[Lnc-business] updated file with Libertarian success overmajor parties

Wed Jan 7 18:50:36 EST 2015

I strongly agree with Brett's comments.  Our success is measured in
elections, not membership numbers.  However, we should note that donations
are also down, so it cannot all be explained by people wanting to give but
not join.  This issue came up at our first (other than Columbus) LNC
meeting when goals were discussed.  There were three broad categories that
I could see:  Membership and Fundraising, Candidates, and Winning Office.
I favored, and continue to favor, goals related to the third category, and
continue to want our efforts focused there, with items in the other two
seen as supportive rather than as substantive goals.

But I do think Scott's point is on target:  declining membership is likely
a sign that we are not succeeding, and a likely reason for people to stop
associating with us is a lack of success.  People like to be part of
successful organizations and like to have visible things they can point to
for their efforts or money.  If we're not succeeding, we will have less
members.

I agree about local elections, partisan or non-partisan, and Dr. Lieberman
agrees as well, I know.  Electing state legislators is not opposed to
electing selectmen; they are complementary goals.  In fact, doing the
latter is how you achieve the former, in my opinion.

The point remains, though, that we have not increased the number of local
offices held in a long time, nor have we built off of those offices to
higher levels nearly as much as one would like.  As I suggested the other
day, part of that is what we do with our local officials.  Local officials
are people who are likely grooming themselves for higher offices, we need
to work with them to plan the next step and how to capitalize on the
success they have already achieved, and promote them within the party.
 (Insert disclaimer that I am one.)  Most of our elected officials do not
communicate with us and do not go on to higher office.  Let's work on that,
while we also work on electing more local officials.

Please note that when I won my election, I received a mention in LP News.
I think that's a good thing, but it's a sign of a bad thing - winning
Planning Commission should not be an achievement for a party, it should be
a given that it will happen regularly.  If that's not happening, the board
needs to examine what it is doing and its priorities.

I disagree with Dr. Lieberman that the way to do that is spending donor
money paying some nut with an MBA to give us black belts in Six Sigma, make
us do trust falls, or rant to us about moving cheese or driving to Abilene,
but I do agree that we need to look carefully at all aspects of what we do
when we see these kinds of numbers.

Joshua Katz

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

On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 5:39 PM, Brett Bittner <brett at brettbittner.com>
wrote:

> Team,
>
> This leads me to offer some "out of the box" thinking:
>
> Have we considered that, by and large, people of a libertarian persuasion
> are rather individualistic and not necessarily "joiners" when defining
> membership? By that, I mean, how many do of these individualistic
> non-joiners we expect to become card-carrying members of a political party?
>
> Further, the future of our organization is among our younger supporters,
> who are not necessarily inclined to "join" a political party either. So,
> moving forward, should we not examine how to involve those who are
> generally individualistic non-joiners and the future of our party? Have we
> reached out to those who are "on the fence" about membership, yet
> enthusiastic about a l/Libertarian future? Have we engaged the millenials
> that are interested and invested in political change in our direction
> already about how they see their involvement in our party? How difficult
> will it be to attract them with a membership model from before they were
> born?
>
> Having served in Wes' position at the state affiliate level, I can say
> that it was a lower hurdle to persuade libertarians to give money or time
> than it was to to persuade them to become card-carrying Libertarians. I
> often had people who donated time and money toward the activities of
> candidates and the party directly that outright refused membership.
>
> I appreciate Dr. Lieberman's input with regard to electoral success,
> however activity and small non-partisan electoral victories do lead to
> interest and engagement. During my tenure as Chairman of my local affiliate
> (concurrent with my re-election bid), the affiliate DOUBLED in size, in
> terms of membership. There was not a single mailing, phone-banking session,
> or membership drive of any kind. Our growth focused on activity, activism,
> and visibility. We ATTRACTED people to join us, but we never asked that
> they carry a card. We pulled them toward us.
>
> When I ran for office (and won twice, btw), my donors, supporters, and
> volunteers came from across the political spectrum, yet they came together
> to rally around a Libertarian running for elected office. I didn't ask that
> they carry any cards, only that they supported the efforts of the campaign
> in the way they saw fit.
>
> So, what can we do to carry out our mission AND consider our opportunities
> for growth?
>
> I realize this presents us with some difficulty when determining who has a
> voice in the direction of the organization, but we weren't elected to
> ignore the difficult.
>
> Brett C. Bittner
>
> brett at brettbittner.com
> 404.492.6524
>
> "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much
> liberty than those attending too small a degree of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
>
> On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Scott L. <scott73 at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> I wonder if anyone else sees the connection between the pitiful numbers
>> in the “Success vs. Major Parties” spreadsheet that the Executive Director
>> just sent out, and the pitiful numbers in the latest membership update.
>>
>>
>>
>> I feel quite certain that the former is the reason for the latter.  There
>> are only so many “true believers” out there.  The other people will come
>> along for the ride, but only if we appear to be successful.  Having
>> temporary ballot status in 30 states doesn’t mean anything to the average
>> libertarian.  Having State Legislators in 10 or 20 states would give those
>> libertarians at least some hope that the Libertarian Party is finally
>> starting to be a Real Political Party ™.
>>
>>
>>
>> It is the responsibility of this Board to do whatever we need to do to
>> make sure the Party achieve the Purposes Statement in the Bylaws.
>>
>>
>>
>> I know some of you disagree with this idea, but it is not too late in
>> this LNC term to have a professionally facilitated retreat during which we
>> come up with a way of reversing the death spiral that the Libertarian Party
>> seems to be on the brink of.
>>
>>
>>    Scott Lieberman
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> “It's rare for a Libertarian candidate to win an election by beating a
>> Democrat or Republican in a straight forward partisan election.
>>
>> We know of 11 Libertarian winners that have met the criteria in 43 years.
>> 6 of the 11 were in Indiana. The 2 newest were in Louisiana. If you know
>> of others that have met the criteria in the attached spreadsheet, please
>> send them to me along with your source of the election results.
>>
>>  Wes Benedict, Executive Director
>> Libertarian National Committee, Inc.”
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lnc-business mailing list
>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150107/fff88d1d/attachment-0002.html>