[Lnc-business] Satanic Post - LNC Input Requested

[Joshua Katz]

I'm only chiming in on this particular sub-topic to explain why I'm not
chiming in more substantively on this particular sub-topic, and to offer
some opinions on other matters.  I agree with a good portion of what's been
said, and disagree with some of it - but I'm not convinced, at the moment,
that my opinion matters.  I think it will matter if the LNC is asked to
take up the question of specific content, and I'll give it then - but my
hope is that the LNC will not take up that topic.  Rather, I'd like to see
the LNC deal with the governance structures involved (and certainly not the
people and personalities) and with overall strategy.  On that point, while
I have pretty strong and well-known opinions, I care more about the
governance structures and the LNC being strategically active, to the point
where I would prefer we adopt a broad strategy with which I entirely
disagree to not adopting one at all.  But, as I've pointed out before,
that's not reactive, and it's not about the Satanism post, which most of
the non-LP internet has forgotten about.

As for us Libertarians, well, Dreamers have been deported, the Justice
Department is doing everything but its job, our President is making truly
awful diplomatic choices (unless the goal is provoking war with North
Korea) combined with confusing and contradictory actions, and we are
witnessing an attack on global trade, free movement, and the international
system not seen since WWII.  Furthermore, (getting into territory less
universal to Libertarians, but very important to me), we are seeing
evidence slowly accumulate that this nation is being run by people working
actively with hostile foreign powers, first in the election, and later in
policy choices, including, in my view, an economically suicidal decision
which will prove incredibly beneficial to Russia.

>From a purely partisan perspective, meanwhile, the Republican Party,
although it may choose to save itself, is very slowly, and very publicly,
going through a collapse of public trust and belief.  Unlike the fall of
the Whigs, this is happening in real time, and so is harder to identify,
but if the GOP continues to stand by officials who we are finding sold out
this nation's interests to a foreign, hostile power, it will in the not so
distant future cease to be a viable party.  The LP, then, will stand
between this nation conceived in liberty and one party rule.  In light of
that, I think we owe it to this nation to professionalize our messaging,
speak with a clear voice, and demonstrate our competency, rationality, and
ability to govern.  (As to Satanism, well, we always encourage people not
to choose the LESSER evil, don't we?)

My interest here is not reactionary.  It is something I have felt we needed
to do since I joined this board, and something I have brought up multiple
times.  Continued references to reactions are, in my opinion, unfair.

On content - I am not a PR professional, and in my view, it is the job of
this board to govern while using professionals, not to attempt to be all
things to all people.  As such, I believe we should get our governance
structures in order, then craft a strategy, then expect someone - we can
decide whether that is staff, consultants, outside professionals, etc. - to
execute it.  Part of that strategy, of course, might be "conduct some
research and decide X."  Part of it must be "we wish to be presented as
..."

I would also point out that, no matter what, things will always go wrong.
There will always be embarrassments, there will always be missteps - and
expecting accountability structures to catch all of them, and prevent us
from ever looking bad in public, is a fool's errand. If you're mot making
mistakes, you're not taking risks, and if you're not taking risks,
particularly when you occupy our position, you're not going to succeed.
What good governance does is makes sure that those missteps happen in the
context of a bigger project that is aimed at concrete, measurable goals.  I
have, for as long as I have been on this board, felt that the problem with
our messaging was not occasional failures, but the lack of a coherent whole
- and I feel that way about all our messaging, not only the volunteer.  I
feel that that is a problem that comes from the top, i.e. us.  We do not
have a clear, coherent strategy, and so our messaging is a bunch of
discrete, disconnected statements, donation requests, other solicitations,
and memes, which taken together, do not tell a clear, persuasive story.
Successful campaigns (political or not) do just that.  I have suggested,
and continue to suggest, what I think is a strong, principled, and
currently relevant theme for the LP - "Break the Bonds."  Could religious
freedom with within that?  Most certainly.  Nonetheless, if there is more
support for some other coherent plan, let's do that.  However, a printed
letter asking for money while pointing to spoiled races, followed by an
email about an elected official, followed by a meme suggesting that
Congress is unnecessary, followed by a post about activist training,
followed by a donation solicitation talking about an office, does not tell
a story.  None of those things are bad, and all could be done in alignment
with a common theme.

How would that work for "Break the Bonds?"  I'm glad you asked.  The
printed letter, rather than pointing to spreads and encouraging the spoiler
narrative, could speak about how voters are Breaking the Bonds of
attachment to the party of their birth, seeking to freely choose on a race
by race basis.  (This isn't our perfect outcome, but given our position, it
is certainly an improvement for us.)  The email about a new elected
official could focus on their broad goals in office, framing them in a
Break the Bonds context.  Rather than simply "look, someone won!" we can
point to crucial vote they've already cast and say what Bond it Breaks.
The meme could encourage the viewer to Break the Bond of attachment to the
structures of their national government, in favor of connecting to broader
truths and the universality of freedom, suggesting that institutions are
valuable only insofar as they broaden freedom, and become simply another
set of Bonds otherwise.  The post about activist training could try to
engage the people who went to their airports, whom Howard Dean described as
"not typical Democrats," but rather young people, mostly politically
inactive, who think globally, and are more concerned with the rights of
those around the globe than with the material benefit of those who live
next door - who are already Breaking the Bonds of nationality and seeking
commonality with all those who yearn to be free.  The office solicitation
can avoid talking about the benefits to us of paying off the mortgage early
- such financial considerations being, first, our problem as the board, and
second, not terribly inspiring - and instead focus on the ways our DC
location is helping us to Break the Bonds, and inviting the very, very
lucky recipient of such a letter to Break the Bonds with us.

Now, I have no idea what the finished products would look like - I would
leave that to people who know how to design such things.  That's the
difference between governance (our job), management (part of staff's job),
and execution (everyone's job).  Nor do I know what issues should be
focused on - I just know that, under such a strategy, whatever issues they
were would be fit into the theme.  The theme would not drive the choice of
what to say, although other strategic considerations would, of course.

But before any of that can happen, governance structures by which to
execute such things are needed.  That was what I understood the committee
to be making recommendations about.  I will support any proposal brought
back that gives us better governance structures, and oppose any proposal
that, in my opinion, gives us worse governance structures.  I think I have
some time to worry about that, though, since the committee hasn't even
fully populated itself yet.

Joshua A. Katz


On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 12:45 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com
> wrote:

> It is not often I disagree with David, but it happens, and it happened
> here- but only partially.  (this goes beyond the "satanic post" - I
> disagreed with that post for many reasons I laid out over and over and
> after Nick said okay delete it, I was the one who actually hit the delete
> button)
>
> *First, Alicia raises great points about using other people's religious
> texts.  *Words mean different things in different religions, and most
> people don't like political parties purposefully trying to use their texts
> basically to say "See, God is a libertarian." (this is putting aside the
> atheist ones).  She worded that perfectly.
>
> I like the Free to Believe concept and I think it IS actually very HIGH on
> the list of people's concerns. It can be done without trying to appropriate
> the religious texts (and there was a definite mixed message issue in mixing
> irreligion with religion and timing, and well all the issues I already very
> publicly had with that post) by just showing *PEOPLE* and that these *PEOPLE
> *are welcome and do not have to abandon their traditions to be
> Libertarians or maybe having PEOPLE and not the PARTY giving their view on
> how they can be X faith or No Faith and be a Libertarian.
>
> Where I disagree is that now we start saying we only care about the
> popular issues (*or appear to be saying that)*.  MOST PEOPLE don't care
> about legalizing prostitution or *all *drugs. Trump has shown MOST PEOPLE
> do not care about free movement of people and really do not care to speak
> up for Muslims.  I can name a lot of things that many people don't care
> about that we have cared about and* the biggest complaint from those who
> have supported us for years is that we have stopped dong that consistently*.
> That all that matters is the almighty polls and the fickle vote, principles
> be damned.  I also hear that well, those people will just have to accept
> that now we have to go after others.  I keep hearing we have to stop
> playing to libertarians - but what those libertarians hear is that they
> don't matter anymore.  And I hear from many (not here) that the Party
> really doesn't care - that base is expendable (and the litany of insults
> comes.... you don't want to grow, you are just a debate club, you are
> politically autistic, etc.)   And it makes me wonder how we think they
> became libertarians to begin with.  Very few of us are second generation.
> We go after others by giving them libertarianism.  If our ideas are so
> loathsome and wrong that they can't be said, we are all wasting our time
> and are terrible people.  I obviously don't believe that.
>
> *In the 1970s, I can guarantee you Joe America did not care about gay
> rights.  But we did.  *The Libertarian Party today seems to have
> forgotten there is a whole other frontier we should and could push on. The
> rights of people who believe that a "couple" isn't the only relational
> arrangement and they suffer.... but that is a tangent but I think a good
> symptom of how we are content to play it safe.  Because we worry that this
> won't sell in Apple Pie USA.  If that is our worry, we picked the wrong
> horse to back - and I think Americans ARE hungry for real freedom.
>
> And when we say we are going to care about X group because they are X in
> the number of issues etc we are telling some other Y group, who also has
> liberty issues, that we are embarrassed by their issues and well, we
> polled, and not that many people care about your subjugation, so too bad,
> so sad.  I believe we need to not only be different in our views but in our
> approaches and we are buying old party and old world approaches.... this
> isn't saying we have great approaches now  but it is saying we need to
> think more about how to be like the early lean and hungry Apple who broke
> all molds and not a mini-me of traditionalism and old party thinking.  One
> thing has become my mantra  over the past six months: * I will say the
> word abolish.*  I think there are multitudes that are just waiting to
> hear people boldly saying what they actually believe.  With respect.  With
> consideration.  With nobility.  But with frank honesty, treating them as
> mature adults who can handle the truth. We are not the priests and
> priestesses of secret dangerous knowledge that the laity cannot handle so
> we must mediate it to them in diluted form.
>
> We have never been that Party, and it isn't the Party the core base
> believes we are.  I can tell you, I'm not THAT Libertarian that says, well,
> your freedom isn't on the top list of Americans, (it didn't poll so well in
> Main Street USA) so I am not going to talk about it.  It won't earn me
> popularity, don't you see?   I'm THAT Libertarian that will step on the
> third rails of politics IF it means defending the rights of the individual
> and challenging the cult of the omnipotent state.  Trump broke all current
> molds - people want something different.  We need to be that something
> different that isn't something tyrannical and awful, but noble, beautiful,
> bold, and courageous freedom.
>
> Turning from that, this shows then a false issue.  *We can do this great
> targeting, but we must never be unwilling to take the risks and be the
> voice for the unpopular opinions too.*  We can do both, but I keeping
> hearing about playing it safe and becoming bean counters.  I will not go
> along with that, I will continue to say we are the voice for the unpopular
> as well as the popular, just like we were for gay folks in the 70s.  As the
> meme says, "Why Choose Just One?"
>
> And though I am NOT claiming this is a Libertarian verse, I am a
> Christian, and it applies by analogy.  *"When salt loses its saltiness it
> is not longer fit for anything but to thrown into the trash heap."*
>
> Half of what I hear out of Libertarian talking heads (again this is
> general - not directed to any of my fellows) is that we should lose our
> saltiness.  It is unbalanced.  We must do this targeted sort of thing.  We
> must talk to the mothers of sons who are rotting in jail for using,
> selling, or possessing a plant. We grieve with them. We must denounce the
> brutal bombings overseas and those parents who have the horror of the
> maiming and killing of their loves ones.  We shudder in horror with them.  *But
> we must also speak to those who may not have the numbers to ever get
> political attention or wooing because their liberty matters too.  *
>
> And the minute I hear anything about our "top priority"  but not the fact
> that our Bylaws tell us what it is - *to implement and give voice to the
> principles in the Statement of Principles*, I know we are using the wrong
> starting point.  Our SoP does not say, "We, the members of the Libertarian
> Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state on popular easy issues
> and defend the rights of the individual that don't anger the majority and
> who poll well because it is winning at all costs."
>
> We are the vanguard.  We are the bleeding edge.  We are the ones that say
> to the Overton Window- "Oh yeah?  How about pushing you a bit northward,
> shall we?"
>
> *I will not bean-count what rights are worth supporting * -  liberty is
> also for the person doing the things many people don't like but are their
> right to do.  *Speaking truth to power isn't playing it safe and letting
> the polls tell us what issues we discuss.*
>
> As far as that Policy Manual section (thank you Aaron), it is even slower
> than what actually happened here.  The post went up, it was seen, numerous
> people including myself contacted Nick immediately who has the authority to
> pull it himself without needing a majority, and he made the decision to
> pull.  If Nick had declined, the Policy Manual steps could have then
> ensured that the LNC could veto that decision by informing the Secretary.
> Going straight to the Chair took care of it quickly, though the PM
> procedure gives a good means to veto any Chair inaction.  Some may say not
> quick enough.  For me, I personally didn't see it until I was off work that
> day.  It was quicker than trying to contact a majority of the LNC and
> getting word to the Secretary.  But if the LNC ever had a Chair make a bad
> decision or be unavailable, that is certainly a good failsafe.
>
> -Caryn Ann
>
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 7:18 AM, David Demarest <
> dpdemarest at centurylink.net> wrote:
>
>> Alicia and Daniel, thank you for your thoughtful and detailed comments on
>> our exploratory committee scope, subject matter and prerogatives.
>>
>>
>>
>> First a comment on the offending Satanic Temple meme that I finally
>> viewed for the first time last night. Coupled with the second-hand
>> information that the Satanic Temple uses their “belief system” as a
>> satirical tax dodge, and ignoring for a moment the obvious Holy week timing
>> faux pas, I am trying to figure out what is so philosophically offensive
>> about the meme. Is it because it infers the belief of some Libertarians
>> that we own our own bodies (property rights) as opposed to God owning our
>> bodies? Help me understand in a non-hysterical, non-hand-wringing way from
>> a logical factual perspective, where the philosophical beef is in this
>> hubbub. Obviously, the religious belief systems of some, even if admittedly
>> in this case a satirical tax dodge, may be offensive to a few. So What? Is
>> the real problem not the philosophical dogma questions but our undeniable
>> dysfunctional personal and institutional Libertarian Party messaging
>> strategies?
>>
>>
>>
>> These religious dogma questions notwithstanding, I would agree with
>> Daniel, Alicia and many other LNC members and Libertarians that the bigger
>> issue is why the religious freedom meme series was there in the first place
>> and for what purpose in light of our top priorities of creating a winning
>> messaging strategy, getting Libertarians elected and putting the statists
>> out of business. Religious freedom is obviously an important part of the
>> Libertarianism philosophical foundation and a timely issue to core
>> Libertarians who understand the importance despite our dysfunctional
>> internal and external institutional messaging strategies. But how far down
>> the list of priorities is the religious freedom issue to non-Libertarians
>> that we want to connect with?
>>
>>
>>
>> First, the timely positive outcome of this hubbub is that we are moving
>> toward better scope control and accountability of our various outreach
>> messaging outlets. We can further turn this unfortunate incident into a
>> long-overdue opportunity to clean up our incoherent messaging strategies.
>>
>>
>>
>> The bottom line from my perspective is that religious freedom initiatives
>> are better handled in private discussions with core Libertarians.
>> Furthermore, the broader audience that we are trying to connect with to
>> achieve our long-term goal of freedom for all would probably put the
>> religious freedom issue well below the immediate concerns that define where
>> they are at in their personal lives and family circumstances. To connect
>> with the broader audience, we need to get off our soapboxes and reach out
>> with targeted, tested leading questions that connect first at the emotional
>> level with those who do not yet share our Libertarian values and goals.
>>
>>
>>
>> Once we figure out, for example, that African-American women between the
>> ages of 30 and 50 are primarily concerned about their sons not being
>> murdered (*targeting*) and we determine what leading questions will
>> connect with them (*testing*), we can work on our messaging *techniques*
>> to leverage their immediate emotional concerns, plant seeds of doubt in
>> their statist solutions and open the door for them to ask us for more
>> information about how Libertarians would go about surmounting the immediate
>> obstacles faced by their segment of society. Let’s explore the art of
>> “winning hearts and minds, not arguments” as a much more effective
>> messaging strategy to accomplish our end goal of freedom, nothing more,
>> nothing less.
>>
>>
>>
>> I look forward to working with all of you to turn this obvious outreach
>> misstep into a tremendous opportunity and positive turning point for the
>> Libertarian Party as we build a winning messaging strategy.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>>
>>
>> ~David
>>
>>
>>
>> *Omaha Roads to Liberty Un-Convention*
>>
>>
>>
>> ~David Pratt Demarest
>>
>> LNC Region 6 Representative (IA, IL, MN, MO, ND, NE, WI)
>>
>> Secretary, LPNE State Central Committee
>>
>> Cell:      402-981-6469 <(402)%20981-6469>
>>
>> Home: 402-493-0873 <(402)%20493-0873>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org] *On Behalf
>> Of *Daniel Hayes
>> *Sent:* Thursday, April 20, 2017 5:11 AM
>> *To:* lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] Satanic Post - LNC Input Requested
>>
>>
>>
>> Just speaking for myself,  I think that as part of the process there may
>> come some recommendations out of the newly formed committee regarding
>> content in the rather broad sense, but that remains to be seen.
>>
>>
>>
>> In this series, "FreeToBelieve", people that start to analyze it may
>> notice a disproportionate representation on a per capita basis.
>>
>>
>>
>> You have 2 memes for an organization that has less than .01% of the
>> population of the United States involved with it. You have zero posts that
>> clearly represent the organization that 70% of the population is affiliated
>> with.
>>
>>
>>
>>  I just can't help but think that that looks like it favors one over the
>> other.  The fact that the ONLY one that had more than one meme presented
>> was the one that represents that one mentioning the Satanic Temple could
>> seem like the LP favors that ideology over the others.  That's a problem.
>> There still exists the problem that there were belief systems that were not
>> represented here in the series.
>>
>> I still think the right thing to do is to remove the whole thing.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Daniel Hayes
>>
>> LNC At Large Member
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>
>> On Apr 20, 2017, at 4:23 AM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> There are certainly process problems, but I'll comment on the content as
>> well.
>>
>> I don't understand what the #FreeToBelieve series, at least the way it
>> has been approached, is supposed to accomplish.
>>
>> The value of freedom of religion is not about what various religions have
>> in common, but in how they are DIFFERENT.  The value is that two people can
>> have polar opposite religious beliefs but still live together in a free
>> country.  If I believe it's a sin to wear the color red, and you believe
>> it's a sin to not wear the color red, guess what?  We both can live side by
>> side in a libertarian society.  I'll wear blue, and you'll wear red, and
>> neither of us imprisons the other over it.
>>
>>
>>
>> It's one thing if we make a graphic symbolizing that people with widely
>> varying religious beliefs are part of the LP...though perhaps we should
>> avoid turning their religious symbols upside down in the graphic...that
>> cover pic is gone now.
>>
>> This series has started quoting religious texts, however, and posting
>> them to make some kind of a political statement.  Religion and politics
>> don't mix.  We're playing with fire, and it's not surprising that we got
>> burned.  Quote something out of context, and your target audience is
>> offended that you're twisting context to try to tell them their God wants
>> them to be Libertarian.  The word "freedom" in a religious text may not
>> mean freedom like the LP talks about...it may at times mean freedom from a
>> previous oppressor...or freedom from consequences of sin...  What if it's a
>> figurative passage, or a parable, or someone's dream sequence, and we just
>> yank it out of place to use it for our agenda?
>>
>> Religion is a set of standards that you impose on yourself voluntarily.
>> Politics is about a set of standards that you are willing to use the force
>> of government to impose on others.  (For the anarchists in the LP, that's a
>> null set.)
>>
>> Sometimes there are overlapping areas of agreement between your religion
>> and your politics, but those conclusions are arrived at for COMPLETELY
>> DIFFERENT REASONS.  Maybe your religion teaches "Thou shall not commit
>> murder" because God said so, and there's eternal punishment to consider.
>> Libertarians say murder is unacceptable because it is the ultimate
>> initiation of force which permanently deprives the victim of all of their
>> rights.  Completely different reasons for the same conclusion.
>>
>> When we start quoting religious texts as some sort of support for our
>> political views, what is that supposed to mean???
>>
>> Sure, there are some religions that call for theocracies in which the
>> religious and political standards are identical, but we're not advocating
>> for that, right?  So why are we quoting religious texts at all?
>>
>> There are a very large number of quotes from the same religious texts
>> that we would not post.  We're not going to post, "Remember the Sabbath to
>> keep it holy", are we?  (Using Ten Commandment examples just because so
>> many are at least familiar with them.)  They may be a fine way for a person
>> to choose to live for themselves, but to enforce that standard on others
>> deprives them of the freedom to have a different religious view.  Good for
>> religion.  Not so much for libertarian politics.
>>
>> Why even go there?  It's completely unnecessary to wander into such
>> dangerous territory, and religion is not the basis for our politics.
>>
>> -Alicia
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 6:44 AM, Arvin Vohra <votevohra at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi All -
>>
>>
>>
>> I'd like to request LNC oversight on the Satanic Temple posting as part
>> of the #FreeToBelieve series. I don't want to see our volunteers raked over
>> the coals for issues related to the LNC or APRC.
>>
>>
>>
>> Is a Satanic Temple Posting:
>>
>>
>>
>> 1. Fine on any day of the year
>>
>> 2. Never ok
>>
>> 3. Generally ok, but not during a religious holiday of a conflicting
>> religion.
>>
>>
>>
>> If future posts go up, I'd like it to be very clear on what the LNC views
>> are, so that volunteers are not blamed for our decisions.
>>
>>
>>
>> My view: I don't think that this is a battle worth picking. You can
>> already be as Satanic as you want in America, so we're not gaining
>> anything. I'd much rather focus on repealing laws and taxes that exist.
>>
>>
>>
>> Personally, I have no opposition to the Satanic Temple. As part of an
>> overall study of religion, I have read sections of various "Satanic" books,
>> and written in non-political areas on mythology parallels between
>> Prometheus in Greek Mythology and Lucifer in the Judaeo-Christian
>> tradition. Realistically, I'll probably look into the religious legal
>> protections they have, based on the comments by the chair, to see how
>> others can do the same. I'd love to see an America in which every single
>> house and apartment building is legally seen as a religious location that
>> pays no property taxes.
>>
>>
>>
>> -Arvin
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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>
> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
>
> A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
> *We defend your rights*
> *And oppose the use of force*
> *Taxation is theft*
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170420/83c0f5c2/attachment-0002.html>