with Root are:
1) That while seeking partisan presidential nominations and internal party offices, he continues to conflate the interests of the LP with the interests of its opponents.
2) That he lies about his political past. And not just little white lies in private, but public, flagrant, “I know you can easily catch me here, but I’m just going to balls it out and hope nobody bothers” lies. What else is he lying about?
3) That he’s thus far leveraged his LP laurels, such as they are, to connect the party, whether it wants to be connected or not, with multi-level marketing schemes, stock-picking schemes, etc.
4) That he’s now seeking the position of CEO of the party when his record as a CEO is — there’s no other way to put this — a goddamn train wreck.
tb: The LP can’t rewrite its platform or throw out long-standing principles each time a political opponent claims libertarians are extremists. When you adopt your political opponent’s viewpoint or rhetoric, you lose.
me: Yes, agreed. Not what I advocate, so a straw man.
I HAVE quite consciously thrown out quite a few of the more theoretical positions that many Ls advocate. I’ve done so because I don’t buy the absolutist constructs of my former intellectual heroes Rand and Rothbard. I still agree with a lot of their conclusions, but I arrive at them from a different perspective.
I certainly don’t expect those who admire and agree with Rand and/or Rothbard more than I do to necessarily abandon their views. I consider them all “comrades in arms,” although I prefer more non-violent terms to describe my fellow Ls.
But I don’t shrink from urging other Ls to check their premises. Personally, I found the exercise liberating. They may come to another conclusion, separate from mine or our absolutist “parents.” It’s all good.
As for “losing,” I don’t see it that way. I sometimes adopt the perspective of those I disagree with, but I raise them! As a Taoist, I don’t do the win/lose thing, but I do my best to undo the obstacles to peace. I don’t see Root as an obstacle to peace, so while I don’t always agree with him, I admire his efforts for liberty. That he’s been on the other side in his recent past doesn’t trouble me, for we need a LOT more Roots to join with us in rolling back the State. We also need a LOT more folks coming from a more left perspective, too. Political change requires numbers, large numbers.
@69
Forgive me. But when I hear people say things like, “the LM is chasing its tail.” What I usually am hearing is, “The LM isn’t doing what I want it to.”
Like the abolitionist movement, the LM is interested in changing the world. That takes time. It takes hard work. It takes determination; and it takes fanaticism at its core, or it will deviate along the long path to success.
As individuals we can sell the LM however we want. That includes Mr RC above, and Mr WAR below. Not pure enough for you? Tough titty. Too pure for you? Again, your problem.
The Libertarian Movement is not collectively taking any color pill. It just can’t. I would argue that it is impossible for that many fanatic individualist to agree on anything much less a pill color. Any plan anyone has in the LP for total sign on, is folly. Any observation that lumps the LM into one direction, is myopic.
We move forward individually. Those who are successful will attract people who adopt their methods and maybe improve on them. Like abolitionists, it may take us 100 years of setting minds free, before the climate of culture and understanding moves our direction. But unless we put that party building and paradigm shifting work in, it never happens.
Capozzi, I would suggest that the vast majority of libertarians (myself included) are not nearly the extremists or absolutists that you claim they are, and by painting them as such, you only provide ammunition for political opponents who already incorporate this type of rhetoric against libertarians.
Republicans and Democrats constantly portray each other as extremists, despite their programs being remarkably similar. I am certain that in the absence of this rhetoric, people would view these parties as being essentially the same.
The LP can’t rewrite its platform or throw out long-standing principles each time a political opponent claims libertarians are extremists. When you adopt your political opponent’s viewpoint or rhetoric, you lose.
Factors external to the libertarian movement are the primary reason for both the lack of electoral success and the successful marginalization of libertarians by the mainstream political machines.
tb: Then why are you a libertarian?
me: Because I believe government is too big across the board. If there were a better, popularly accurate term, perhaps I’d use it. Some use the term “L” to mean an absolutist in applying the NAP. I used to be a Randian Rothbardian, so I used to adhere to an absolutist interpretation of NAP as well. I find that approach dysfunctional.
tb: Which begs the question, what is your motivation to be in a movement when you fundamentally disagree with the underlying philosophy of the movement?
me: My opinion is that the LM is chasing its tail, trapped in the NAP and absolutism. The ideas of liberty are powerful and should win out in the marketplace of ideas, but I’d suggest haven’t because the LM is its own worst enemy.
I could be completely incorrect, but I can imagine L-ism becoming a dominant political view IF Ls would lighten up some. The near-religious zealotry for the NAP and its most challenging implications have become a gigantic “Kick Me” sign on Lism and Ls. I’m generalizing here, of course, but I hope you get the idea.
I’m suggesting the LM’s been choosing the blue pill. The way out of the Matrix, I’d assert, is the RED one.
@65
Is that you, Wayne?
I get that you’re not a fan of Root and presumably others (Rothbard, Rockwell and Paul) who position (or have positioned) Lism as in league with conservatism or paleoconservatism.
Capozzi, your presumption is wrong. I think Rothbard, Rockwell, and Ron Paul have made valuable contributions to the libertarian movement. However, they are not deities. I can agree with some things and disagree with some things these people advocate without either demonizing them or placing them on a pedestal. I also believe there is room for a wide variety of libertarians in the world. But, when it comes to people like Neal Boortz, Glenn Reynolds, Glenn Beck and now Wayne Root, I think there is a difference. People who are essentially conservatives or neoconservatives do not represent libertarianism and certainly should not become the public face of the LP as Boortz has been in the past and Root arguably is now.
There is a big divide between Hancock and Phillies, but there is no question that they are serious libertarians. They do not rely on conservative talking points to convey their messages. They don’t seem to confuse libertarianism with conservatism.
What I don’t get is this campaign against Root and right-leaning Ls. They believe what they believe, and I’m not sure how your frequent hyperbolic critiques are going to change their behavior or opinions.
I’m not trying to change their opinions. I’m trying to influence the opinions of those who take them seriously. I’m warning that if you take the libertarianism out of the LP, then you defeat the purpose of the LP, if you believe the purpose is to create a more libertarian society. If conservatism is your bag, there is another party for that.
My motive in posting on this IPR comment page is to popularize Kingism in the LM…can we all just get along?
I find this laughable. You engage in personal attacks frequently, using pejoratives against all that don’t toe the “moderate” line. You and Holtz are both obsessed with classifying and categorizing all comers with clever prefixes to “atarian” which only serves to amplify differences rather than focus on shared beliefs. You rarely skip an opportunity to be condescending in your disagreement, as if by marginalizing others you elevate your arguments. You also attribute ideas to people that have not expressed them and then argue or agree with what they didn’t say. Why can’t we all get along, indeed?
If most people don’t take L organizations seriously, it could be there’s something very wrong with the philosophies expressed by those organizations, yes?
Then why are you a libertarian? Oh, wait, you don’t call yourself a libertarian. I forgot that you’re a lessertarian (?) with some other modifiers thrown in.
Perhaps you’ve unwittingly revealed the basis of your belief that libertarian ideas should not be discussed with the general public, but rather ideas which they already accept.
Which begs the question, what is your motivation to be in a movement when you fundamentally disagree with the underlying philosophy of the movement?
I find it bizarre that you continually lambaste libertarians for expressing ideas that you claim are too “radical”, yet you defend those who advance ideas and issues that have little to do with commonly accepted libertarian principles.
As for whether third parties win elections, it is rare. On the national level, it is extremely rare. Nearly all of the elected offices that have been filled by libertarians over the past decades have been non-partisan local races.
No libertarian has ever been elected to a national office, unless you count Ron Paul. The Republicans and Democrats have devised a closed system that simply will not allow third parties to compete with them. Since Perot, the major parties refuse to even include an independent or third party candidate in a presidential debate. The notion that Wayne Root could possibly walk into the White House in January 2013 is beyond the realm of fantasy, and yet some of his supporters think that is a possibility. For their own benefit, they shouldn’t be encouraged to believe such nonsense and it is wrong for the LP or LP candidates to lead people to believe in fantasies.
Like adopting conservative talking points, attempts to dumb down LP members is not in the long-term best interest of the LP or the wider libertarian movement.
Bottom line – I sincerely believe Wayne Root harms the libertarian movement in his role as self-appointed spokesman for the LP. I think his supporters are making a big mistake by promoting this man. Outside of IPR and Eric Dondero’s Libertarian Republican site, nobody publishes or republishes Wayne Root’s writings other than the right-wing NewsMax. It seems he is ignored by all libertarians except his supporters in the LP.
Is it a pragmatic strategy for the LP to target disgruntled conservatives (who invariably vote Republican to thwart the evil Democrat) over actual libertarians who might actually support a LP candidate that advances libertarian issues?
Most of the voices in your head?
Most of us know your an idiot. Your are such an idiot, that you don’t even know your an idiot.
tb: …two major delusions:
1) that there is any substantive difference between Republicans and Democrats
2) that third parties can win elections in America
me: Yes, substantively, I largely agree. Or, more precisely, the effects of their relative control over branches of government don’t seem to shift the outcome of their actions much. They do seem to advocate for slightly different things, but circumstances and institutional inertia seem to dictate increasingly unpeaceful, dysfunctional outcomes. There is, however, some evidence that the Reagan years did see a change in the rates of change. And the Clinton years we all benefited on a relative basis from the peace dividend. W reversed both, of course.
But #2 seems false on its face, since 3rd parties and independents do occasionally win election.
tb: My motive is simply to try to give LP members a perspective from a libertarian outside the culture of the LP in hopes that the LP will stop confusing the public as to what libertarianism is.
me: Actually, Tom, I get that. I get that you’re not a fan of Root and presumably others (Rothbard, Rockwell and Paul) who position (or have positioned) Lism as in league with conservatism or paleoconservatism. What I don’t get is this campaign against Root and right-leaning Ls. They believe what they believe, and I’m not sure how your frequent hyperbolic critiques are going to change their behavior or opinions.
tb: …what are your motives for seemingly wanting to suppress the straight forward expression of libertarian ideas in the public arena?
me: Can you give an example of where I’ve wanted to suppress anything? My motive in posting on this IPR comment page is to popularize Kingism in the LM…can we all just get along? It’s also my way of sharing my opinion of looking at peace and liberty in a different way than the predominant Randian/Rothbardian or constitutionalist schools of thought. Doing meaningful radical inquiry doesn’t have to mean that we arrive at the NAP and its application.
tb: The simple fact that there are virtually no libertarian organizations that take the LP seriously should serve as a wake up call to LP members that something is very wrong.
me: Yes, I’d agree. I’d go further: If most people don’t take L organizations seriously, it could be there’s something very wrong with the philosophies expressed by those organizations, yes?
My answer to you, Realism-who-hides-behind-an-alias, is that I voted against Reagan in 1980, for a rather conservative libertarian.
I’m not a liberal or a conservative. I’m a libertarian. Maybe you don’t know the difference.
Obama is no more a socialist or communist than Bush. The fact is they both resemble some sort of corporatism/fascism than anything else. Obamacare is Romneycare writ large, yet where were the conservative clowns calling Romney a Marxist? Where were the “conservatives” when Bush rammed his drug benefit plan through? Bush, McCain and Obama all supported the bankster bailouts and Bush had his stimulus packages too. Who’s the commie here?
Obama seems to be right with Bush on government secrecy, invasion of privacy, assassinating “suspects” with drones, unaccountable detentions in Bagram, while keeping Gitmo open, the escalation of war into Pakistan, threats and sanctions on Iran. Who’s the radical liberal?
Where were the “conservatives” wanting small government when Bush doubled the national debt?
Apparently, you have no memory of the Reagan years of tax increases on the middle class through increased FICA taxes (to save socialist security) and the loss of interest deductions, all while the size of government and the national debt grew.
Root can demonstrate the success that Freedom brings, by actions.
What’s he gonna do? Get elected?
I’d say you need a new name. Realism doesn’t seem to fit in your case. You are suffering from at least two major delusions:
1) that there is any substantive difference between Republicans and Democrats
2) that third parties can win elections in America
If the Tom’s-who-don’t-vote-yet-want-input have their way, if Wayne Root’s conservative libertarianism is rejected (presumably in favor of liberal libertarianism?), we can expect that the LP will become an interesting historical footnote for historians to ponder over. Just as the electorate is ripe for a bridge between conservatism and purer libertarianism, the LP should demand that the electorate make a larger, more bold, more untested leap from the last election, where it elected (apparently) a fascist/socialist/communist.
The average American doesn’t typically act like that, they are incrementalists, they are cautious.
It took two Bush’s and a Clinton to get from Reagan’s brand of ideology to Obama’s. If Obama had run on his platform just after Reagan, he would have followed the path of Mondale, McGovern et al. Even with the disaster that is Obama’s Presidency, don’t expect a 180 degree swing in politics. Root can demonstrate the success that Freedom brings, by actions. Those actions will provide the evidence that people who have been emotionally shackled by the ideology of governmental dependence will require in order to once again have the confidence to go it alone, and win.
First, as much as I hate to credit Root, I cannot standby and let the ignorant make fun of his $100 Trillion dollar debt claim: That is a CONSERVATIVE estimate when you toss in the over extended US derivatives market, and includes around $30 trillion in Social Security debt projected to the year 2040 by the US Comptroller General. Read all about it in thedollarmeltdown.com.
That said, I seriously doubt a majority of the LNC wants to see either Hancock, Phillis or Root win chair. I suspect in the end whoever their guy is will prevail as always. Thems that makes the rules wins the game.
If I get your drift, Tom, you don’t want Root to be successful, so perhaps you SHOULD want him engaging in ill-conceived efforts.
OTOH, as you’ve resigned from the LP and BTP, I’m not entirely sure why you care. Your motives seem murky and non-obvious.
I’ve been entirely upfront about my motives, Capozzi – on numerous occasions. The trouble is that you don’t pay attention. You just like to attack me because you don’t like what I’m saying. I must be hitting a nerve since I always seem to throw you into a little tizzy.
I quit the LP because I see electoral politics a waste of time at this point in time – especially considering the LP candidates of late. Too many in the LP have come to view everything other than electoral politics as a waste of time. I have not quit the libertarian movement, though.
Wayne Root is an embarrassment to the libertarian movement. The LP “strategy” of blurring the lines between conservatism and libertarianism is harmful to the movement. The LP use of Dick Armey’s motto is an embarrassment.
I wish Wayne Root all the success in the world – in the Republican Party where he belongs.
My motive is simply to try to give LP members a perspective from a libertarian outside the culture of the LP in hopes that the LP will stop confusing the public as to what libertarianism is. I come to this as a former LP activist, chair of the 3rd district, and SCC member of the LPVA.
I’m not a Rothbardian, Randian, retardatarian, militia member, Paulitarian or any other bullshit you and Holtz concoct.
It could be that Root wastes his time at a Tea Party rally, that there no very few to no prospective Ls there. The odds of Suprynowicz-style Ls will be in attendance IS low, I’d agree.
Since you are the only one who brought up Suprynowicz, it appears you are agreeing with yourself. How nice.
Now, since we’ve discussed my motives, which revolve around actually wanting society to move in a libertarian direction, what are your motives for seemingly wanting to suppress the straight forward expression of libertarian ideas in the public arena?
Most people who think they have a good idea want to tell the whole world about it. But you, Capozzi, among others, want to keep libertarian ideas under wraps while revealing them little by little, claiming this is some sort of serious strategy of great intellectual dimension.
Explain how the general public will come to embrace libertarian thinking by being exposed to conservative talking points, Obama bashing, watered down drivel like vouchers, statist legislation like the Fair Tax bill, modest tinkering around the edges of leviathan, and, most of all, a Republican guy selling a book.
The murkiest motives are those of the reformers, those who race to embrace neoconservatives, and those so eager to compromise first principles when there is nobody across the table to compromise with.
The simple fact that there are virtually no libertarian organizations that take the LP seriously should serve as a wake up call to LP members that something is very wrong.
So, do you get where I’m coming from, Capozzi? I just can’t make it any clearer. You can disagree with me, call me names, say I am wrong, claim I am angry, or compare me with Timothy McVeigh, but that doesn’t change what I am saying. I’m not the only one in the world expressing these views.
Personally, I don’t see anything wrong with a Libertarian addressing Tea Partiers IF the Libertarian is promoting the Libertarian Party and denouncing Democrats AND Republicans. If even a small percentage of Tea Partiers lean libertarian economically and socially (and it’s true that SOME of them certainly do) and some of those join the LP as a result, that’s good. It doesn’t matter if most of the Tea Partiers are socially conservative or pro-war and therefore aren’t receptive. On the other hand, if all you’re doing is bashing Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats and talking about yourself, then that’s not valuable for the LP.
Wayne Root aside from Palin got an ovation at Searchlight. YEAAAA.
tb: The parking lot of a 7-11, a flea market, a college campus, or anywhere that a broad cross-section of the general public is found or where young people can be found.
me: Hmm, those don’t seem to me to be actual events, so I don’t find your answer responsive.
It could be that Root wastes his time at a Tea Party rally, that there no very few to no prospective Ls there. The odds of Suprynowicz-style Ls will be in attendance IS low, I’d agree.
My guess is that there is a significant subset of L leaning Tea Partiers, and the Root speaks to them in language they may well resonate with. Seems to be a worthwhile effort, as an opportunity to reach out to this important and apparently growing segment of our prospective universe.
Attracting young people also sounds vitally important. Leafletting at 7-11s or flea markets…less so.
If I get your drift, Tom, you don’t want Root to be successful, so perhaps you SHOULD want him engaging in ill-conceived efforts.
OTOH, as you’ve resigned from the LP and BTP, I’m not entirely sure why you care. Your motives seem murky and non-obvious.
@49 All I can say is crap, he can make the money without doing this, that is a no brainer and if you can’t see that, boy you are really in the dark.
think that this is not necessarily a good thing! —— Lake
Graphs // Mar 27, 2010 at 12:36 pm
“Root ($100T national debt ???????) is the perfect media man. That makes him perfect for a high profile candidacy.”
With out a road map, it is easy to ‘go no where fast …………..’
think that for a guy holding a terminal degree, George ‘LP as solo peace party’ Phillies universally illicits a collective ‘Huh ???????????????’
Drinking age ???????????
Graphs:
If I go down the list of New Path candidates, I’m over 50, Charles Wilhoit is over 50, and that’s about it for over-50s among our candidates. The young end of our candidates is, I think, old enough to buy a drink legally. If you don’t believe me, go to NewPathForTheLP.org and look at the photographs.
Having said that, yes, we do have a staff and volunteer supporters. If you go through the other Chair candidates, how much of a slate do any of them have, let alone a staff?
Graphs,
The following is entirely, 100%, just my opinion.
Phillies has a particular set of organizational goals for the LP, has spent a decade or so outlining those goals and how he hopes to achieve them, and is running at the head of a slate pledge to achieving them through a particular way of operating the LP’s organizational apparatus (the LNC, LPHQ, etc.).
Hancock’s goals, on the other hand, are very different, and as he’s said publicly and privately, to myself and others, he doesn’t have to win the chairmanship to accomplish them. He regards LNC/LPHQ as “shiny badge” distractions from the real work, and his goal is to show Libertarians that we don’t need the sanction or approval of the badge people to get that real work done.
Both candidates have good cases for their claims, and I don’t see them as conflicting (Phillies’s emphasis on local organization would boost, and be boosted by, Hancock’s emphasis on grassroots activism).
I’d personally be happy to see either one of them as chair (I intend to vote for Phillies on the first ballots; if Phillies is eliminated I’ll vote for Hancock; if both are eliminated, I’ll vote NOTA).
One reason that Phillies is my first preference is that achieving his particular goals does, in fact, require him and/or his associated slate to win, while Hancock’s goals don’t. Hancock wins simply by running, because his modus operandi is demonstration, not management.
Root is the perfect media man. That makes him perfect for a high profile candidacy.
IM(NS)HO the LNC chair needs to spend their time balancing differing factions, moderating as fairly as possible, and supporting all party functions. I do not see Root as being that guy. It’s my experience that he is a bit hard headed, and focuses hard on single goals and works like a dog toward them. PERFECT for a candidate. Not so perfect for the LP primary referee and lead budget setter. The LP is diverse and needs someone with diverse perceptions to keep it running and healthy.
For me, this time around at least, I want someone who is going to put some energy into our membership. That means supporting activism. Part of why we are shrinking is that we have become too focused on one track, one part of the political formula and ignored the rest too long.
So, for me, its between Phillies and Hancock. Right now Hancock as it by a pretty big margin. Why? Well those signs represent something very important to me: HONEST WORK.
Hancock gets out of the chair and puts his hands to things.
Now the signs? I, myself, would not take the approach of playing down the other guy. It’s not a necessary sell to win. But the message is only negative in a very subtle way. Most people out of the loop are not going to understand. Those few of us that are in the loop, chuckle. In the mean time an anti-war message is reinforced in the uninitiated. If it picks up media attention, the double message might give the party some small public notoriety too.
Hancock (I think) could beat WAR for chair just on “do it to it” as a message. But, to be able to mobilize the human and material resources to pull off a stunt like this is a darned fine demonstration of follow through and grassroots consciousness.
Can anyone on the Phillies slate pull off something like this but better? (Probably not, I don’t think the slate has anyone under 50 working on it even as “staff”. Do they have any staff?) If so, it may be an interesting 2 months lead up to the convention as a propaganda war heats up.
If Root’s goal was truly to become a libertarian – the NV Senate race was his chance to speak about the LP and get nationwide exposure.
Root goes where the most customers are (i.e., where the money is).
Had Root run for Senate, he might have attracted some media/customers/money, but the Right would have considered Root a potential spoiler, throwing the race to Reid.
Then the Right would have stopped inviting Root to Fox News and Mike Savage, etc.
So by running for Senate, Root would have lost more customers than he would have gained.
As Root said, “the Right is where the money is,” so he’s not gonna offend that customer base.
Tom, Excellent Point @39!
Tom @23 said:
“If Root wants no LP candidate to run for Senate in Nevada because he thinks it will dilute the vote and allow Reid to win, that should tell libertarians something.”
Root was nominated to run for Senate against Reid at the NV convention and declined. If Root’s goal was truly to become a libertarian – the NV Senate race was his chance to speak about the LP and get nationwide exposure.
Very Lacking, thanks for making my point about how Root is fishing for rubes.
These Tea Party conservatives were neophytes. Never before had they been involved in political activism.
Knee-jerk conservatives rarely engage in activism. Their idea of activism is listening to Glenn Beck, putting a “Support Our Troops” sticker on their car, and voting for Republicans. They generally abhor protests and public gatherings because they associate it with the radical left from the 60’s.
Suddenly they have taken to the streets because they want to “take back” their country from the evil Marxist President born in Kenya and because Hannity and Beck told them too. Local right-wing shock jocks often speak at the local gathering and advertise them endlessly on their shows.
It is likely that the tea party gatherings would dwindle away to nothing without the support of groups like Dick Armey’s Freedom Works and without massive amounts of free advertising on talk radio.
It obvious Tom lack thinking on an intelligent level. Can’t help himself.
dunno who’ll the ATTENDEES to that Tea Party event will be, but I can’t think of an event in the offing that’d be target-richer than that one. Can you think of one with better prospects?
The parking lot of a 7-11, a flea market, a college campus, or anywhere that a broad cross-section of the general public is found or where young people can be found.
There’s a reason that hot dog vendors aren’t found at vegan gatherings and people aren’t selling reefers at symphony concerts. There’s a reason why Muslims don’t seek converts at Synagogues and why Republicans don’t seek converts at A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition demonstrations.
If, in fact, the goal of the LP is to achieve a more libertarian society, then the LP should be trying to advance libertarian principles as opposed to conservative talking points. Wayne Root doesn’t understand this and his supporters don’t either, apparently.
Root is selling his book and himself under the banner of Reagan libertarianism – something that exists only in his mind. He is not fishing for libertarians, he is fishing for rubes.
While conservatives and libertarians may share some issues on a very superficial level and for different reasons, the two schools of thought are different. It is dishonest to recruit conservatives by claiming that libertarians are actually conservatives. This is nothing more than bait and switch. In the long term, it alienates people, it damages the LP, and most importantly, it damages the libertarian movement as a whole.
The LP should use its limited resources to target actual libertarians and younger people who are not already totally indoctrinated conservatives or liberals. To target actual libertarians, the LP can simply quit pretending they are conservatives to attract those libertarians who still believe electoral politics is worthwhile. That costs nothing.
tms, no disagreement per se. This is interesting:
These Tea Party conservatives were neophytes. Never before had they been involved in political activism.
Sounds like a HUGE opportunity, tabula rasa!
And presumably some of the 80% are Ron Paul Republicans.
Not likely many. Ron Paul was loudly antiwar, and attracted antiwar types.
Antiwar people are increasingly unwelcome at Tea Parties: http://libertarianpeacenik.blogspot.com/2009/10/tea-party-boots-libertarians-peaceniks.html
Hancock’s theme begs the question: Who is “love”? Are we to assume that HE himself is “love”?
He may have a different understanding of love than I do, but love does not attack. Yet Hancock seems to be in attack mode in his video.
Or are we to assume that Hancock is referring to love revolution, a.k.a, the Ron Paul campaign, as Hancock is credited with the logo with its EVOL called out?
I’m neutral on this chair’s race, but Hancock is not making a strong case for himself.
I would ask is Hancock still associating with Vin Suprynowicz?
tb: If polls are accurate, about 80% are Republican.
me: Hmm, if we extrapolate to the event in question, then 20% are mostly independents. And presumably some of the 80% are Ron Paul Republicans.
Most Ls I know were former conservative Rs.
So, explain again why this is not a good opportunity for Root, and what the opportunity cost is, i.e., what is a better opportunity, with more numbers of prospective L voters or members?
Keep in mind that talking to prospective voters is a cumulative, yet opportunistic, thing. Say the next cycle pits Evan Bayh and Mitt Romney…our candidate might pickup some disgruntled, typically R voters.
If Root gets an invite to an AARP event, I think he should do that one, too.
Matt,
You write:
“We can all agree that Root should talk more about the LP in his public appearances”
No, we can’t.
The less Root talks about the LP, the better.
If you don’t understand why, ask yourself why United Airlines might not jump at the opportunity to get a celebrity endorsement from Osama bin Laden.
Back to the Hancock/Root thing….
I’m not a big Root fan, I just don’t see where Hancock’s actions, in this case, do anything to help the LP.
Root may not be helping the LP much either, but that doesn’t mean that Hancock can’t. If his crew can make a bunch of anti-Root banners, then they can make a bunch of pro LP banners. Regardless of how many or few tea partiers are likely to be interested in the LP, it is pretty certain that an anti-Root banner isn’t going to bring anyone into the party.
We can all agree that Root should talk more about the LP in his public appearances, but this is irrelevant to whether or not Mr. Hancock’s anti-Root activities are a waste of time.
Speaking of the Tea-party, does anyone know this guy? Is he a member of the LP?
“But Vanderboegh really is a classic exemplar of scream-at-your-TV tea-partyish extremism. A radical libertarian, champion of getting big government off the people’s backs, his day job? Vanderboegh lives on government disability checks down outside of Birmingham, Alabama.”
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/
Oh my God (and guns, gambling and tax cuts)! I just read #25 and found out if Root isn’t elected to the LNC, we’ll all be in camps.
Well, shit. It is obvious now that Phillies and Hancock need to step aside and get behind Root. Neither one of those guys are promising to keep us out of the camps. I’m just thankful that one of Root’s intelligent and articulate supporters informed us all of the consequences of not getting behind Root. It certainly is wonderful that Root is attracting great libertarian patriots to the LP. Just think how great it would be if Root brings in thousands more. This is big picture stuff.
Tom why don’t you write to Wayne yourself and ask him before you pass judgment. Obviously you don’t see a bigger picture here.
WTF? Please tell me you are joking. In the likely event you aren’t, what would you have me ask him before I pass judgment?
“Tom Blanton // Mar 26, 2010 at 9:08 pm
22 candidates running for Harry Reid’s Senate seat and Root doesn’t want to see a libertarian run because it might dilute the vote?”
As if replacing Harry Reid with some slimeball big government Republican is going to make a big difference.
Tea Party Libertarians?
The poll by Quinnipiac University said voters by 44 percent to 39 percent said they planned to vote for a Republican over a Democratic candidate in November, the latest sign of a rebirth of the Republican Party.
(snip)
Republicans have been working to find ways to absorb unpredictable Tea Party followers into their fold.
The poll found that 74 percent of Tea Party supporters are Republican or independents who lean Republican, while 16 percent are Democrats or independents who lean Democratic.
Tom why don’t you write to Wayne yourself and ask him before you pass judgment. Obviously you don’t see a bigger picture here.
22 candidates running for Harry Reid’s Senate seat and Root doesn’t want to see a libertarian run because it might dilute the vote?
Are you guys sure Root isn’t running for the chair of the RNC?
MORE TEA PARTY FUN
Tea Party sympathizers are against government “socialism” except when it comes to their own jobs, a new poll has found.
Seventy percent of those who identify as Tea Partiers — a platform that strongly decries government intervention in public life — want an interventionist government to create jobs, and only about one in three believe Medicaid and Medicare are “socialist” programs, according to a new Bloomberg poll.
More than 90 percent of Tea Party backers interviewed in a new Bloomberg National Poll say the U.S. is verging more toward socialism than capitalism, “the federal government is trying to control too many aspects of private life and more decisions should be made at the state level,” it adds.
At the same time, 70 percent of those who sympathize with the Tea Party, which organized protests this week against President Barack Obama’s health-care overhaul, want a federal government that fosters job creation.
HEY! LET’S HAVE A TEA PARTY
LAS VEGAS (AP) – A Nevada asphalt contractor who faces a legal challenge to his Tea Party of Nevada candidacy for U.S. Senate was hit Friday with felony theft and bad check charges in Las Vegas that allege he bounced a $5,000 business check last year.
Scott Ashjian is one of a record 22 candidates, including 12 Republicans, running for the seat held by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who is seeking a fifth term.
Bernie Zadrowski, head of the Clark County district attorney’s office bad check unit, said he would seek an arrest warrant Monday in Las Vegas Justice Court. Ashjian could face up to 14 years in state prison if convicted.
Capozzi, the strategy of trying to recruit libertarians at the events of hardcore conservatives just makes no sense whatever. These are adults that are there to see conservatives. If polls are accurate, about 80% are Republican. Most of them listen to the right-wing talk radio shows which advertise these tea party events. Unless you define down libertarianism to tax cuts and gun rights, these people aren’t buying libertarianism.
Of course, the LP could abandon libertarianism altogether, adopt some mongrel bastardization of Palin/Beck pseudo-neoconservatism and sell it to talk radio “conservatives”.
@26 I can “blantly” tell you that what you wrote is not an argument.
@23 I can blantly tell you, you are sooo incorrect and I know for a FACT you certainly don’t have a clue, BIG TIME.
I am sorry that same of you don’t live in reality. If Phillies really care about the LP party, he should step down and back Wayne Root. Phillies will NEVER get the exposure for the LP party that Wayne has worked soo hard to get. This country is in such a sad shape we really don’t have time for egos to be in the way. We got VERY SERIOUS PROBLEMS right now. And we really need someone like Wayne. I can almost guarantee you the party will be NOWHERE if the right thing is not done.
By then it won’t matter, you will all be in the camps.
tb, dunno who’ll the ATTENDEES to that Tea Party event will be, but I can’t think of an event in the offing that’d be target-richer than that one. Can you think of one with better prospects?
The only time Root even says the word “libertarian” is when he mentions the title of his book about guns, god, gambling and tax cuts. Read his rants. He’s not promoting the LP, he’s selling a book.
Does anyone here actually believe that a tea party freak show featuring Sarah Palin and Dick Armey is going to be fertile ground for harvesting libertarians?
Well, I suppose if you think Glenn Beck is a libertarian, then your answer might be yes.
The only reason Root has been invited is to give credibility to the claim that the tea parties are not just a group of Republicans.
Keep in mind that the tea parties are outraged by the “socialist” Obamacare, but nary a peep out of them about the GOP’s 2012 frontrunner, Mitt Romney and his Romneycare program.
If Root wants no LP candidate to run for Senate in Nevada because he thinks it will dilute the vote and allow Reid to win, that should tell libertarians something.
think that Lib financial guru [Bruce] Wayne Root has already informed us that the debt is $100T!
At the center of the battle is Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., who’s insisting that the measure be “paid for” so as not to add to the nation’s $12.7 trillion debt …………..
Maximizing votes and/or membership don’t seem at all mutually exclusive. Candidates should be appropriate and compelling.
If a candidate spend all her communication time pitching party membership, that would likely be ineffective in getting votes or members, for it would sound odd and proselytizing. Communicating like an excellent candidate creates an attractive aura for the party that could provide voters the incentive to be members.
Sizzle creates demand for steak.
Maybe Ernie Hancock should seek the Libertarian Party’s Presidential nomination.
Steve,
You write:
“This would be great if Hancock did it at the LP convention, but is this going to be the tone of his tenure as LNC Chair – every time a Libertarian reaches out to another group, Hancock will be there to tear him/her down?”
Interesting take.
I’d put it somewhat differently. Like this:
“This would be run-of-the-mill stuff if Hancock did it at the LP convention, but is this going to be the tone of his tenure as LNC Chair — every time some medicine show pitchman attempts to expropriate the Libertarian brand and abuse it for purposes of self-promotion and to assist co-option of the LP by its opponents, Hancock will be there to defend the party?”
There are worse things to look for from a chair candidate.
Scott Lieberman: “It is possible for an LP Presidential Nominee to try to maximize their vote total, and, at the same time, increase Libertarian Party membership.”
In an interview, you have a small amount of time to speak. You have to chose what your primary focus will be. Will you mostly focus on yourself or mostly on the Libertarian Party?
My point was that in past appearances I’ve heard Wayne talk about his own background and skill. I’ve heard him talk about how the president and legislators are fools. I’ve heard him talk about wanting to slash government taxes and spending.
But talking about the Libertarian Party itself? Talking about how THIS party is the third-largest in the USA and THE vehicle for actually achieving much smaller government? Talking about how people can contact the LP, become members, and then perhaps volunteer or run as candidates? I haven’t heard that from Wayne yet, so I doubt it will happen at the Tea Party Express. Prove me wrong and I’ll be pleased.
This would be great if Hancock did it at the LP convention, but is this going to be the tone of his tenure as LNC Chair – every time a Libertarian reaches out to another group, Hancock will be there to tear him/her down? If Mary Ruwart lands a speaking spot at a major anti-war protest will Hancock also protest her for not using her speech to attack the medical-industrial complex?
“JT // Mar 26, 2010 at 9:51 am
Harry Browne said it too after the 2000 presidential election, regretting having pursued a “get one million votes” strategy instead of a party-building strategy. ”
************************************
It is possible for an LP Presidential Nominee to try to maximize their vote total, and, at the same time, increase Libertarian Party membership. You just need to be organized enough to get as many campaign inquiries and volunteers as possible moved over into becoming LP members either during, or immediately after, the campaign.
Rich Vanier @ 4: “Wayne is getting a national platform to promote the Libertarian Party and Hancock will be there to drag him down.”
Is he? So Wayne will focus on promoting the Libertarian Party and how Tea Partiers should join the LP and become Libertarian activists? Or will he focus on promoting himself and how he’s the new Barry Goldwater or Ronald Reagan or whoever? If history is any guide, it’s the latter. I’d like to be wrong.
It’s no good for the Libertarian Party to have party leaders who don’t clearly and constantly promote the *party* as the vehicle for major political change in America. Harry Browne said it too after the 2000 presidential election, regretting having pursued a “get one million votes” strategy instead of a party-building strategy.
Constantly talking about yourself and your opinions at public events and on television is good for *you*, but it doesn’t lead to a much stronger Libertarian Party that’s poised for greater impact in the future.
In the new LP, the most important position – national,state,local – will be Membership Development Chair. More elected candidates, more volunteers, etc. will only result when the LP doubles, triples, etc. 25% per year growth should be a doable goal. Anyone who thinks a national membership of 12,000 is acceptable and likely to achieve any lasting success is delusional. Any state chair who hasn’t grown the state LP membership during his or her term should step down, certainly not be re-elected.
Success needs to be measurable and those who aren’t successful as leaders need to be retired to positions where their contributions are of value.
Twenty years and the LP is back where it was in 1991.
For an alternative position on what the LNC as the national party leadership should be doing, I call your attention the the NewPathForTheLP.Org and its candidates, including James Oaksun (MBA, Treasurer), Rob Power (MBA, Secretary), Carolyn Marbry (former corporate CEO and CFO of a *profitable* corporation, Vice Chair), and multiple others.
Our objective is to turn the Libertarian Party into the American majority party, which we will expect will take a bit. That will be done by thoughtful, effective, hard-working leadership that spends your money effectively, that mobilizes volunteers all across America in effective ways, and that spends its time electing Libertarians and creating the conditions that will elect more.
Mobilizes volunteers? I can off-hand think of six obstacles to effective volunteer mobilization that we will work to overcome:
1) Some people think they need permission to volunteer, and await permission. Our message is: The water’s fine, come on in, and we are here to help you.
2) Some people need to be asked to volunteer. Our message is: most people run for office because someone asked them personally, and we are here to ask and encourage other people to do the same.
3) Some people have energy, enthusiasm, and vigor, but have not idea what they might do. Our answer is: We have people you can work with, and projects ready to go for you to assist on.
4) Many people would like to know that what they are doing matters and makes sense. Seeing the larger strategy and how your part fits in to the whole is a real motivator. That’s why we advance strategic recommendations, and will soon be advancing a substantial strategic proposal and a legitimate business plan for the National Committee. Our message: We have a sensible plan. Ask our opponents about theirs.
5) Some people are the abominable Noman and Nowoman, the folks who can always witout exception find a reason not to do something. Our message is: Pardon us while while shuffle the deck chairs until those people lecture the seagulls astern of the ship while we steer libertarians toward the bright libertarian future.
6) Some people want to spend their time arguing about exactly how the Libertarian future will be arranged, when we are so far away from it it that we have no idea what the reality will be like or what we will actually want as the Libertarian future approaches. You will notice that the New Path says very little about what the platform should contain. We’re here to build a Libertarian political Party, not to argue about platform contents.
To read about our long term needs, see my latest message forwarded to GoldAmericaGroup.com and its original on LibertyForAll.com
I tend to agree with Mr. Cholko. Tea Partiers need the libertarian message right now, not exposure to some intra-party struggle they neither understand or give two craps about.
Clearly both Wayne Root and Ernie Hancock are dynamic individuals who can get a message out. If either would be elected LNC chair when they did speak in that capacity it would be representing the views of the LP generally.
A fair question is can either of them deliver a message as eloquently and with as much passion that is not exactly their own?
want to know how the Hammer of Truth
replacement site is coming ……… Lake
Root Does…..I have to agree with that.
Hancock is doing a service for Truth.
He’s remdining people that Root is merely a former LP candidate. And that Root is not an official spokeperson for anyone but himself.
Voters need to know, Root speaks for Root, and for Root alone.
Root does not speak for the LP, much as he’d like to.
OK. But let’s not split the anti-W.A.R. vote so he slithers to victory.
that it was [Bruce] Wayne Root that calculated the national debt at $100T …………
“Mr. Hancock should be doing something to help the LP as opposed to hurting WAR.”
——– Mister Root should thinking of doing some thing to help LP ……………
I watched the video, and it really dissapointed me. They made a whole bunch of anti-Root banners. Imagine how many eyeballs they could have put some pro LP message in front of with those same banners.
Sounds like good news for George Phillies. Wayne is getting a national platform to promote the Libertarian Party and Hancock will be there to drag him down. Now that’s what you call “LOVE”.
I agree, at Tea Parties we should promote the message. Leave the party squabbles somewhere else. Not only are we fighting against the statist left. Paleocons, Neocons and the Religious Right are our enemies too.
Actually, the more I think about it, the more I feel like any LP activists hanging out at a tea party rally should be promoting the LP, not attacking a candidate for chairman.
I dunno about this move….
On one hand, I feel like Mr. Hancock should be doing something to help the LP as opposed to hurting WAR. Kinda seems like he’s taking the infighting public.
On the other hand, it is great for him to aggressively campaign for the LNC Chairman position.