[Lnc-business] Specialization is good

Mon Sep 15 15:38:54 EDT 2014

I have my own thoughts on corporate titles, and I'd like to bring them up
someday, but at the moment, I want to say this:  I don't think the LP's
first starting point should be "a libertarian America."  I'd call that a
goal before the goal - it's something so far from what we actually do that
it can't have any impact on shaping our goals.  Our rock-bottom zero point
goal should be putting Libertarians (or libertarians where the first is not
possible) in office.  Stop.  We each have personal reasons for wanting to
do this, but they don't, in my opinion, rise to the level of organizational
goals.

I agree that increasing membership is a tactical goal - it gives you a
larger steady, predictable income stream (very good,) gives a larger margin
of safe votes (good) and a larger body from which to pull volunteers
(good.)  Other good tactical goals - getting a larger steady, predictable
income stream from existing members, increasing member turnout for
elections, and getting more of our members to volunteer.

You may think I'm being cute (I can't help it, heehe) but I think this is a
distinction worth making.  For example - if our rock-bottom goal is
electing people to office, we will necessarily put less emphasis on races
where we cannot reasonably do so at the moment, and be less apt to waste
resources in ways that do not advance this goal.  If we allow the reasons
we want to win races to be considered, it's always possible to argue that
any race is valuable - exposure, getting ideas out, etc.  The problem is -
other organizations can provide ideas more exposure, and without FEC
regulations, and without the "sell-out" factor that necessarily comes with
running for office in the first place.

I still consider myself a purist at heart.  When I do philosophy, I am a
purist and will not taint my philosophy.  In office, I simply cannot be a
purist because the question freedom/statism never comes to my desk.  As an
office-holder, I'm necessarily "sold out" and that's a good thing.  I sold
the purity of my ideas for the opportunity to actually do something - and I
am moving the needle, or at least keeping it from moving the wrong way too
quickly.

I've met libertarians who criticize me for holding office.  I ran into one
a while ago who said libertarians should not engage in politics.  After
asking him to not join the LP, I explained why I do politics, and gave some
examples of actions I've taken in office.  When I pointed out that in less
than a year in office, I've personally been able to act to get 5
applications for special permits accepted, and those 5 people are now in
the process of building the businesses they want.  The response was "well,
that's mighty kind of you massah."  I see where he's coming from - I
shouldn't be granting anyone the right to build a business.  Would the
world be better if they just got told no?  (Some people think it would
because they'd then revolt.  I don't think so.  It's actually amazing what
people will take...  I regularly see applicants come in with heads down,
apologizing for annoying us, and with sketches that clearly aren't what
they want, but what they know the board holds as its 'aesthetic vision.'
 Sometimes I feel like refusing to approve these applications because I'm
so upset at this whipped-dog attitude.)

Anyway, that's why I say running for and holding office is, itself, a kind
of sell-out.  That's why I don't consider unwinnable races a particularly
good means of getting ideas on the table and think other organizations
should do those things.  But it becomes easy to argue for doing less than
serious things when we admit "a free world" as a goal of the LP.  Just my
thoughts.

Anyway, given that - are there, in fact, 40 states where statewide ballot
access carries with it all local positions?  In Connecticut, for instance,
Presidential performance doesn't directly get you access in local races -
although it would probably increase registration which can, etc.  If the
LNC wants to help CT get ballot access for local offices, it will need to
provide funds for a Gubernatorial race, since only that race carries local
offices here.  If there are not 40 states where the LNC can actually do
something to achieve ballot access for all local offices, then I will
submit that 40 in '16 is less helpful.  Also, I think 40 in '16 should be
clarified to mean - not 40 states where the Presidential candidate in 2020
is on the ballot, but 40 states in which the affiliate can nominate
candidates for all local and locally elected offices without petitioning.
 That's one I can get behind on the national level.

Joshua Katz

Joshua A. Katz
Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)

On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 3:11 PM, Scott L. <scott73 at earthlink.net> wrote:

>
>
> “When I was executive director of the LP Texas, I had one personal goal:
> run as many candidates as possible. It's not all that I did, but it was by
> far THE top priority. I made whatever database I needed to make that happen
> (or got someone else too. J     And I raised whatever funds I needed to
> make that happen.
>
> We also greatly increased fundraising, membership, and elected
> Libertarians in Texas. But much of that happened as a result of (or was
> improved as a result of) my top priority, which was to run as many
> candidates as possible.
>
> I'm expecting a broad range of goals for the national LP, with perhaps
> funding IT-Committee projects being #1. But an example of a very focused
> set of goals could be:
>
> 2015 goal: increase membership from 15,000 to 20,000.
> 2016 goal: run 1,000 candidates for office.
>
>  Wes Benedict, Executive Director
> Libertarian National Committee, Inc.”
>
>
>
>
>
> The above e-mail helps confirm my belief that our Executive Director is
> extremely good at coming up with an achievable goal, and then doing
> “whatever it takes” to accomplish that goal.  That is a very good trait for
> the COO (1) of the Libertarian Party to have.
>
> I certainly welcome the ED’s input into process of goal setting for the
> organization.
>
> I like to imagine what the end goal is like, and then work backwards from
> that.  If we agree that we want a libertarian America, then we need to
> figure out how to get there without a violent revolution.  Although
> changing to a proportional representation system and the like might get us
> to that goal faster, that is not the job of a political party – that is the
> job of an advocacy group specifically set up for that purpose.
>
> Since myself and much of the outside world believes that political parties
> exist to enact legislation that fits their ideology, the question is – how
> do we get to that point?
>
> Increasing membership might make staff and the board happy, but does it
> help us elect Libertarians to public office?  .  I maintain that although
> those goals might be good tactical goals for the ED or for specific LNC
> Committees, I don’t think they quite fill the bill for a BHAG that I
> described in an e-mail last night.
>
> The advantages of 40 in 16 are:
>
> 1.      It is definitely achievable.
>
> 2.      It shows the major parties that we are serious when we say that
> we are getting very close to being the 3rd major party in the United
> States.
>
> 3.      Given the amount of blood, sweat, tears, and money that our
> donors have spent on ballot access over the past 4 decades, achieving this
> goal will get us much closer to ballot-access nirvana.
>
> 4.      By definition, achieving this goal will have taught dozens of LP
> candidates and volunteers across the country how to lift their vote
> percentages for statewide offices from the low single digits to the high
> single digits.  Remember – the marginal cost of getting votes is much lower
> when you are trying to go from 3% to 5%, than it is to go from 30% to 32%.
>
>
>
> Needless to say, Mr. Redpath’s continued help with ballot access will be
> invaluable if the LP wishes to achieve this goal,
>
> since 40 state ballot access in Dec 2016 will be impossible unless we have
> 48 to 50 state ballot access in October 2016.
>
>
>
>     Scott Lieberman
>
> 1.  COO is my personal definition for the job description of the ED of the
> LP.  It is not in any way an official or even semi-official description of
> the ED position.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140915/2608fd47/attachment-0002.html>