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

[Scott L.]

Mr. Katz's post below is a candidate for LNC-Business e-mail of the year.

 

I agree with 99% of what he wrote, but the point is that he is very much on
topic for this e-mail list.

 

Figuring out how to advise our affiliates on "positioning" their candidates
so that they win elections, or at least that their candidates markedly
increase the number of donors to the LP, is infinitely more important than
making sure our videoconferencing software is working correctly, or issuing
press releases on Federal-level issues when we have no Federal-level elected
officials.

 

The boards of non-profit organizations are supposed to be playing chess:
looking 4 or 5 moves ahead so that the organization is continually
increasing the number and degree of positive changes that it is achieving in
the outside world.

 

It would be really great if someone on this board other than Mr. Katz is
willing to pick up the ball and start a discussion on how this board can
improve its performance in this area.


  Scott Lieberman

 

 

PS - My only disagreement with Mr. Katz is that I get the impression that he
thinks our 2016 efforts should be 95% electing Libertarians and 5% ballot
access retention.  In 2016, I think the emphasis should be 60% electing
Libertarians and 40% ballot access retention, but for 2017 I pretty much
agree with the percentages I assume to Mr. Katz for 2016.

 

  _____  

From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of
Joshua Katz
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 10:17 AM
To: lnc-business at hq.lp.org
Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] 2016 Libertarian Presidential Campaign - a model
for our Nominee?

 

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

GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG

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-comp
romise-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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20150202/c63cb833/attachment-0002.html>