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

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Joshua,

You are (not deliberately) miscasting my words.  You initial post spoke
about content and tone and my comments spoke to that.  I then reiterated
that I favour professional strategy consultants.

Through human nature and just like I saw (and still see in the campaign
committee that turned into an unapproved messaging committee and is now
being recast in propo as something that was a social media advisory
solution when it was originally proposed and approved as a Gary Johnson
campaign post mortem!) shows how these categories keep getting morphed and
did once again.

Our content and ideology is fixed to an extent or certainly in a range.
How we might present it is not and that has nothing to do with a personal
post on a personal page.

-Caryn Ann


On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 7:35 AM Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Agreeing with Mr. McKnight, I see simply another instance of us failing to
> differentiate the message from how it is expressed, although it so happens
> that I disagree with some of the content as well.
>
> As for agreeing with Mr. Somes, I refuse, in May 2017, to desist from
> expressing agreement with an LNC policy position because someone has
> declared a candidacy for May 2018 and said it.  Call that bad form if you
> want, but I am not going to have the range of what I say narrowed by a race
> a year away.
>
> Finally, my position on our utter lack of a messaging strategy, which is
> only reinforced by most of the comments I've seen here which imply, to some
> extent, that a platform is a messaging strategy, is constant.  It is a
> position I have taken, consistently, since I first joined this board in
> 2014.  It is a position which is content-neutral - Mr. Vohra's comments on
> this very thread, for instance, also seem to point to need for a coherent
> and consistent messaging strategy - and, I might add, as much as I disagree
> with what he seems to be proposing, I would take that over the current
> situation.  (In the past, Mr. Vohra advocated for another theme to our
> messaging, as it were.  I'm not sure if he's abandoned that, or if it
> integrates with what he advocates here.  I remain partially in agreement
> with "Libertarian Solutions" and partially in disagreement, and I tend to
> think that, while it is a messaging strategy, it might be too far in the
> direction of saying a single thing rather than speaking in a coherent
> voice.)  I am not going to stop advocating for my position simply because
> there's a FB uproar, particularly considering that there is always a FB
> uproar.  To call that reactionary is simply incorrect.  I am not reacting
> to anything - you might recall that, when I brought this up in the past, I
> was criticized precisely because I was not reacting to anything in
> particular.  If examples happen to crop up, I will point to them.
>
> Finally, our inability to focus and project our voice has everything to do
> with this instance.  If we had a stronger voice, no one would care about
> the current brush-up, and we wouldn't be hearing these complaints.
> Everyone would understand that Mr. Vohra can speak for himself (and, I
> might add, I can speak for myself) and that the LP can speak for itself.
> When we lack such a voice, it is easy not just for officers to appear to be
> speaking for us when they speak, but for loud enough members.  Such a
> situation causes all of us, officers, board members, and members alike, to
> choose between the sort of reaction we've seen this week, or shutting up.
> A party with a stronger voice would allow us not to make that choice, and
> to be able to speak our minds without becoming, in the public eye, the
> voice of the party.
>
>
>
> Joshua A. Katz
>
>
> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 8:19 AM, Patrick McKnight <
> patrick.joseph.mcknight at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Our principles are immaculate. However we need to connect with people as
>> human beings. It has nothing to do with our platform, it had to do with our
>> mindset. Human beings make decisions based on emotion.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Patrick McKnight
>> Region 8 Rep
>>
>> On May 18, 2017 9:07 AM, "Caryn Ann Harlos" <carynannharlos at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> David-
>>
>> Agree and disagree (which proves your point - we are individuals - but
>> bravo! Well spoken!).  Our Platform speaks on some things clearly.  Let me
>> name one that I disagree with- abortion.  But it speaks clearly so I NEVER
>> give the impression that the Party is not pro-choice.  Yet on so many
>> issues we are not messaging the clear Party position- such as no
>> force-financed education or no state mandated healthcare (I could name
>> others including anti-war in anything but strict defense).  We shy away
>> particularly here.  In that instance I agree that we should be saying those
>> core positions so loudly, so strongly, etc that no one will mistake the
>> "Party" position which may or may not be our own (like me with abortion).
>> But tone?  Other people are going to use their tone.  We are not Stepford
>> Libertarians and the idea that national is going to the grand conductor of
>> tone so that no one will ever mistake a candidate or other prominent person
>> for us is pure unadulterated fantasy.  Great for campaign sloganeering and
>> propo but not in practice.
>>
>> *I would suggest also that it's bad form to use someone's campaign
>> materials aiming for a colleagues position as a point in a debate about
>> policy and using this list to potentially indicate support for said
>> candidacy.*  or that is how it could be taken and we must not appear that
>> way on this list.
>>
>> Other things or even the path to the things above are not so cut and
>> dried.  And it is in those areas we should fear mightily any forcing of a
>> unified voice indeed and embrace diversity - the way our SoP does with mini
>> or no state.  They both exist and are welcome in this Party despite the
>> divisive attempts of some to expunge that inconvenient truth (not anyone
>> here or any comment here)
>>
>> Our messaging strategy should be clearly to state our actual platform -
>> our actual SoP- and as this body in 2010 said are the two foundational
>> pillars of Libertarianusm - *non aggression and self ownership* and expect
>> there will be diversity in how that is done.
>>
>> Professional advice would be foolish to dismiss and that should be
>> explored again particularly in social media targeting.
>>
>> But this undercurrent of using each thing as an opportunity to try to
>> assert top down control is something I will call out and resist every
>> time.  It won't work and it's bad.
>>
>> Control of our message is the Statement of Principles (not optional and
>> fixed though enough attempts have been made to bury it over the years) and
>> the Platform which is up to the delegates.
>>
>> We should be so clear that it doesn't matter when our top ticket argues
>> for gun control.  We don't.  It should be clear that is the Party
>> position.  We should not hesitate to show the Platform speaks to that.
>>
>> We should not hesitate to show that consistent non-force speaks to
>> others. But within that there are different paths and ideas.  But we have
>> NOT been as clear or bold as we should be on the twin pillars of non
>> aggression and self ownership.
>>
>> But using this issue of a personal page to this issue strikes me as a bit
>> opportunistic to a preexisting agenda.  Let's not be like the other parties
>> in that.
>>
>> Nothing in a messaging strategy would have had a thing to do with
>> personal posts on a personal wall for which an apology happened.
>>
>> -Caryn Ann
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 5:39 AM David Demarest <
>> dpdemarest at centurylink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> The problem is that we as a group of “like-minded” politically-oriented
>>> people cannot agree on a core message beyond more freedom and less
>>> government (MFLG). As I have often said, there are at least as many
>>> Libertarian philosophies as there are Libertarians. Even among loose
>>> alliances within the LNC, we do not agree on message content details.
>>> Between alliances, we even disagree on core principles. The notion of all
>>> of us agreeing to and promoting a detailed common core message beyond MFLG
>>> is a flight of fancy and the stuff that statism and puppet masters are made
>>> of. The fact remains that groups are not living breathing entities. The
>>> notion that groups can have a freely agreed upon unified voice and message
>>> is pure unadulterated philosophical nonsense. Groups are conglomerates of
>>> individuals with individual voices. Without a police state, it is not
>>> possible for groups to have a single voice. Frankly, a group that could or
>>> would speak with a single voice would scare the hell out of me. We cannot
>>> and should not attempt to speak with one voice. Beware of those who would
>>> attempt to force us to speak with one voice. That is the message of statism
>>> that we as Libertarians are or should be fighting tooth and nail.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I happen to be one Libertarian that thinks education is a key component
>>> of our political action mission. However, if we have difficulty gaining a
>>> consensus without protracted debates on even simple political actions such
>>> as resolutions on Cuban Libertarian prisoners and medical cannabis and
>>> token support for activist candidates, how can we agree on education as
>>> part of our mission and what the education message should be? What to do?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Our diversity is a wonderful thing to be embraced. Let us celebrate that
>>> diversity that is loosely focused on MFLG and leverage it to empower
>>> ourselves as individuals who can go forth and deliver our own diverse
>>> individual educational messages of freedom. Point of fact, many or most of
>>> us are already delivering our own educational messages. We can have healthy
>>> open forum and institutional debates as to the merits of message content
>>> details and delivery techniques. However, attempts to muzzle the messages
>>> of individual Libertarians and outspoken elected officials beyond delegate
>>> elections is fraught with the dangers of statism. As long as I live and
>>> breathe, no political party will ever throttle my message short of the use
>>> of force.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I believe these recent incidents are fortuitous opportunities to rethink
>>> and repurpose our Libertarian institutions to focus on using our
>>> inspirational food-for-thought diversity to empower individuals. The flip
>>> side of our diversity is the difficulty in getting the consensus required
>>> for anything more that relatively trivial actions. However, that lack of
>>> consensus does not or should not prevent inspired and empowered individual
>>> Libertarians from accomplishing the bulk of Libertarian action as bottom-up
>>> volunteers, entrepreneurs and activists and even top-down elected
>>> officials. Let’s stop fooling ourselves on controlled unified message
>>> content and delivery technique. Through trial and error and healthy debate,
>>> we can build our army of empowered individual Libertarians armed with their
>>> arsenal of individual message content and delivery techniques who will get
>>> us where we want to go. Our Libertarian institution think-tank cauldrons of
>>> inspirational diversity have the potential to be a key part of the process
>>> of empowering individuals. Let us free ourselves from the bonds of the
>>> groupthink and groupspeak, repurpose our institutions and get on with the
>>> business of freedom beyond mere MFLG.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Our recent incidents are an opportunistic call to action. What must we
>>> do to repurpose our institutions to focus on empowering individual
>>> activists and messengers? Now is the time to get past our differences and
>>> leverage our diversity to think outside the box. Let the debates begin.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ~David
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Dec 28-Jan 1 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 *Caryn Ann Harlos
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, May 18, 2017 5:01 AM
>>> *To:* lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] I Do Not Agree With What You Say...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If we are talking "messaging problem" - with the exception of the lying
>>> word and a couple other turns of phrases I do not agree with, he is
>>> absolutely correct.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> He is asking we boldly stand on our Platform and the SoP and educate
>>> newcomers to our actual positions.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Now THAT is a messaging problem we DO have.  And it goes way beyond tone
>>> issues of an individual member on a personal way.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Part of our Bylaws mandated roles is to educate people about our core
>>> principles and whether in a platform or not they lead to no exchange that
>>> is not voluntary, no government interference that violates negative rights,
>>> no siezing of resources without consent.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We are not teaching people that thus is what our Statement of Principles
>>> says and the Platform is derived theherefrom.  I have Libertarians shocked
>>> we oppose ALL eminent domain.  Because we often deliver less than that in
>>> messaging.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sieving upon the obviously rhetorical over the top flourishes of Arvin
>>> that I have avoided is the stuff of FB and should not be our tactic here to
>>> avoid the point of what he is saying.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We have always stood for eliminating all involuntary market transactions
>>> and asset sieving including taxation, public school, government healthcare
>>> etc.  but we are not consistently telling people that while still accepting
>>> there may be steps from one point to another - we have made a certain step
>>> our position and failed to declare the goal. Over and over.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> That is our messaging problem in education and outreach.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> To anticipate Daniel's question to me- I will say - irrelevant to this
>>> discussion and if anyone insists to make it relevant, I will discuss when
>>> the special election is over next week and not sooner.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -Caryn Ann
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 3:25 AM Daniel Hayes <danielehayes at icloud.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Arvin,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So most of our candidates are now liars? Weak voices for Liberty?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> What kind of steward of our donors money are you.  You just voted to
>>> give $5000 to someone that doesn't match up on many areas of our platform.
>>> Which way is it? Where are your morals?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The REAL libertarian platform would be NONE.  Leave our Statement of
>>> Principles. Maybe the Omissions plank.  Danny Bedwell can tell you I have
>>> been advocating for this since at least my first convention in 2014.  He
>>> kept turning around to me during platform saying, "Why are they telling me
>>> what I am supposed to think as a candidate?!" To that I replied, "I'm with
>>> ya Danny!"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I am constantly amazed at how authoritarian Libertarians are with
>>> regards to telling other people how they MUST think.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So what I am taking away from your email is that you want to cater to
>>> the growing segment of the populace that is more actively apathetic to
>>> voting than any other demographic. In turn you seem to want to turn off the
>>> segments of voters that vote more often than the average demographic.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Once again, your words don't match your recent actions.  Why would you
>>> give money to a candidate you thought was weak?  Is it because its mostly
>>> other people's money?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Are we to be a "pure" echo chamber or a party that works to be inclusive
>>> of many and that finds areas of common interest for people to work together
>>> on to protect and restore our Liberty?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Daniel Hayes
>>>
>>> LNC At Large Member
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>>
>>> On May 18, 2017, at 2:53 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
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
>> --
>> *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
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20170518/26365f79/attachment-0002.html>