[Lnc-business] Suggestion/Request from Region 7 Member

[Starchild]

	When it comes to welcoming people to the Libertarian Party, the analogy I like to use is that we should be like a church: Have a "big tent" in terms of welcoming everyone into the congregation (in our case the party), but not to be a pastor, deacon, nun, etc. (in our case a candidate, party office-holder, or convention delegate) unless/until a person has demonstrated they are on the same page theologically speaking (or ideologically in our case, e.g. scoring over 80/80 on the Nolan Chart for instance).

	The idea from the Region 7 member proposing a body capable of reacting quickly to news cycle events sounds not entirely unlike what I was suggesting at our Alexandria meeting in the context of the election recount issue, except the goal I had in mind was less to do with putting out the libertarian position on issues, and more with looking for opportunities to jump in and make a splash in one way or another. 

	As an example of this kind of "guerilla politics", California Libertarian Robert Imhoff was among the tech industry folks upset over the revelation that computer security firm RSA took $10 million in a secret deal with the NSA to allow the spy agency a "backdoor" to bypass encryption in its products (see http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-security-rsa-idUSBRE9BJ1C220131220). Learning of a big RSA conference taking place in San Francisco, Robert and his collaborators used crowdfunding to raise over $7000 and "buy out" a nearby Chevy's restaurant for the afternoon (see https://www.tilt.com/campaigns/buyout-chevys-during-rsa-conference), for the express purpose of shutting out paid attendees of the RSA conference from one of the only nearby reasonably-priced food options. Then they stood outside the restaurant turning away conventioneers and handing out fliers explaining the reason. Robert told me their "protest" attracted attention from Fox News and other major media.

	But having a group to research and prepare short briefs for the LP on issues of the day sounds like a great idea too, if we can find folks willing to do it. One possible way to make this happen that's been suggested would be to create a "shadow cabinet" – appoint people with knowledge, interest, or credentials in specific areas to posts like Shadow Attorney General, Shadow Secretary of State, Shadow Secretary of Education, Shadow Secretary of the Interior, etc. Each of these individuals could function like a committee chair, with his or her "department" preparing briefs or commentary on issues related to that particular policy area, or related to news involving his/her real-world counterpart in the administration.

Love & Liberty,
                                    ((( starchild )))
At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
                                  (415) 625-FREE
                                     @StarchildSF


On Dec 28, 2016, at 8:47 AM, Demarest, David P. wrote:

> Gotcha – thanks for sticking to your guns!
>  
> ~David
>  
> From: Caryn Ann Harlos [mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2016 10:42 AM
> To: Demarest, David P.; whitneycb76 at gmail.com
> Cc: David Demarest
> Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Suggestion/Request from Region 7 Member
>  
> I certainly did not become a Libertarian overnight- am in some areas likely still am not - and that's okay as long as I dint try to make the Party less libertarian and focus on where I am.  But that's not how the term generally is used.  It generally is used to say that semi-libertarian views are just as perfectly acceptable as SoP conforming views.  It is not used to say come on in- let's help you move along and grow you as a libertarian.  I am all in favor of the latter but usage trumps my intent.
>  
> None of that has to do with who we welcome - I will welcome a 0/0 on the Nolan chart if they wish to learn.
>  
> The whole big tent terminology is used constantly to say that any remotely liberty view is on equal footing with any other.  That's warm and fuzzy but is not what our Bylaws or SoP say.
>  
> I have been beaten about the head too often with tent poles for simply stating that such and such position is not what our SoP aims for to look on the term with any favor.  It is used to silence not welcome.
>  
>  
> On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 9:32 AM Demarest, David P. <David.Demarest at firstdata.com> wrote:
>  
> I use big tent in the sense that newcomers may not be in “our tent” yet. None of us became Libertarians overnight (with the possible exception of you, Caryn Ann - J) and all of us come from different freedom-oriented perspectives. I am passionate about
> 
> my Libertarian positions but consistent with your excellent LPRC invitations and welcomes, we need to welcome the
> 
> Libertarian-curious.
>  
> 
> Regards,
>  
> 
> ~David Pratt Demarest
> Global Application Steward, CFO Enterprise Applications
> 
> O (402) 222-7207 | M (402) 981-6469 | H (402) 493-0873
> David.Demarest at FirstData.com
> FDGSSolomon at FirstData.com
> AppSteward at FirstData.com
> 
>  
> 
> 
>  
> 
>  
>  
> 
> From: Caryn Ann Harlos [mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2016 10:17 AM
> To: Demarest, David P.; whitneycb76 at gmail.com
> Cc: David Demarest
> Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Suggestion/Request from Region 7 Member
> 
> 
> I generally disfavor the use of the word "big tent" as it has become meaningless at best and the exact opposite at worst and semi-libertarian in the middle.
>  
> 
> The LP has an embedded Statement of Principles.    That is our "tent" and our Principles and the only reason given for the LP's existence in the Bylaws.
>  
> 
> I leave the wrangling over tents and their sizes to the circuses.
>  
> 
> On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 9:10 AM Demarest, David P. <David.Demarest at firstdata.com> wrote:
> Hi Whitney,
>   Good to see you at the recent LNC meeting. I just rediscovered your email below. I echo Caryn Ann’s sentiments and would love to participate in the think tankyou have proposed. Do you need help organizing it? Would your suggested think tank take a big tent Libertarian approach or be more narrowly focused on a particular LNC perspective? I am game to participate regardless.
> Thoughts?
>  
> 
> Celebrate Life, Set the Bar High and LIVE FREE
>  
> 
> ~David Pratt Demarest
>  
> 
> Region 6 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (IA, IL, MN, MO, ND, NE, WI)
> Secretary, Nebraska Libertarian State Central Committee 
>  
> 
> Secretary Pro Tem, LNC Affiliate Support Committee
> Member, LNC Empowered Future Committee
> Board Member and Nebraska State Coordinator, LP Radical Caucus
> Cell:      402-981-6469
> Home: 402-493-0873
> Office: 402-222-7207
> 
> From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org]
> On Behalf Of Caryn Ann Harlos
> Sent: Monday, November 28, 2016 8:28 AM
> To: lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Suggestion/Request from Region 7 Member
>  
> 
> Love it.
> 
> 
> On Monday, November 28, 2016, Whitney Bilyeu <whitneycb76 at gmail.com> wrote:
>  
> 
> Colleagues, please consider the suggestion/request below from a Region 7 member...
>  
> 
> The media essentially works in favor of the old parties by pumping out constant talking points that feed into the public. This is created out of the never-ending churn of political events and legislation. An example is the TPP.
> 
> The idea I have is to create a group of people committee/think-tank at the national level that could discuss and research issues that come up. As libertarians we talk a lot and have resources that we look at like CATO and Reason, but we do not have something like this of our own. A core group of people that could respond quickly if needed and do the research required to give a solid LP response to the issues of the day. These could be compressed into short briefs with talking points to the state parties that could use them as they wish.
> 
> Many of us get the newsletter from national but a chair or ED cannot respond quickly to everything nor to detailed research on all issues that arise. This group would have that goal. These releases would be internal and the party structure could use them as deemed fit. The team would need to have people capable of looking more deeply into legislation than just a cursory overview and be committed to turnaround times that made us responsive to ongoing events.
> 
> This group would allow us to speak with a more singular and united strong voice against the hailstorm of media people are inundated with every day.
> 
> In general, each brief would be a short synopsis of the subject and the LP position on it. For, Against, Neutral (pro/con). Talking points should be listed. Details can be given further after that as needed but the goal would be to be brief. People simply do not look into the details of the constant stream of information we have in front of us. It's too much. We need to get out a quick tool that can be trusted and add a counter voice in a news market that we are forced to compete with.
> 
> Thoughts?
>  
> Whitney Bilyeu
> Region 7 Representative
>