[Lnc-business] I Do Not Agree With What You Say...

[Joshua Katz]

Colleagues:

Like the many members we have heard from lately, I disagree strongly with
recent comments of one of our members.  I feel they are politically
backward, and I wish they would stop because of the embarrassment they can
bring on this party, and because they lack an appreciation of nuance, in my
opinion.  Nor is it my position that, as I've seen some claiming, these
comments are "true but embarrassing."  I am not one who believes that we
need to hold back some sacred truths of liberty from the unwashed masses.
I often am embarrassed by statements precisely because I think they are
wrong - either false or, perhaps more commonly, in that realm of failing to
be either true or false.

I am primarily writing, though, to let you know that I would vote 'no' on
any of the proposed measures, including censure and suspension.  I would
vote no because I do not agree that LNC members are never "off the clock."
 Yes, it is true, people know who we are, and we can never, really, take
off our "hats" in public.  That's one reason I strive for a low social
media profile - that's my personal vision of the position.  But when I
speak about politics, and do not identify my speech as that of the LP, I do
not expect this body to sit in judgment of its truth or its effectiveness.

I believe that censure and suspension are best reserved for unacceptable
activities carried out within office.  I do not believe it is appropriate
to define anything we do which touches on politics as 'within office.'  As
I've discussed before, in my view we each have almost no power, with some
exceptions, except as members of this body.  Our power is to vote, not to
direct things ourselves.  This cuts both ways.  We do not have the power to
speak for the LP, as individuals, except when specifically given this power
by the bylaws or by an appropriate resolution or motion.  Lacking that
power, we cannot do it wrong.

Furthermore, we do not choose our chair and vice-chair.  They are elected
by the delegates.  I resent the implication that a few outspoken members
should, through LNC action, undo the will of the convention.  It is not our
job, if we think that actions of the delegates have led to insensitive
messaging, to try to reverse those actions.

It is our job, on a semi-related note, to control our own messaging.
Complaining about FB posts from one of our members is easier than thinking
carefully about what we do and how we do it, but it is not a solution.  It
is our job, to agree with Mr. Somes, to construct a message so good, so
coherent, so consistent, and broadcast so loud that no one: board member,
candidate, or member, can be taken to speak for the party if they
contradict that messaging or its tone.  If we believe that one person,
speaking on a platform not provided by this party, can derail our message,
then shame on us.

Further, that hasn't happened.  It is primarily our own people who are
angry.  I myself am offended, in addition to disagreeing, but I do not see
outrage outside Libertarian circles.  It will be objected that this is
because of our small size and relative lack of success, that if we were
larger, we could not afford to be silent.  That may very well be true.  Yet
the world is as it is, and we can afford to be silent, and, in my opinion,
should.  Furthermore, if we were in the position described, it is also true
that our own messaging would be better.  I say let's deal with the meme in
our own eye before criticizing extra-party messaging.  (As an individual, I
feel free to criticize, I am speaking about this board's activities.)

Is there any allegation that a member of this board has violated a
fiduciary responsibility, has double-dealt for personal gain or gain of
others, or has in any way done anything wrong in their party capacity?  As
far as I am aware, there is not.  We are speaking about a person who has,
in my view, governed well.  We do not always agree, but I always respect
his opinions and decisions - and I appreciate that he treats mine the
same.  Our job is to govern the party - Mr. Vohra does that very well.  The
vice-chair has additional duties: no one has made any allegation that these
were carried out badly or incorrectly.  Until I see allegations about those
(and I am confident there are none, Mr. Vohra fulfills those
responsibilities just fine) I will vote no on any motion on this topic.

In other news, the President of the United States may have revealed
classified information to the Russian Foreign Minister and compromised an
Israeli source.  The travel ban is still working its way through the
courts.  The Republicans in the House have done what we thought was
impossible: found a way to make the ACA more freedom-destroying.  Democrats
and Republicans are working in lockstep to attack prosperity and the
freedom of all, around the world, through nationalist-protectionist
policies.  I would like to see this party focused on electing Libertarians
to office who are serious about, and effective in, addressing these and
other issues.  In addition to rolling back the size and scope of
government, I'd like to see our elected officials simply managing the thing
more competently than the corrupt members of the other parties have shown
themselves capable of doing.  After all, a more effective government will
require, in my opinion, a smaller, less powerful government.  The
government cannot be competent in doing tasks far beyond its competence.
So yes, I'd like to see us not insulting key groups of voters or making
other political missteps.  I'd like to see us prioritize policy over both
personal attacks and abstractions - while remembering that we can inspire
not just with pocketbook issues, but also with the power of what is right
and with strong ideals.

Joshua A. Katz
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20170517/1d1581de/attachment-0001.html>