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

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

And as expected - while there are points of strong agreement - there are
points of very strong disagreement and I believe a recasting of history and
our platform.

FWIW- your first paragraph was spot on and mostly reflect my thoughts.

It will take a bit of time to formulate a response.

On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 9:35 AM Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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/b75b1ab3/attachment-0002.html>