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

[Alicia Mattson]

Oh, good, now we're all liars...

And did you just advocate for a mandatory, top-down, structured education
series for the new party members?  Will there be standardized tests
designed by the APRC?  Will home school or self-study be permitted?  ;-)

-Alicia



On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 12:53 AM, Arvin Vohra <votevohra at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170518/eb463e49/attachment-0002.html>