[Lnc-business] I Do Not Agree With What You Say...

Thu May 18 03:53:00 EDT 2017

Hi All -

During the last months, I've traveled to many state conventions,
interviewed many candidates, and kept track of the mood here in DC. In its
current form, much of our messaging is largely opposed to our platform, and
so anemic as to be politically irrelevant.

We have an education secretary that everyone thinks wants to end all
government education. Whether this is true or not matters less than the
fact that is what people think and say about her. Our platform is better
than hers, as it involves complete elimination of government education and
also tax funded education subsidies.

But despite what our platform specifically states, much of the messaging is
far softer than the Republicans. Most of the educational messaging I hear
and see is not even at the Republican lite level; it's just Republican Weak.

In discussions of healthcare and welfare, I'm seeing the same thing. Our
platform is crystal clear on this: get government completely out of
healthcare. Messaging? Nowhere near that.

It seems that this is motivated by an attempt to grow the party numerically
by essentially tricking people into identifying with the word Libertarian,
and then hope they magically develop Libertarian views. But the actual
effect is to mislead, bring people in who do not know what Libertarianism
is, then have them represent us with a further watered down message, etc.
While many sign the NAP, it's not at all clear that they understand the
specific policy implications.

In this process, we are losing our natural allies. Although the
anarcho-capitalism movement is exploding through social media, most are
Trump supporters. In other words, in our desperate attempt to get those who
worship public schools and the military with a message of pro-status quo
state worship, we are losing our most obvious base. There are those who
actually agree with the big parts of our platform but are put off by the
simple fact that we never talk about the big, anti-establishment issues,
and fixate entirely on marijuana and occasionally alcohol.

I hear more Libertarians arguing in favor of universal welfare than I hear
arguing in favor of ending all welfare. I hear many more discussions about
eliminating minor alcohol restrictions than the big issues that comprise
most of the money stolen from us: healthcare, education, military, and
social security.

This has gone far past an issue of messaging. I bet that if today, we did a
poll among Libertarian active donors, we'd see a minority that favored all
of our positions on these critical issues, and I doubt we'd be even at 80
percent that favored our positions on even one of these issues.

This can be addressed through either education or outreach. If we go the
education route, I recommend an automated email series to educate new
people on our actual positions. If it's outreach, I'd recommend we stop
lying about our position at the national, state, and especially candidate
level. Phrase them nice, mean, calm, explosively, however. But for the love
of god phrase them somehow.

Let's grow the Libertarian party, not the "I want to identify with a trendy
word" party.

If we stop lying, will we lose some people? Maybe a few. But we'll also be
welcoming the people who most strongly agree with our positions.

-Arvin

On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 12:36 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com
> wrote:

> I have changed my mind and decided now is the appropriate time to address
> what I did not agree with.
>
> Over the past year I have seen attempt after attempt to "control" our
> messaging (whatever the heck that even means now) and each time it is
> defeated. And now, this is being used as a wedge to do it again when
> contained even within this post is the admission *that it is not the
> Party message here that anyone is objecting to.*  Why is this being used
> to re-hash this yet again?
>
> For instance, Joshua points out that *unlike Larry and I* he doesn't
> agree with the underlying message. Interesting.  So which of us will be *controlled
> then?*  Are we just taking about delivery?  A need to be more
> empathetic?  Tightly controlled empathy then?  Also interesting. * Because
> that wasn't the issue in the other arguments.  For the record, I agree with
> empathatic delivery, and I agree, that we are selling a product - and we
> need good marketing - and that will include professional advice and
> assistance.*  But see here, there isn't even an agreement on what the
> underlying message is - since Joshua disagrees with what others of us have
> said.  So what will be controlled?  And this has to do this situation
> exactly *how?*
>
> == It is our job, to agree with Mr. Somes, to construct a message so
> good, so coherent, so consistent, and broadcast so loud that no one: board
> member, candidate, or member, can be taken to speak for the party if they
> contradict that messaging or its tone. ==
>
> *Our message is already good and coherent and it is the Statement of
> Principles and the potentially transitional steps derived therein in our
> Platform.*  And we don't have the right to "change" it.
>
> And we have been the most clear over the past year about our immigration
> stance, but that hasn't stopped controversies erupting over nationalism and
> other situations here that everyone is well aware of and doesn't need to be
> mentioned.
>
> Which then leaves just the tone.  But it isn't just the tone that Joshua
> disagreed with.  And how in the world will our tone change what others do?
>    We are not the dog. We are the tail.  The affiliates are the dog, and
> the affiliates are our primary messengers. To think we are going to
> "control" that from on high is foolhardy.   A great deal of them already
> refuse to use the chicken on a stick because they don't even appreciate our
> attempt to unify branding.   Or we can expect more nuclear flaming middle
> fingers from affiliates who do not appreciate being tone-policed or
> otherwise "controlled" by the LNC.  And I find it utopian (ironically) to
> think that we can magically be "so good, so coherent" so consistent, and
> broadcast so loud" that no one will ever be taken to speak otherwise.  For
> instance, our presidential candidates often contradict key positions.
> Other candidates do too.  Are they included in the "nobody"?  Or take the
> very different personalities and tones of the contenders last run.. we are
> going to control that too?  So a candidate that some thought was too
> boorish would never be taken to speak for the party?  This is the stuff of
> dreams, not reality.  It makes for good sloganeering not for accurate
> depictions of reality.
>
> While I think we need to - as David Demarest as said - get some good
> professional assistance in targeted marking, none of that really has to do
> with this situation and none of that will make a message "so good, so
> coherent, so consistent, and broadcast so loud" that NO ONE will ever be
> taken to speak for us.  Heck, on the fundamental question of anarchism v
> minarchism (yes let's get one of the elephants in the room out in the open)
> - this will control that?  In violation of the Statement of Principles
> changes which take no position on the issue?  The simple fact is that there
> are many ways to libertarian.  And it is utterly impossible to "control"
> that nor should desire for that power.
>
> This incident has absolutely ZERO to do with this near constant attempt at
> "messaging control" I have seen over the past year, and I am not pleased to
> see it capitalized upon this way.  These were the words of an individual
> member speaking an individual opinion in an individual tone.  A tone I
> disagreed with, and a tone for which that member has apologized (thank you
> for that Arvin).
>
> I fear this is an example of not letting a good crisis go to waste.   If
> we are removing the appropriateness of action against a personal opinion
> (and I am persuaded by that reasoning and Joshua really helped me there)
> then this has absolutely nothing to do with National Party messaging and it
> is not appropriate to use it as a wedge issue for same.
>
> -Caryn Ann
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 3:12 PM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Colleagues:
>>
>> Like the many members we have heard from lately, I disagree strongly with
>> recent comments of one of our members.  I feel they are politically
>> backward, and I wish they would stop because of the embarrassment they can
>> bring on this party, and because they lack an appreciation of nuance, in my
>> opinion.  Nor is it my position that, as I've seen some claiming, these
>> comments are "true but embarrassing."  I am not one who believes that we
>> need to hold back some sacred truths of liberty from the unwashed masses.
>> I often am embarrassed by statements precisely because I think they are
>> wrong - either false or, perhaps more commonly, in that realm of failing to
>> be either true or false.
>>
>> I am primarily writing, though, to let you know that I would vote 'no' on
>> any of the proposed measures, including censure and suspension.  I would
>> vote no because I do not agree that LNC members are never "off the clock."
>>  Yes, it is true, people know who we are, and we can never, really, take
>> off our "hats" in public.  That's one reason I strive for a low social
>> media profile - that's my personal vision of the position.  But when I
>> speak about politics, and do not identify my speech as that of the LP, I do
>> not expect this body to sit in judgment of its truth or its effectiveness.
>>
>> I believe that censure and suspension are best reserved for unacceptable
>> activities carried out within office.  I do not believe it is appropriate
>> to define anything we do which touches on politics as 'within office.'  As
>> I've discussed before, in my view we each have almost no power, with some
>> exceptions, except as members of this body.  Our power is to vote, not to
>> direct things ourselves.  This cuts both ways.  We do not have the power to
>> speak for the LP, as individuals, except when specifically given this power
>> by the bylaws or by an appropriate resolution or motion.  Lacking that
>> power, we cannot do it wrong.
>>
>> Furthermore, we do not choose our chair and vice-chair.  They are elected
>> by the delegates.  I resent the implication that a few outspoken members
>> should, through LNC action, undo the will of the convention.  It is not our
>> job, if we think that actions of the delegates have led to insensitive
>> messaging, to try to reverse those actions.
>>
>> It is our job, on a semi-related note, to control our own messaging.
>> Complaining about FB posts from one of our members is easier than thinking
>> carefully about what we do and how we do it, but it is not a solution.  It
>> is our job, to agree with Mr. Somes, to construct a message so good, so
>> coherent, so consistent, and broadcast so loud that no one: board member,
>> candidate, or member, can be taken to speak for the party if they
>> contradict that messaging or its tone.  If we believe that one person,
>> speaking on a platform not provided by this party, can derail our message,
>> then shame on us.
>>
>> Further, that hasn't happened.  It is primarily our own people who are
>> angry.  I myself am offended, in addition to disagreeing, but I do not see
>> outrage outside Libertarian circles.  It will be objected that this is
>> because of our small size and relative lack of success, that if we were
>> larger, we could not afford to be silent.  That may very well be true.  Yet
>> the world is as it is, and we can afford to be silent, and, in my opinion,
>> should.  Furthermore, if we were in the position described, it is also true
>> that our own messaging would be better.  I say let's deal with the meme in
>> our own eye before criticizing extra-party messaging.  (As an individual, I
>> feel free to criticize, I am speaking about this board's activities.)
>>
>> Is there any allegation that a member of this board has violated a
>> fiduciary responsibility, has double-dealt for personal gain or gain of
>> others, or has in any way done anything wrong in their party capacity?  As
>> far as I am aware, there is not.  We are speaking about a person who has,
>> in my view, governed well.  We do not always agree, but I always respect
>> his opinions and decisions - and I appreciate that he treats mine the
>> same.  Our job is to govern the party - Mr. Vohra does that very well.  The
>> vice-chair has additional duties: no one has made any allegation that these
>> were carried out badly or incorrectly.  Until I see allegations about those
>> (and I am confident there are none, Mr. Vohra fulfills those
>> responsibilities just fine) I will vote no on any motion on this topic.
>>
>> In other news, the President of the United States may have revealed
>> classified information to the Russian Foreign Minister and compromised an
>> Israeli source.  The travel ban is still working its way through the
>> courts.  The Republicans in the House have done what we thought was
>> impossible: found a way to make the ACA more freedom-destroying.  Democrats
>> and Republicans are working in lockstep to attack prosperity and the
>> freedom of all, around the world, through nationalist-protectionist
>> policies.  I would like to see this party focused on electing Libertarians
>> to office who are serious about, and effective in, addressing these and
>> other issues.  In addition to rolling back the size and scope of
>> government, I'd like to see our elected officials simply managing the thing
>> more competently than the corrupt members of the other parties have shown
>> themselves capable of doing.  After all, a more effective government will
>> require, in my opinion, a smaller, less powerful government.  The
>> government cannot be competent in doing tasks far beyond its competence.
>> So yes, I'd like to see us not insulting key groups of voters or making
>> other political missteps.  I'd like to see us prioritize policy over both
>> personal attacks and abstractions - while remembering that we can inspire
>> not just with pocketbook issues, but also with the power of what is right
>> and with strong ideals.
>>
>> Joshua A. Katz
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>

-- 
Arvin Vohra

www.VoteVohra.com
VoteVohra at gmail.com
(301) 320-3634
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20170518/e17f4803/attachment-0002.html>