[Lnc-business] 2016 Libertarian Presidential Campaign - a model for our Nominee?

[Joshua Katz]

I found at least one major take-away that we Libertarians should be mindful
of, in my opinion:  You need people to like you if you want to win.  I know
that sounds simplistic, but I mean it seriously.  We too often try to win
on our ideas.  That 11% who support both Walker and Obama clearly are not
supportive of both based on their ideas.  They're supportive of both based
on liking the people.

Walker knows this, and can consistently win votes of those who do not agree
with his ideas.  That's why he sees no value, I'd suggest, in moderating
his ideas - he knows that his beliefs aren't the basis of his votes anyway,
so why bother?  All he'd achieve would be alienating his base - it wouldn't
change his appeal to the "low information voters" Dr. Lieberman mentioned.

Libertarians, though, often think that we should campaign primarily on our
ideas.  Of course, those come up - you can't campaign without talking
issues, and if someone lets you, you shouldn't take them up on it.  But
having the best ideas is not enough for us to score wins.  We have a far
larger hurdle to overcome than any candidate from the GOP or D parties, and
ideas will not do it.  They're necessary but not sufficient (sorry, been
studying for the LSATs for the last few weeks.)

So why is Walker electable, to the point where he wins in a state that
Obama wins while doing arch-conservative things?  I agree with the Walker
comments on that from the WSJ (it's probably one of the only things I agree
with Walker about.)  He says that leadership is what makes him electable.
I think he's right.  People have heard lots of ideas - and any idea we can
put forward, our opponents can co-opt, despite never following through in
office - and voters who pay attention only at election time will see no
compelling reason to vote for us.  What turns heads is the person of the
candidate - yet we as a party spend a lot more time vetting people on ideas
than on candidate-ness.  Of course, we need both - we don't want some
likable non-libertarian candidate, and even if such a person won, it would
hurt us in the long-run precisely because, that person may look like a
leader, but the party would appear to have no clear direction.  (Note that,
for this purpose, I'm not talking about some disagreement on some issue of
note largely to political wonks - I'm talking a full-on non-libertarian.
The shades of grey can all be sorted out separately.  Personally, I like to
ensure that any candidate will be reliably libertarian within the scope of
the office sought and will be reliably libertarian in their messaging -
without going to the mat on every jot and tittle of libertarian
philosophy.)  But a balance will always need to be struck in choosing
candidates, and I think we lean very far towards ideas and treat
elect-ability as an afterthought.  But having candidates who are persuasive
and charismatic leaders is not only important for the purpose of winning.
It is important because the majority of elected officials serve on boards
and commissions - so, after winning, they can't use Obama's "phone and pen"
methods.  After they've won, their job of convincing others to embrace
libertarian views on each issue begins.  Ron Paul may be famous for voting
against the majority, or by himself, so many times, but ideally you cast
courageous, libertarian votes - and carry the decision also.  It is also
important, even in executive offices, because it means that we, as voters
and as Libertarians, can believe that the official will do as they say.  A
person who cannot credibly claim to be a leader who manages to win an
election is unlikely, even as an executive, to do much to move public
policy - their actions will be meek and indecisive, they can be easy swayed
by pressure groups - even at the local level, where a pressure group may be
the homeowners on a particular street.  Even if they do move policy, their
impact is less likely to last if the changes are remembered as those
instituted by "oh, that guy."

But there is a problem here.  The LPUS runs two candidates (and, arguably,
we don't even really run those; we ask our affiliates to run candidates for
a different office who will vote for the candidates chosen at our
convention for two offices.)  So what can the board do about selecting and
promoting the types of candidates I'm talking about?  I'd suggest three
things.

First, we can lead by example.  The more each of us strives to demonstrate
the personal traits of leadership that Walker talks about, in our party
dealings and elsewhere, the more we demonstrate the value of this within
the party.

Second, we can make resource decisions.  We can look to the leadership and
other traits of candidates when assisting with ballot access or litigation
- ultimately making our decision on many variables centered on the success
of this party, such as ballot access retention and improving the electoral
environment overall (particularly when it comes to litigation) but at least
always asking about this sends a positive message, regardless of our final
decision.

The third is harder to define, and might be contained in the previous 2,
but in my mind, the primary purpose of any leader, and in particular of
boards, is to transmit a vision in a way that inspires others to try to
advance that vision.  I think the more common phrase here is "buy-in" but I
hate business talk.  Anyway, I think that's a far more important part of
what a board can do than any sort of direct action to get a particular
result.

I will disagree with Dr. Lieberman slightly regarding NOTA.  I'm sure he
agrees with me on this, but it's a difference of emphasis - Dr. Lieberman
emphasized improving post-election ballot access. I agree, but I'd
emphasize winning more elections first - such as, say, doubling the number
of local elected officials in the party.  If asked to choose between those
two goals, I'd favor both over a Presidential campaign (and I recognize the
elasticity arguments often made about this, I just happen to hold a
different set of beliefs about the particular elasticity of our donations,
membership, and other support than those making the arguments) but I'd
favor more offices over more ballot access retention.

Joshua Katz

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

On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Scott L. <scott73 at earthlink.net> wrote:

>
>
> This 2 page article shows how Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker won over the
> crowd at the Iowa Freedom Summit last week.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/scott-walker-win-iowa-electability-no-compromise-to-democrats
>
>
>
>
>
> Even if you are like me and you support NOTA for the 2016 Libertarian
> Presidential Nomination, the article still makes for good reading.
>
>
>
>
>
> Scott Walker obviously has very good street cred with conservatives for
> not only talking the talk, but also walking the walk.
>
>
>
> The article demonstrates how important it is to present political ideas
> not only in a way that makes your base voters feel good about themselves,
> but mainly in a way that gives your base voters hope that at least some
> “low-information voters” will actually vote for you.
>
>
>
> And for my fans who will read this e-mail on the LP web site:  I support
> NOTA for 2016 because it is a much better use of Libertarian’s time,
> talent, and treasure in 2016 to pass as many vote tests as possible so that
> we end up with 40 state ballot access in December 2016 instead of wasting
> time on a Don Quixote Presidential campaign.   Far too many LP members
> pretend that the Libertarian presidential campaign will increase the number
> of donors that the Libertarian Party has,
>
> when in fact the main purpose of the Presidential campaign is to make LP
> members feel good about themselves without having to actually increase the
> number of donors to the Libertarian Party.
>
>
>
>    Scott Lieberman
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150202/0cdb9973/attachment-0002.html>