[Lnc-business] Enough pussyfooting. Time for a fearless platform.

Joshua Katz planning4liberty at gmail.com
Mon Jan 2 11:34:25 EST 2017


Voting for the Committee

In reading and considering applications for the Platform Committee, my
primary concern will not be ideology, but rather ability and willingness to
do the work of the committee.  Too often, work in committees falls
disproportionately on a few, and my aim will be reducing that.  I hope that
those who have served in the past will include information in their
applications indicating their past contributions, and that those who have
not will include information indicating this ability and willingness, such
as service on other committees (in this or other organizations).  I also
would appreciate any information the committee can provide in a
non-factional manner about the last committee, such as attendance at
meetings and participation in email ballots.  I do happen to know of
several people with whom I disagree on ideology whom I am inclined to vote
onto the committee because of my impression in this regard.

After that, I will consider any sample planks or amendments provided with
the applications, for clarity of writing and the like.

My thoughts on the platform below, then, will only inform my vote in a
minor way, if at all.  For what it is worth, I also do not plan on applying
for the Platform Committee.

The Functions of Platforms

Platforms, overall, are something that Americans use every four years, for
the purpose of pretending we have a parliamentary form of government.  They
are rarely read by voters, and they do not define the positions candidates
take, even less so what those candidates do in office.  Ours is used for
certain party purposes more than most.  Since the LNC currently has not
adopted a messaging strategy, one of the few limitations on messages sent
out to represent the party is that they must not "advocate[] moving public
policy in a different direction other than (sic) a libertarian direction,
as delineated by the Party Platform..."  This, and similar internal uses,
should be kept in mind when considering the platform.

The Libertarian Party is in something of a different position than other
parties, though.  Some people are less familiar with us, and certainly with
our position on some issues.  Proportional to votes received, ours is more
likely to be read and considered by voters.

The above factors indicate that, relative to other parties, our platform is
more likely to serve a marketing function, whether by setting a framework
for communications or by being read directly.  Since most parties use
theirs for very little, it follows that this marketing function is a key
use of ours.

The Overall Structure and Tone

A storekeeper must not, as was mentioned, be ashamed of their products.
They also need not market them in unappealing ways.  The structure and tone
of the document should reflect the broad types of concerns of the readers,
not of the writers.  I partially agree with Mr. Vohra's "Libertarian
Solutions" concept, but I emphasize that what appeals to people is broader
than narrow self-interest.  I say "emphasize" because I think that is
perfectly consistent with the idea, but sometimes the idea gets simplified
to pocketbook issues.  Martin Luther King, Jr. and others will attest to
the power of ideas to move people, so long as they are expressed in a
manner that matters to the listener.

One of my concerns about the way libertarianism is discussed, particularly
in the last few years, is that beliefs are presented as free-floating
abstractions, divorced from policy.  We are a party, we aim to place our
candidates in office, yet our messaging, too often, leaves it to the voter
to figure out what our candidates will do, since we do not give concrete
policies.  Voters do not want to play guessing games, and if you ask them
to, they will respond by not voting for you.  Aspirations and ideals are
not policy, nor are they actions.  The platform should, in my view, give
concrete policy that we hope to implement.  When aspirations and ideals are
discussed, they should be labeled as such and tied to specific
implementations, acknowledging, of course, that the implementations do not
fully capture the ideals.

This also will help with another problem our candidates face.  Part of the
uphill climb faced by Libertarian candidates is a lack of experience and
credibility.  I recognize that some like to respond to this concern by
saying that the voters are wrong.  I disagree, I think ability to do the
job matters, and we need to help our candidates demonstrate it.
Regardless, telling customers that their concerns about your product are
wrong is a useful way not to sell anything.  This demand is higher on us
than on others, for various reasons.  Donald Trump, likely, would not be
President-Elect if he ran on the Reform Party line, even if he got on in
all 50 states.  Part of the reason he could get away with not being taken
seriously as knowing how to govern is that, as a Republican, people believe
he'll have others around who do.  A policy-heavy platform could convince
voters that a Libertarian will, also.

Content

Our platform should not, by itself, cut out portions of the rich heritage
we libertarians enjoy.  The purpose of the platform is not to convince
people that they should not vote for us.  We have inherited a complex and
multifaceted philosophy, with many diverse strands.  We should not, by
fiat, write out libertarian positions.  In many cases, these diverse
schools can agree on the steps to be taken in the near term.  Near-term
policy, then, can be a way to unite them.  Not everyone will agree with
everything in our platform, and that should not be our goal, but we need
not maximize the effect of driving away libertarians.

Reductionism and attempts to derive all of our positions from one or a few
core claims, on the other hand, can be alienating.  This is not all our
libertarianism, and presenting it as if it were simply cuts some
libertarians out.  It also implies to the voter that all of us believe
those claims, even if some are quieter about it, or more patient, or
whatever.  Limiting the platform to what we actually do agree on is both
more inclusive and better marketing.  Similarly alienating are positions
reminiscent of the train metaphor.  I do not want to get off the train
earlier; I disagree with some about the destination of the train, and
attempting to reduce that to inconsistency, moderation, or half-way
measures is the same sort of linear thinking that so frustrates us when it
is applied to position us as "centrist" between conservatives and
liberals.  We should not represent libertarianism as varying between the
more and less extreme only, and we should not, as our platform currently
does in some places, suggest that, well, we don't have to go THAT far, but
we all agree on the direction.

Pussyfooting

It seems to me that the pussyfooting some have mentioned in our current
platform results from compromises, efforts to soften positions.  A
policy-based platform moderates that tendency.  We can clearly state what
policy we wish to implement.  We run into the conflict that produces these
compromises mainly when we speak in abstractions and do not try to
translate into politically feasible moves.  I disagree, though, with the
implication that one school of thought within the party represents the
"real" core, and that the others should be tolerated but not allowed to
"water-down" our message.  We are not watering-down, we are recognizing
nuance, at least in some cases, or we are simply disagreeing.

A dialectic seems to have developed in which it is alleged that some of us
are ashamed of our views, or think that others cannot be exposed to them.
This assumes too much, and attempts to define 'our' views by fiat.  I,
personally, am not ashamed of certain views that other libertarians hold,
nor do I think that only the elite can handle them - but I do disagree with
them, and resent them being presented as our views, particularly when they
do not sell well.

Too often, this comes packaged with a set of right-leaning assumptions.
Taxation is theft, but immigration and drugs...an afterthought?  Or, from
another corner of the party, one that has been growing as of late,
Libertarians who favor open borders and free trade are ashamed to speak the
truth, for fear of progressives not sleeping with us, or, bizarrely,
because we secretly want to watch our wives sleep with other men.

As I said, there are things I'd like to see changed in this regard.  I'd
like us to stop hiding behind two-faced language.  In some places, that
means taking a clearer stance on the legislation we'd promote, and in
others, it means more forthrightly recognizing disagreement instead of
trying to paper over it with weasel-words.

Conclusion

I would support a platform which takes a policy-oriented structure and
tone, consistent with the role the Libertarian Party serves as the
electoral and political arm of the libertarian movement.  I would like that
platform to avoid sneaky language and take firm stances, and to favor
policy specifics over free-floating abstractions without a path to their
fulfillment.  That platform should serve to guide messaging in a positive
manner, provide candidates with policy-based solutions, and to attract
voters, without alienating or driving away libertarians by selecting one or
a few of the diverse threads in libertarian thought.  We should be careful
not to regard the modern American libertarian world as all there is, or to
fall for the fallacy that suggests that the more extreme is always the more
consistent.  The libertarian world did not begin with Rothbard, or with
Rand, and the many schools that came before them should not be written
out.  Disagreement within the libertarian world should not be presented as
a matter of moderation or extremism, nor should it be eliminated by fiat.

The LP has a post today pointing out that we opposed a long list of things
under every President from Nixon to Trump.  As you may have noticed, those
things didn't go away.  It is not our aspiration or curse to stand on the
sidelines of history, ineffectively opposing things.  We must make those
things stop, partially for our own sake, but more importantly because they
are very bad things.  To do that, we need to both place our candidates in
office, and do our best to ensure that they will achieve libertarian things
once there.  We neither need them building up big government, nor remaining
irrelevant to their legislative body by always voting on the losing side.
Our goal is not about the libertarian afterlife, where you are rewarded for
purity of ideology, but freedom, in the real world, by making laws and
policies freer.

Joshua A. Katz


On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 2:19 PM, Arvin Vohra <votevohra at gmail.com> wrote:

> If 2016 showed us one thing, it's that timid positions are neither
> necessary nor effective in current politics.
>
> Our current platform is designed to technically be accurate, while not
> scaring anyone too badly. This is a losing proposition. A clear, inspiring,
> and immediately comprehensible platform is far better than the fine-print
> pretending to be marketing we have now.
>
> Take the education plank, for example:
>
> Education is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality,
> accountability and efficiency with more diversity of choice. Recognizing
> that the education of children is a parental responsibility, we would
> restore authority to parents to determine the education of their children,
> without interference from government. Parents should have control of and
> responsibility for all funds expended for their children’s education.
>
>
> What it means: Eliminate all public schools. Let people choose between
> free, world-class, online offerings, homeschooling, and private education
> in any form.
>
> Intransigent supporters of public schools won't be fooled by the current
> obfuscation. Opponents and potential opponents won't be inspired.
>
> Our job is to convince people of our positions, not to mask our positions
> and pander. In order for people to be able to be convinced of our
> positions, they first must understand what the position is.
>
> I intend to support people for platform committee who will commit to an
> honest, comprehensible, fearless platform.
>
> In Liberty,
>
> Arvin Vohra
> Vice Chair
> Libertarian National Committee
>
>
>
> --
> Arvin Vohra
>
> www.VoteVohra.com
> VoteVohra at gmail.com
> (301) 320-3634
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170102/03ddcab2/attachment-0002.html>


More information about the Lnc-business mailing list