[Lnc-business] LNC Member Blogging

[Joshua Katz]

I have found subsequent arguments persuasive, and so am less confident in
my approval.

I would respectfully disagree with the vice chair, for largely the reasons
Dr. Lieberman mentions. I like the solution oriented approach, but I
disagree with forcing it on LNC members on the website. Also, the primary
readers will likely be LP members, not the public at large, but the public
at large will also read what is written, raising the concerns the Secretary
raises, plus the difficulty in writing for a split audience.

I would instead propose having open comments on everything on the website.
Then, if an LNC member chooses to comment, it is clear that it isn't under
color of office, since anyone can comment, although they can choose to
include their identity and title if they think it will lend credence.

If an LNC member wishes to post elsewhere under color of office, they are
free to. Many of us do, and at the regional level, we have more direct
means of speaking to constituents. If an LNC member wants to post on the
website officially, or other have an LP branded statement, they can go
through the APRC.

If we do go this route, though, I would disagree with then specifying what
people can say. Without open posting, the justification for allowing posts
without APRC approval is board member status, which out ranks staff and
most management (we have a combined chair and CEO, hence most.) So either
we entrust board members in this way, or we don't. Or limit it to some
subset, say, those who do or may supervise staff directly, ie. Chair and
Vice Chair.

Joshua Katz
On Jul 30, 2014 10:23 AM, "Scott L." <scott73 at earthlink.net> wrote:

>
>
> When I read the e-mail below, I get the feeling that the Vice-Chair is
> perfectly OK with LNC members getting to post articles on the LP’s blog, as
> long as the Vice-Chair approves of the content.
>
>
>
> All of us on the LNC are here because various subsets of our membership
> feel that we are qualified to be here.  I don’t think it is a good idea to
> then permit a small, select group of LNC members to censor fellow LNC
> member’s blog posts because that small, select group disagrees with their
> content.
>
>
>
> I *might *be willing to give after-the-fact censorship power to a
> super-majority of the entire LNC, or perhaps to a super-majority of the EC.
>
>
>
>
>
> Permitting LNC members to blog on the official LP web site will open a can
> of worms that yet again focuses the LNC’s attention on trivial internal
> governance matters, rather than on our Mission of electing Libertarians
> to public office.
>
>
>
> So – I recommend that we do NOT permit LNC members to post blog articles
> on the LP’s web site.  It’s not like our web site is the only web site on
> the Internet that permits libertarians to post articles.
>
>
>
>     Scott Lieberman
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
> *“From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org] *On Behalf
> Of *Arvin Vohra
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 29, 2014 10:33 PM
> *To:* lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] LNC Member Blogging
>
>
>
> Hi all - this was something I advocated for last term, before I properly
> understood the ramifications. At this point, I am much more hesitant.
>
>
>
> If we can set very clear guidelines, that keep this on message, I'm for
> it. Those guidelines, in my mind, would be basically similar to Who's
> Driving.
>
>
>
> 1. Must at some point bring up cutting/repealing/dismantling existing
> government structures. Not just blocking future increases, dismantling
> current structures.
>
> 2. Must at least state the advantages of those cuts.
>
> 3. This one is obvious. A post should not, even for a moment, even
> inadvertently, advocate for more government.
>
> 4. Recommended: show that this differentiates us from the R's and D's.
>
>
>
> Our blog is a marketing instrument. Any marketing instrument must make
> sure the clients (voters), at the very least,
>
>
>
> 1. Know what we're offering
>
> 2. Understand why it's good.
>
>
>
> And we aren't offering Hayek, our own personal life experiences, or an
> edgy brand. We are offering less government and more freedom. We are
> offering to downsize, dismantle, cut, abolish, and repeal. At this point,
> most of the country Does Not Know What We Are Offering. Most of the
> information being shared is flat out wrong. Some if this is because of D
> and R misinformation, but most of it comes from our own uncontrolled,
> constantly off message, presentation.
>
>
>
> Most of the country believes the Libertarian tax position is Fair Tax, not
> eliminating the income tax. Most of the country understands us in terms of
> our beliefs (Socially Liberal and Fiscally Conservative), not in terms of
> what service we are offering (cutting government.) Many of the people who
> do vote for us are not voting because of what we're offering, but because
> of irritation with our opponents.
>
>
>
> Anyway, I know we have an amazing talent pool on this LNC. I agree that
> using it on our blog has great potential. But used in an off-message,
> undirected way, I believe it will do more harm than good. Thus, I would
> strongly support this with the above guidelines, or an alternative set of
> guidelines that makes sure that we are marketing effectively by putting our
> unique selling proposition front and center of every post.
>
>
>
>    Arvin”
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20140730/9423c53c/attachment-0002.html>