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

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

I loved your .02 cents Ken.  Very well stated though we disagree on whether
anyone is ever off the clock.

On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 9:35 AM, Ken Moellman <lpky at mu-net.org> wrote:

> My largest concern is that when we speak in public, our titles and roles
> do come with us.  This is politics.  When you speak, you are speaking on
> behalf of others. It is a burden of leadership. And sometimes, that even
> extends beyond our term in a leadership position.
>
> There's no such thing as "Off Time".  Should Donald Trump get a pass
> because "it's his personal Twitter"?  Likewise, when we speak in public, we
> are speaking for others, whether we like it, or not.  I personally hate it
> - the burden of trying to watch every word you speak - that's why I never
> want to be a chair ever again.
>
>
> We should all be wary that HOW we say something can often be the core
> problem.  Let's review the last 3 blow-ups.
>
> Against oligarchy and political dynasties?  Yes!
> Dragging in people with cross-over into our own group?  Bad idea.
>
> Satanic Temple post?  Fine.
> Satanic Temple post on Easter week?  Bad idea.
>
> Being against the Military Industrial Complex and/or against lying
> recruiters? Yes!
> Taking it out on soldiers, most of whom signed up for honorable reasons?
> Bad idea.
>
> It wasn't the core principle, but the delivery.  How an argument is framed
> can be the difference between getting through and bringing someone to our
> point of view, and galvanizing existing sides by drawing a sharp line in
> the sand.  In case no one has noticed, we can't afford to draw lines.  We
> don't have the numbers to play the "Us vs Them" game that the Ds and Rs
> play to galvanize their political bases.  We need to speak in ways that
> bring people to our perspective, not repulse them from us.
>
> In this particular instance, I personally think it's very wrong to blame
> the people trapped in the system, rather than focusing on the system
> itself.  I thought Larry's livestream on "blame politicians, or blame
> everyone" was on-point. The system is the problem.  We're all trapped in
> it.  People tend to do what's right for them, and in fact that's how the
> market is supposed to work.  The problem is that we have a system that
> gerrymanders choices and manipulates results.  The system of manipulation
> is the problem, not the people just trying to get by inside the system.
>
> I live in the Cincinnati area, and specifically Northern Kentucky.  The
> big IRS processing center is here -- the one that is tied up in the
> targeting scandal -- and we have members, past and present, that work at
> that facility.  They don't work there because they love the IRS.  They work
> there because they needed a job, it paid well, and they use the money to
> support themselves and their families. As they've been awakened, some chose
> to leave the IRS, with mixed results. Others stay because it feeds their
> family.  I don't condemn those people - they have an obligation to their
> families.  I blame the system that takes skillsets out of the private
> sector by creating a higher demand, thus increasing wages and making it
> impossible to reasonably find work outside of the IRS which maintains the
> standard of living their family currently has.
>
> I don't want to censure anyone - though I'm being hit all over with
> requests to do so; email, facebook, and pretty much wherever anyone else
> can find me.  I don't want to recall anyone, either.  I'm a Region
> Alternate, and on this sort of matter, I'll follow the lead of the Region
> Chairs.  I am encouraging those that feel strongly about this to take
> action in NOLA, not through the LNC.
>
>
> I honestly hope that everyone thinks about ways to focus on attacking the
> system of manipulation, rather than the people trapped inside of it.  We're
> all trapped inside of it.  Every single one of us.  Some of us are more
> aware of it than others.  Smacking people in the face by claiming they are
> heinous criminals, or (perceptively) attacking their religion, or attacking
> their "favorite" elected official isn't going to turn them to us; instead,
> it's more likely to repulse people from ever considering us.  And even if
> the goal of some members may be only to reach people to educate, pushing
> people away from ever considering us is a failure to that end.
>
>
> My too-long $0.02.
> ken
>
> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I certainly agree with that last sentence.  That's why I started this
>> thread to push past all the emails we've been getting and state my
>> position: that we do not and should not control what individuals say on
>> their own, and that I will oppose any effort to do so.  I went on to say
>> how, in my view, that policy can be reconciled (in fact, is sort of
>> automatically reconciled) with avoiding the dangers and consequences the
>> members writing to us are concerned about.
>>
>> Joshua A. Katz
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 8:47 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
>> carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 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*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/ebe77be8/attachment-0002.html>