[Lnc-business] Previous Notice - Constructive Candidate Portrayal

[Joshua Katz]

I will do my best to not repeat myself and respond only to points I have
something to say about:

10.  I agree; that is why I support a policy outlining a rational and
effective strategy that is aimed at presenting this party as viable and
credible, and one that actively discourages the use of coverage for
internal political reasons.
9.  If our only two options were to be ignored or to present ourselves as
non-serious candidates merely seeking to determine which brain-dead party
gets to win the election, then I'd agree.  Similarly, we cannot control
what reporters and others write about us, and they may well decide to take
this tack.  We can, in our own efforts to promote ourselves, attempt to
present ourselves as running serious candidates.
7.  I have no idea how the voters and candidates should determine what is
good PR for the party.  Should each proposed publication be put up for
popular vote?  In any case, yes, we need to brand and market ourselves -
for the ultimate goal of elections.  So, sure, part of PR is attracting
quality candidates.  Are high quality candidates drawn to "hey, looky here,
we got 1%"  I would submit that you get higher quality candidates if you at
least make an effort to look like the purpose of the party is running
quality, serious, credible candidates for the purpose of winning.  The idea
that there is something anathema about a board directing its staff on
general guidelines is something I find very problematic.  We are ultimately
responsible for this organization, and part of that responsibility is
transmitting to staff the purposes towards which we want publications to be
used.
6.  Communications presenting candidates as spoilers, or bragging about
beating the spread, and so on, neither violate bylaws, policy manual, or
platform.  They also do not advocate moving public policy in a different
direction than libertarians.  The APRC is not empowered to reject
publications simply because we don't like them - we only have discretion
within those categories.  Yes, those categories are broad and subject to
interpretation, which is why the APRC does deliberate and serves an
important task, but the APRC can only set policy within those guidelines.
The types of presentations in this motion do not fit into any of those
categories.  If this motion is passed, the APRC will then have discretion
as to what, in the interpretation of the members, constitutes a violation
of this policy.
4.  Winning elections also means you are having an impact.  You decrease
your ability to win elections when you publicly present the party as not
being serious about running and electing candidates.
3.  The Democrats and Republicans wish to win elections in order to provide
corporate welfare for their big donors and increase state control over our
lives in the process.  The Libertarian Party should seek to win elections
for the purpose of rolling back state control over our lives.  That both
entail winning elections doesn't make them the same goal.  By this logic,
you could criticize seeking publicity because, hey, Democrats and
Republicans seek publicity.  Democrats and Republicans spend time
fundraising - it doesn't follow that we shouldn't fundraise.  If we say
"oh, hey, can't strive to win elections because that's what Democrats and
Republicans do" who exactly will be in office to protect people's rights,
block bad legislation, and introduce good legislation?  I ran for
Comptroller and lost - the Comptroller's office did not get any better at
protecting the people from corporate welfare as a result.  I ran for
Planning Commission and won.  Since then, I've cast the deciding votes to
allow small businesses to get around legislation designed to protect their
larger competitors, ensured that several residents could rebuild their
homes after storms, and stopped a remarkable proposal to ban donation bins
on private property because of the danger they present to our "New England
aesthetic."  Have I therefore turned into a Republican or a Democrat?
2.  You will attract those voters you want to attract by presenting this
party as being serious about being a political party.  Yes, the only people
who care about spoilers are those who care whether Democrats or Republicans
win - and assume that it must always be one or the other.  So, who exactly
does spoiler talk attract?  It repels those people, but certainly doesn't
attract those who hate both.
1.  Directing staff is not legislation.  How much of the employee manual do
you find 'non-libertarian' by this standard?  How much of the policy
manual?  Should we hire staff and simply abdicate responsibility for
supervision and direction because we don't want to be a government?  You
wouldn't consider it legislating the details of someone's behavior if you,
for instance, told a CRNA to remove a tube placed into the esophagus - you
wouldn't say "well, it's best for it to be in the trachea, but I'm not
going to exercise power over people."  Similarly, when I direct EMTs under
my responsibility, I am not behaving as a tyrant.  This is the difference
between public policy and private organizations.  We would never want our
bylaws, for instance, to be adopted by law - but our members agree to them,
voluntarily, by joining this organization.  Similarly, when you take a job,
you agree to work under the general direction of the corporate board, and
direct supervision of those appointed to directly supervise you.  You
cannot have the benefits of a voluntary, mutually-agreed-upon association,
without accepting that you don't always get to do what you want.  Staff is
not hired by the delegates in convention; we are selected by the
delegates.  If we cannot "legislate" regarding staff instructions, and the
delegates cannot directly influence staff - you have just cut the highest
decision-making power in any organization, its members assembled in
convention, entirely out of the process of influencing what happens at HQ.
If we take responsibility for what happens at HQ, we can be voted out.  If
we refuse to take such responsibility because we're libertarians, this
amounts to irresponsible use of donor and member funds.  We can debate the
specifics of a policy, but an argument that essentially says that we cannot
set policy for staff is, to me, a direct abdication of the nature of free
association.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20141208/065087a0/attachment-0002.html>