[Lnc-business] Credit where credit is due – Request for LP press release on Trump's bold regulatory reforms

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Absolutely agreed Ken.  I just want us to own and control the narrative on
OUR taking points.

-Caryn Ann


On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 8:17 AM Ken Moellman <ken.moellman at lpky.org> wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
> I would also like to express that any statement which appears to be in
> support of a Trump policy should be worded in a way that makes clear that
> we're NOT endorsing everything he's done - only one particular item.
>
>
>
>
>
> The media and certain other outlets seem to be in an all-out tizzy over
> anything Trump does. We must be sure that there's no legitimate way a
> headline reading "LP supports Trump" could ever be put on a story in good
> faith.
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
>
>
> Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
> LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative
> LPKY Judicial Committee
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 2017-01-31 09:48, Joshua Katz wrote:
>
>
>
>
> I, for one, would like to speak in opposition, or at least caution.  But
> first, let me say how proud I was to be a Libertarian this weekend.  Our
> President provoked a humanitarian crisis, and a constitutional crisis, in
> pursuit of avowedly illiberal ends, and this party did not hem and haw.  I
> want to thank staff and volunteers for quickly putting out content to
> address the crisis, and being loud and strong.  Moreover, we weren't only
> great, we were good - that is, not only were we correct, but our
> communications were on-message and exactly the style and form of
> communication that I think boosts our credibility and, ultimately,
> electoral viability.  Not from this party did one hear "but Obama did it
> too," not from us did one hear "well, at least he's doing something," or
> sarcastic snipes at liberals for daring to oppose this while favoring
> taxation.  Not from us did one hear "well, technically..."  Not from us did
> anyone hear "it's only 90 days, let's be reasonable."  No.  We stood up for
> the rights of those most in need of protection, and we did not reason with
> tyranny.  Libertarians must be a voice for those who cannot speak, if we
> must choose whose voice to be, not a voice for those who own lobbyists.
> Freedom is the surest protection for the vulnerable, and we need to always
> make that case.  Dissent does not end at the Armani's edge.
>
>
>
>
> Now, let me turn to why I disagree.  *Today, there are people detained in
> airports, illegally denied access to lawyers, despite 5 court orders
> demanding, variously, that they be provided attorneys, that they be
> released, and that they not be deported.*  At least one person was
> deported to a war zone over the weekend, and a court order has been issued
> to go get him and return him to the United States, but he has not, to my
> knowledge, been returned.  To lavish praise on Trump for his EO of
> yesterday, although it properly treats him like the 5 year old that he is,
> is to send a message to those detained in defiance of court orders - "You
> are forgotten."
>
>
>
>
>
> It must be remembered that, despite the circumlocutions of many
> conservatives and some libertarians, the growth of tyranny we are seeing
> from this populist monstrosity is not normal.  It is not "more of the same"
> or a difference of degree.  It is a new level, of an entirely different
> sort from, say, the steady growth of government by regulation.  We cannot
> compare the two, we cannot establish the trade between sending people to
> die and denial of due process, on the one hand, and decreasing the
> regulatory load on hair-braiding, on the other hand - as crucial as it is
> to cut those regulations.
>
>
>
>
>
> Even under normal circumstances, let me point out, this party only ever
> engages in this sort of thing when the Republicans are in power.  I do not
> recall praise from this party when, say, President Obama reestablished
> relations with Cuba, negotiated a nuclear deal with Iran, or pressed
> against his own party for freer trade (in fact, this party mostly opposed
> that last one, and its membership ridiculed our ticket for standing for
> trade).  We tend to adopt the position of opposition when the Democrats are
> in power, but not when Republicans are in power, then wonder why we are
> mistaken for a part of the right-leaning coalition or worse.
>
>
>
>
>
> But these are not normal circumstances, and, additionally, I think this
> would be a tactical error.  Howard Dean, in speaking of the protests,
> yesterday remarked that these there not the "typical protesters" - that we
> were seeing the first strike of a globalized youth, more interested in
> rights than parties or national boundaries - and worried that the
> Democratic Party would be unable to "capture them."  Let him worry.  Their
> ideals are more aligned with those of the Libertarian Party than with those
> of any other.  Mr. Somes and Mr. Sharpe pointed out that one could easily
> digest Trump's core message - "Make America Great Again," and that of Mrs.
> Clinton, while ours was murkier, involved multiple layers of meaning, and,
> as expressed by our ticket, was unclear and seemed to consist of a lot of
> "well, I'd think about it."  What is a rallying point for libertarianism
> that focuses on what the voter gets, not what we get?  Here's one -*
> "Break the bonds."* * We want to break the bonds of the oppressed.  We
> want to break the chains that hold back the human imagination and
> prosperity - the very chains that bind the hands of the weakest.*  This
> we share with the protesters and attorneys who came out, heroically, to
> fight for the right of human movement, to fight for due process - and yet,
> we now are discussed turning to those protesters and saying "yes, well,
> that's all nice, but we care more about the oppressed in Armani suits."
>
>
>
>
>
> Cutting regulations can be done in a manner that greatly eases the burden
> on the most burdened.  It can be, but nothing in the EO directs that this
> be done.  It would be fully in compliance with such an EO to increase the
> burden on small businesses (true small businesses, even, the home-grown
> kind) while, twice as quickly, reducing it on big business, or even
> removing valuable protections.  This is the structural problem - everything
> is a regulation now, and so getting rid of regulations can be done in a
> manner that enhances, or that fails to enhance, or that destroys, freedom.
> We should, I believe, push for a return to a system in which Congress
> legislates with accountability, and an end to a system that allows
> unelected agencies and one man such extraordinary power over the rules
> which govern us.  We should not, in my view, celebrate the inappropriate
> power distribution that allows the President to make such orders.
>
>
>
>
>
> Finally, what does such praise hope to accomplish?  Perhaps to encourage
> more of the same?  I submit that this is an unlikely result.  To allow
> conservatives unhappy with Trump to consider and vote for us?  A good goal
> - but one that, I think, will be best accomplished by remaining the
> opposition through the Trump administration unless the tone is changed
> overall.  If we want to attract anti-Trump Republicans, we will do so by
> standing firm for markets, not by saying nice things about Trump.  I see
> nothing, tactically, to be gained by nice words for Trump, and plenty to be
> lost by those who see such messages and say, with disappointment, that we,
> who stood so strongly just days ago, can be so easily bought off.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170131/567fd092/attachment-0002.html>