David Nolan at Libertarian Party blog:
FOX-11 in Tucson ran this three-minute statement on Sunday; they offered every candidate for a major office the opportunity to do this, but surprisingly few took advantage of it! The media in Arizona give Libertarians better coverage than in most states, partly because we’ve earned it! While you’re on their website, check out the statements by Barry Hess and Steve Stoltz too!
Growth halted around mid-1999 IIRC, I think that’s about when a critical mass of people became of aware of the controversy. Granted others were aware of it earlier, and the numbers were still going up at that point, but perhaps they would have been going up even faster otherwise, or not enough people had heard the allegations yet. Then again maybe the other factors were more significant. It was just one piece of the puzzle.
Paulie: “Browne almost cancelled his campaign at one point because they caused his fundraising to dry up. In the end he soldiered on, but with less money and manpower than he could have had without the friendly fire. Some people were less enthusiastic about the campaign than they would have been and thus it had fewer resources to draw on.”
All true. Many still believed Browne would do considerably better than he did. He raised more money than most past Libertarian presidential candidates, had a lot of experience in the media, was an extraordinary speaker, and presented a very strong and appealing libertarian message.
Paulie: “Additionally, the internet/nasdaq stock bubble bursting was another factor in that drying up of funds, but I think the bigger factors in the final tallies was the very close race between Gore and Bush and the presence of Nader and Buchanan on the ballot as better known protest votes.”
Agreed.
Paulie: “However, I think some of the lingering effects of the corruption charges and the doubts they put in some people’s minds did contribute to the money and membership slide in 2001, and then 9/11 was another big hit.”
Yes, but you’ll notice that LP membership and funding wasn’t declining when those allegations had been made well before that.
That too had something to do with the allegations. Browne almost cancelled his campaign at one point because they caused his fundraising to dry up. In the end he soldiered on, but with less money and manpower than he could have had without the friendly fire. Some people were less enthusiastic about the campaign than they would have been and thus it had fewer resources to draw on.
Additionally, the internet/nasdaq stock bubble bursting was another factor in that drying up of funds, but I think the bigger factors in the final tallies was the very close race between Gore and Bush and the presence of Nader and Buchanan on the ballot as better known protest votes.
However, I think some of the lingering effects of the corruption charges and the doubts they put in some people’s minds did contribute to the money and membership slide in 2001, and then 9/11 was another big hit.
I should add that a slide in LP membership and money began in early 2001, which I believe was due to the results of the presidential election. Many Libertarians who had become members of and donors to the LP because of Browne were sorely disappointed when he fell well shy of his stated campaign goal of 1 million votes. His showing was virtually the same as most other Libertarian presidential candidates, disillusioning a high percentage of people he had recruited and leading to an exodus of people from the LP.
OK, sounds like miscommunication, you’ve now agreed with everything I was originally trying to say. Sorry for my poor choice of words. Moving on.
Paulie: “You are not disputing that we got less effective leadership at that point, so what are you saying…the allegations had no effect whatsoever on morale? If so I don’t think you are correct.”
Do you think seriously think I said anything about the effect of allegations on morale? I’m saying, and have been saying, that “allegations of corruption” didn’t drive people out of their leadership positions or staff positions in 2002. Isn’t that something said in your initial post?
Paulie: “I meant that the allegations led to a general atmosphere which contributed to people resigning or being voted out.”
That’s not the same thing I was responding to, but I guess you could say the allegations did foment a divisive and contentious atmosphere within the LP (something that happens fairly regularly, such as with the platform revision in 2006 and the Barr nomination in 2008). Nobody in 2002 resigned from or was voted out of positions they had held in the party because of accusations of corruption though. That’s all I was saying.
“No dispute there. I never denied that.”
That was really all I was trying to say there. You keep trying to make the rest into something it isn’t.
“Yes, I do. I think if a person says allegations of corruption drove people out of their leadership and staff positions in the LP at a particular time, that person should be able to back it up with some specifics, such as who they’re referring to.”
The entire group of people in charge of the LNC and staff, and I said the allegations was (were?) only one of two main contributing factors, the other being fallout from 9/11, which led to declining support for the LP…that in turn contributed to people voluntarily resigning because they didn’t feel appreciated, or because it became a less pleasant working environment, etc.
Maybe part of it was because fundraising was tanking. Allegations had something to do with that as well. It is also a fact that the LNC results in 2o02 were interpreted as a repudiation of the then powers that be.
“I took it up with you because you said it (or repeated it).”
Montoni has the specifics, I have no additional information on that.
Once again, what you are choosing to respond to is a tangent of a tangent and you are making it sound like I said that specific allegations against specific people caused those specific people to resign. If that is the way you understood it, I did not say it well enough, I meant that the allegations led to a general atmosphere which contributed to people resigning or being voted out.
You are not disputing that we got less effective leadership at that point, so what are you saying…the allegations had no effect whatsoever on morale? If so I don’t think you are correct.
Paulie: “No, it looks like you did miss my point, perhaps intentionally.”
I responded directly to something you said. Whether it was your main point or not is irrelevant. It was something you said, and I answered it.
Paulie: “I’m getting tired of explaining it, though.”
Then don’t continue.
Paulie: “Bottom line is that party membership, resources, and competence dropped after 2001/2002.”
No dispute there. I never denied that.
Paulie: “You keep trying to get at very tangential specifics of something that was a side note.”
Yes, I do. I think if a person says allegations of corruption drove people out of their leadership and staff positions in the LP at a particular time, that person should be able to back it up with some specifics, such as who they’re referring to.
Paulie: “As for your specific point “I know firsthand that nobody resigned or was forced out due to that. In fact, Geoff Neale, who was elected LNC chair in 2002, was supportive. I don’t know how you can just jump to that conclusion.” — take that up with Montoni, I believe he said otherwise.”
I took it up with you because you said it (or repeated it).
Paulie: “But it was completely tangential to what I was saying.”
Doesn’t matter. It was included in your post and that’s what I chose to address.
Paulie: “Yes, the infighting did have an impact on morale, membership and participation in 2002 but what I was saying is that things seem to be looking up again, although it’s still early on that.”
It’s still early, yes, but I hope you’re right.
No, it looks like you did miss my point, perhaps intentionally. I’m getting tired of explaining it, though.
Bottom line is that party membership, resources, and competence dropped after 2001/2002.
Part of what led to that was the fallout over the war issue. Part was allegations of corruption. There was a change of leadership during that time, some people left the party or stopped being actively involved, some scaled back their involvement and the new staff at that point did not manage things as well – database, communications, candidate recruitment, etc.
Regardless of whether some people left or scaled back because they believed the allegations, or because the people who made the allegations pissed them off, the result was a diminishment of activity level.
You keep trying to get at very tangential specifics of something that was a side note.
As for your specific point “I know firsthand that nobody resigned or was forced out due to that. In fact, Geoff Neale, who was elected LNC chair in 2002, was supportive. I don’t know how you can just jump to that conclusion.” — take that up with Montoni, I believe he said otherwise.
But it was completely tangential to what I was saying.
Yes, the infighting did have an impact on morale, membership and participation in 2002 but what I was saying is that things seem to be looking up again, although it’s still early on that.
I didn’t miss your point at all, Paulie. You specifically said, “allegations of corruption driving the then-leadership and office staff out of power within the party in 2002.” That quote directly says that people in leadership and staff positions in the LP were driven out in 2002 due to allegations of corruption. So I asked you who exactly was driven out due to such allegations, because I don’t know. It doesn’t seem like you do either.
Paulie: “How long after?”
Crickenberger left the LP in 2003 because of cancer and died in 2004. Getz was there after the 2004 convention.
Paulie: “Basically…the people they wanted to work with were not elected. So, they either resigned or were forced out due to that.”
Who are “they”?
I know firsthand that nobody resigned or was forced out due to that. In fact, Geoff Neale, who was elected LNC chair in 2002, was supportive. I don’t know how you can just jump to that conclusion.
Who in a leadership or staff position was driven out because of any accusations?
You missed my point. It was second order effects. I explained it at 22.
George Getz (press secretary), and Ron Crickenberger (political director) were still there after the 2002 convention.
How long after?
Basically…the people they wanted to work with were not elected. So, they either resigned or were forced out due to that.
The point is not that any of them personally resigned because of allegations of corruption, but that the whole “faction” or whatever you want to call it was driven out. The other factor in that was the rift in the party over 9/11, war in afghanistan, war on terror and related issues.
Paulie: “It was an important factor in why people voted against people aligned with those folks at the 2002 convention.”
You said, “…and after allegations of corruption driving the then-leadership and office staff out of power within the party in 2002…”. Who in a leadership or staff position was driven out because of any accusations?
Paulie: “My recollection is that staff mostly changed after the convention. Are you saying that is incorrect?”
I’m saying Willis already had left his position as executive director a few years earlier to become the full-time manager of the second Harry Browne presidential campaign. I’m also saying I have first-hand knowledge that Steve Dasbach (executive director) and Bill Winter (communications director) didn’t resign because of any allegation of corruption. George Getz (press secretary), and Ron Crickenberger (political director) were still there after the 2002 convention.
It was an important factor in why people voted against people aligned with those folks at the 2002 convention. My recollection is that staff mostly changed after the convention. Are you saying that is incorrect?
Paulie: “…and after allegations of corruption driving the then-leadership and office staff out of power within the party in 2002…”
This isn’t factual, Paulie. Allegations of corruption didn’t drive anybody “out of power” in 2002. People had either already left the staff before that (Perry Willis) or resigned for other reasons (Steve Dasbach, Bill Winter). Harry Browne, two-time presidential nominee, was never in any other leadership position and remained active in the party until his unfortunate death in 2006.
That was a good statement, but he does what a lot of Libertarian candidates do; focus on what he won’t do. That leaves a lot of people with the question ‘if he is elected what would he do?’.
Granted, three minutes is not the place to go into great detail, but some indication would be helpful. How would he actively secure people’s rights? Will he leave grandma shivering in the dark by taking away social security and medicare? Those kinds of things.
Tahoe is a non partisan local race, so it doesn’t require having enough libertarians. NH does not require a libertarian revolution either, the immediate goal is 4% to regain ballot access.
paulie you are misleading everybody again. Like Kubby. The is not going to be ant Libertarian revolution ANYWHERE. Not in S.L. Tahoe or New Hampshire etc. There is not going to be any significant LP electoral success.
Simply, libertarians just do not have the numbers. Or the wherewithall. Maybe if libs were all generous millionaires.
Again, everybody, by far the best bet for libs is an inclusive progressive movement. That can win elections and is actually slow, nonviolent revolution.
It’s a balancing act. Being elected is not a good thing if you’ll do more harm than good, and being right doesn’t do much good until you get in a position to do something about it. There are many perils in the way ahead, but in the long run I remain optimistic. It may not be as long as most people dare imagine, either.
“… if we can keep the infighting to a minimum…”
Good luck with that. Purity issues are what killed the party in the 80’s. Some people would rather be right than elected.
BTW, you may have heard me mention before that my job puts me in personal contact with large numbers of people on a regular basis, usually for very short periods of time discussing politics. And recently the demand for a libertarian party has been high…people ask for it by name.
Now the only question is how effectively can the LP mobilize its natural constituency? Recent signs are good, but the progress is just starting and we’ll see whether momentum can be sustained.
Not so much. As I said @ 7 things are picking back up with the LP, and if we keep it up we’ll recapture the Browne era momentum and then some.
The ideology is certainly spreading like never before, if we can keep the infighting to a minimum we’ll take off in an unprecedented way.
The Prohibitionists probably feel the same way!
It’s just getting started, and the best is yet to come.
I joined the LP in 1974. Between the 1980 Clark campaign and the 1984 Bergland campaign the party died. It seemed to get a pulse again with Harry Browne but that didn’t last long. I still vote Libertarian when I can but in all reality one can turn out the lights… that party is over.
Oh yeah, we were also on the ballot in every state and DC in 1992, 1996 and 2000.
That and several other benchmarks we hit in the 90s had not been achieved by any alternative party since the 1930s.
I was there, and yes, it did seem plausible at the time.
We were running over 2,000 candidates for office, covering the majority of congressional districts, had rapid membership growth that tripled dues paying membership to over 30,000, the national budget was 3-4 million per year, there were hundreds of people at some state conventions, every state in the US had an active LP branch.
We dominated political discussions all over the then new and rapidly growing internet and getting into the old media more than before.
About 600 Libertarians were in local elected and appointed office, and several in state legislatures.
And, yes, we did address the SS issue quite a bit.
As for this idea that I like Cody “so much,” I don’t know where you get that.
paulie // Nov 2, 2010 at 2:09 pm
wasn’t it ten or 15 years ago that Nolan was predicting congressional victories by now?
……………That did look plausible at the time.
OH PLZ, REWRITING HISTORY AGAIN
[a] GOP / Lizard Boy Gingrich and the fakey dakey ‘Contract with America’: Perot types were screaming and yelling and throwing a fit. Especially as the ‘contract’ had been ‘Joe Bindened’ from Perot P1992.
[b] Libertarians were quietly debating how many Libs could dance on the head of an angel.
[c] GOP was touting massive reforms in Social Security. The Lib public relations studio? The room dark. The equipment vacant.
[d] The 21st Century as the era of Libertarianism? Only the the drug addled brains of the partisans. Every one else, bigs, true independents, small party types were smirking. A lot!
[e] no wonder p likes Cody Quirk so much, they both ‘make it up as they go along’ ———— sad, sad!
wasn’t it ten or 15 years ago that Nolan was predicting congressional victories by now?
That did look plausible at the time.
However, the LP took a turn downhill after 9/11 caused a split between hawks and doves, neither getting what they really wanted from the party; and after allegations of corruption driving the then-leadership and office staff out of power within the party in 2002, followed by several years of less competent management.
More recently the LP appears to be recovering from that and growing again, with more candidates on the ballot, better polling numbers, membership and donations rising again….it’s still early, but if the progress continues, we may be back on track.
If the LP manages to keep it together and not fall to another of its periodic internal splits (1983, 1989 and 2002 come to mind), there’s absolutely reason to believe that congressional victories will be possible in the next few years, particularly with the use of new media and growing, high levels of voter disgust with both larger parties.
Good luck to David Nolan. And let’s encourage him to revisit his 40 yr.-old call for a Libertarian Party. What’s going right, what isn’t, what’s ahead. Not that Nolan’s views are gospel but it will be interesting to see how the visionary views his offspring. [Note: wasn’t it ten or 15 years ago that Nolan was predicting congressional victories by now? Yet we seem no closer to our goal than when Clark’s votes were counted in 1980.]
I hate Obama. I get physically ill thinking of the loser brigade of corrupt punks since JFK. But we dodged two major problem children with President Graham Davis and President John InSane! And *shooting from a helicopter* northern nutcase President Sarah Palin!
3 responses so far ?
* 1 Ted Brown // Nov 2, 2010 at 10:59 am
This is a great statement. If there is ever a senator who needs to be tossed out of office, it’s John McCain.
[Lake: I concur, and you did not list more than a fraction of the issues, going all the way back to academy daze!]
For anyone not following the link, here it is:
I heartily agree! A really well spoken statement.
This is a great statement. If there is ever a senator who needs to be tossed out of office, it’s John McCain. Good luck, David!