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

Caryn Ann Harlos carynannharlos at gmail.com
Mon Jan 2 15:25:32 EST 2017


The fuller response:


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.  ==


Agreed. Wholeheartedly. I am having the same opinion of state delegates by
the way with the frustrations of non-participation last election.


The Functions of Platforms

This is where things go off the rails because it presumes a certain
correspondence between the LP and the duopoly. We have a fixed and
implanted ideology and were formed as an ideological party in
contra-distinction to the others. Which is why our platform is used for
party purposes more than most because we are a different kind of party.


==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. ==


No, that should be taken into consideration when perhaps making better
instructions to the APRC which has some huge black / grey areas that others
don't think it has. You don't change the Platform (more on that when it
comes to Bylaws) to turn into the LNC's ideas of messaging. *That is beyond
improper. *The Platform belongs to the delegates, it is not a messaging
tool of the LNC. It is a statement on what we, as an ideological Party,
believe.


What the Party needs, as I said to Ken, is something it used to have in the
past - which ironically have been purged (Ken is working on) from two past
websites. A rich heritage describing paths and implementations. Which some
committee members described as "clutter." That is the stuff that people
read, because one can only competently do this in more words than a
Platform can say. What you are proposing is simply adding another turtle,
when it is turtles all the way down, and lead to such astonishing
statements as ---- "Is the Party *really against *the FEC?" *Yes. Yes it
is.*


Ken's idea of having a way to have a page of potential implementation
solutions or paths that are linked back to the platform but not officially
part of the platform is the way to serve that need and can do so much more
nimbly and comprehensively.


The marketing purpose of our Platform, as set forth by our Bylaws, is to
reflect the Statement of Principles.


The Overall Structure and Tone

==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.==


You are using an equivocal term "policy." The principles ARE policy. A more
accurate word would be implementation which is used in the Bylaws, but not
necessarily in the way you state. The Platform is to include the
implementation of the Statement of Principles in the forms of Planks - but
in order to do so, the actual principle must be clear. So that leaves open
the door for a principle to be stated clearly (and this is where Arvin's
absolutely correct criticism comes in - the principle is NOT stated
clearly) and with a potential first step to be taken.


Yet that does not solve your issue. First of all, not all issues have a
clear first step. We allegedly don't believe in central planning yet act
like we can centrally plan the implementation of liberty. Second, there are
often many viable first steps which are pet issues to different
libertarians, setting up the very division this was supposed to alleviate.
Third, the media and voters will still not know HOW?? that require much
more explanation than a Platform can give without being a book. So this is
just a red herring IMHO.


== 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.==


We give concrete principles or should. More detailed policies need to come
through position papers not platforms that can do it justice.


==The platform should, in my view, give concrete policy that we hope to
implement. ==


It does. The Statement of Principles. At least that's what the Bylaws
require. The PRINCIPLES are what is to be implemented as per Article 3. You
are taking about paths to get there... which cannot be adequately handled
by a Platform, and in the few times there is a clear first step, the end
goal must be clear - meaning the PRINCIPLE without pussyfooting about what
the principle entails. Like whether or not we are really opposed to the
FEC. Only this hiding of principles and giving some examples, when then
leads to the abuse of "well if it isn't name then we must not clearly be
opposed." Just like people predicted in 2006.


We had a policy-heavy platform in 2004 - with all due respect to Starchild,
it was a nightmare. It was bloated and unmaintainable by a convention. It
could not keep current. It was ripe for wrangling. 2004 directly led to the
unsatisfactorily draconian (and still bitterly divisive and almost mortally
so) platform "massacre" of 2006. Yet, I understand why the delegates
accepted it. They were looking at a maintenance nightmare. We faced this in
Colorado and deleted our whole Platform too. We were still calling for
marijuana legalization and gay marriage... yeah. Because maintaining a
"policy heavy" in that way platform is unworkable and ill-advised. That is
what position papers are for. Which we do FAR too little of. And which we
purged as "clutter" from our past.


Content

==Our platform should not, by itself, cut out portions of the rich heritage
we libertarians enjoy.==


This is a subtle switch here Joshua. There is Libertarian heritage and
there is libertarian heritage. Portions of libertarian heritage are
excluded by our Statement of Principles, such as libertarian communism.
This is an end-run - a nicely worded one though - around the Statement of
Principles.


===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. ===


Unfortunately you were not there in 1972 and 1974 when just that was done,
and all the talk in the world doesn't change that.


== In many cases, these diverse schools can agree on the steps to be taken
in the near term. ===


In some cases. I am not so optimistic to say many, and further I don't
think political reality works that way since we don't know what
opportunities will present themselves.


=== 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.  ===


Per our Bylaws we maximize the giving voice to our Statement of Principles.
Come what may. As Luther said, here I stand, I can do no other. That was
effectively permanently baked into our Party.

==Reductionism and attempts to derive all of our positions from one or a
few core claims, on the other hand, can be alienating.  ==


You mean like this?

   1.

   *The Statement of Principles affirms that philosophy upon which the
   Libertarian Party is founded, by which it shall be sustained, and through
   which liberty shall prevail. *

Or do you mean like the 2010 LNC Resolution that said that former R&D who
embraced the libertarian principles of Self-Ownership and Non-Aggression
are invited? Things like that?  Already official resolutions?  Do you
intend upon seeking that resolution to be overturned?  Or the convention
resolution that taxation is theft?  Over the will of the delegates?


===  Limiting the platform to what we actually do agree on is both more
inclusive and better marketing.==


It is also not what our Bylaws say and it would make it anemic and nothing
to inspire people to take a chance on a third party. It is also de facto
making the "middle" the only statements we will say, and that is completely
contrary and antithetical to the history and founding of this party.


==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.===


If your destination is compliant with the Statement of Principles then yes
indeed, the Statement of Principles does present varying "getting off
points" (mainly two, to be precise) If your idea of the train's destination
includes government coercion against the natural rights of individuals, it
is not a Statement of Principles destination but a lot of the path until
that point becomes a real issue to worry about is a shared trip -i.e. the
proverbial libertarian direction. The train metaphor was never meant to be
linear. When people get off a train, they often get off and board a
connecting route that is going in a different direction. The metaphor works
in both linear and non-linear modes. The elevator one not so much. In that
one, the other option is a very long and unpleasant drop.


== We should not represent libertarianism as varying between the more and
less extreme only,===


Like the Statement of Principles does?


== 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.  ==


We do all agree on the direction- towards the north star of the SoP (with
some potential orthogonal variants- which in historical context - if we are
going to interpret our foundational documents the way we expect the
government to interpret the Constitution are not real options). Otherwise
all this goobledegook about a libertarian direction is meaningless.

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.===


See above for equivocations on the words.


==  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,===


Such as the Statement of Principles? I submit that such represents the
"real" core. Because our Bylaws say precisely that.


==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.  ==


Sometimes yes and sometimes no. And sometimes the disagreement is a
repudiation of one portion of the Statement of Principles. Which any
Libertarian is free to do. But it cannot be, as per the Bylaws, part of the
Platform. And any attempt to do so will have an organized appeal to the
Judicial Committee- of that I am certain. And I note that at Convention,
the resolution of "taxation is theft" had no such appeal.

==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.  ==


The dialectic has formed because that is directly what some people say. It
assumes nothing writ large, people openly say this. I too resent views,
such as some state aggression being acceptable - like coercive taxation -
which was never accepted by the Party as an endgame being held as our
endgame view or an acceptable one. It isn't.

==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.  ==


AGREED. And only consistent application of our principles - I believe there
actually is such a thing - can remedy that. But you nailed a real problem.

==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.  ==


Platforms are not legislative apologetic pieces. But what is papered over
is disagreement indeed, and in some cases it is pandering to
semi-libertarian views (as defined by our Statement of Principles). Our
Platform is the north star. It is not required to be a piece that everyone
can just nod and pass the sugar. I like what Starchild once said, that the
Libertarian Party Platform should be more libertarian than he is. And than
I am. And yes, when it comes to our principles, I deny the fashionable
trend of denying that something isn't more or less libertarian. Wanting to
legalize only pot is a libertarian position. It is less libertarian than
wanting to legalize all drugs. Both holders are libertarians.

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. ===


And I doubt very many delegates want a complete re-write and re-direction
of our Platform. I think most would like some of the talking out of both
sides of our mouth and engaging in cake-saving-while-eating to end. Which
would not require much. *All this maneuvering over the Platform Committee
is however I think over-rated. The delegates are the deciders. Which is why
I agreed with you that I want a hard worker, not a hard talker.*


The Platform isn't the problem in not communicating how to get there from
here. The platform must define the there. We must then provide materials to
provide the how.


-- 
*In Liberty,*
*Caryn Ann Harlos*
Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona,
Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
<http://www.lpcolorado.org/>
Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
<http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/>

On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 9:49 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
>>
>>


-- 
*In Liberty,*
*Caryn Ann Harlos*
Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona,
Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
<http://www.lpcolorado.org>
Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
<http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20170102/e3576576/attachment-0002.html>


More information about the Lnc-business mailing list