[Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2018-03: Censure of Arvin Vohra
Elizabeth Van Horn
elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org
Mon Jan 22 20:47:42 EST 2018
I still favor the electronic meeting.
---
Elizabeth Van Horn
LNC Region 3 (IN, MI, OH, KY)
Secretary Libertarian Party of Madison Co, Indiana
Chair-LP Social Media Process Review Committee
Vice-Chair Libertarian Pragmatist Caucus
http://www.lpcaucus.org/
On 2018-01-22 20:36, Joshua Katz wrote:
> It appears this email ballot has replaced the drive for an electronic
> meeting. I fear that, if this motion fails, this means the ordeal
> will
> not end, and that instead other email ballots will be forthcoming.
> In
> fact, should it fail, I am inclined to cosponsor one.
> I am not yet ready to vote. Instead, I write to argue some points
> in
> favor, and some against. I look forward to seeing the debate
> develop
> further, now that we have before us a precise action to debate, and
> intend to base my vote on any further points raised. For now, I
> remain
> strongly inclined to vote no.
> First, I will address the wording briefly. I deny that Mr. Vohra
> has
> presented libertarian ideas in some, but not all, of his posts.
> This
> motion, though, clearly refers to his most recent remarks, and I
> deny
> that they are grounded in libertarian ideas. As you know, I argue
> in
> favor of a large libertarian tent. I think much belongs in the
> broad
> libertarian tradition. That said, there is a line. In my opinion,
> while the line-drawing exercise is a separate topic, just as day is
> not
> night despite the existence of dusk, so too is there a rather large
> area of actions so contrary to developmental and societal norms as
> to
> be far outside libertarian inquiry. I defend line-drawing, but do
> not
> think that criticisms of it fail to be libertarian. On the other
> hand,
> the denial that there is a zone of unacceptability is, in my view,
> utterly morally indefensible and shocking to the conscience.
> Yet, even recently, some of Mr. Vohra's points have been well within
> our libertarian tradition. The abuse of SORs is an affront to
> liberty,
> and we must end it. Yet we can take action to end of restrict it,
> or
> we can simply speak words which make it harder to address. I
> believe
> Mr. Vohra's recent actions fall into the latter category, and to
> that
> extent, and only that extent, I agree with the factual claims of the
> motion.
> Yet, I ask, so what? Is my strong moral disgust with his words
> reason
> to censure? The Vice Chair, it is true, sometimes speaks for the
> Party. Even when he speaks individually, he is perceived as
> speaking
> for us. He has made it clear, both through his actions and his
> words,
> that he intends to drag this Party in the direction he wishes to go,
> one I find utterly unlikely to succeed, morally inferior, and, in
> point
> of of fact, one in which I simply will never go. If he succeeds in
> his
> project, it will be without me. It is clear to me, though, from our
> members' reactions, that he will not succeed. His remarks do make
> me
> less proud, perhaps even ashamed, to present myself as a
> Libertarian,
> until I remember their low reach among the general public. I am
> proud
> to stand for my notion of what liberty means. I will not be forced
> to
> stand for a concept of liberty I find detestable, unfree, and
> immoral.
> At the same time, I am concerned about the consequences of this
> board
> choosing to monitor the off-work statements of its members, and
> assign
> censure for them. Will we stick to what I consider detestable -
> and,
> if we do, should that be enough to reassure me that doing so is
> fine?
> Many have written, asking us to take some form of action, and
> prophesying grave consequences if we do not. Some of these,
> particularly the internal, I do not doubt. Others, I doubt. Before
> turning to those doubts, though, I will weigh in on an issue which
> has
> been much discussed already here. In keeping with every corporate
> code, our Articles of Incorporation, and our bylaws, I believe we
> are
> here to be leaders, not in a purely representative capacity. During
> region formation, I pushed for, and received, a provision making it
> easier than in past agreements to remove our rep and alternate. I
> explained my reasons then: I intended to act as I saw best, for the
> organization's health. Certainly, input from the region would form
> a
> part of my judgment, but in the end, my judgment would be my own.
> Given that, I wanted my region to have an easy solution if my
> actions
> did not comport with its vision. In fact, I also made clear that it
> would take less than the regional agreement said to remove me, that
> I
> would resign if I felt there was widespread dissatisfaction with my
> votes. I am no longer a regional alternate, though - and now feel
> the
> same way about the national party, except that "widespread" is
> obviously a higher threshold. Others feel differently, and that is
> fine with me, so long as we all keep in mind that we, and no one
> else,
> are the fiduciaries, that we, and no one else, will be held
> responsible
> for the Party's health.
> Another reason for this model is precisely the current situation.
> Reactions and overreactions to individual incidents call for sober
> reflection. Our members depend on us to provide that. Yet another
> reason, perhaps the most important to me personally, is that we
> serve
> more than our members. A party is, in some sense, like a benefit
> corporation. It has many stakeholders beyond its membership.
> Notably,
> it serves the voters. 67% of voters want a viable third party. It
> is
> a mistake to say they should all vote Libertarian, of course, since
> many do not agree with our views and values. However, the public
> desire for better candidates and a better party does make it
> incumbent
> on us to try to provide one. We must often look beyond our narrow
> interests and to the society in which we exist.
> Which brings me to my next point. While Mr. Vohra's comments are,
> in
> my view, harmful, they also bring to the surface other issues. I
> haven't conducted the polling, but I have some predictions. If I
> polled random voters, statistically none would know who our Vice
> Chair
> is - just as statistically none would know the Vice Chairs of other
> parties. If I polled voters of a particular party, the results
> would
> vary. Statistically no Republicans would know who their Vice Chair
> is. Statistically no Democrats would know who their Vice Chair is.
> Statistically, a rather significant portion of our voters would know
> who our Vice Chair is. The difference is that we are following a
> non-scalable model. We simply cannot be successful at the polls and
> maintain that number, and we act far more often in ways that
> maintain
> our closed-circle nature than that aim for success at the polls.
> Ronna
> McDaniels says, in response to outrageous tweets from a far more
> public
> figure than Mr. Vohra, that she has an organization to run and
> doesn't
> have time to comment. We exchange hundreds of emails when our Vice
> Chair says something outrageous.
> We are not serving the voters. We are serving ourselves, and we are
> doing it with money donated, in part, for us to serve the public.
> This
> is a shame, and this is the source of our current woes. We speak
> about
> harming our candidates, yet I firmly believe any candidate can,
> right
> now, go walk doors and hear 0 questions about Mr. Vohra. I have no
> doubt, of course, that some of our candidates can be harmed, if
> their
> opponents take the time to research our party, manage to find Mr.
> Vohra's comments which are not on any of our accounts (of course, if
> our members, and our detractors, choose to comment about them on our
> accounts, this will be far easier), and then to link our candidates
> to
> them. This is a serious concern for some candidates, and if I heard
> from those candidates that a motion like this would help their
> campaigns, that might make a difference to me. I have heard nothing
> from those candidates. Our social media bubbles have convinced us
> that
> the world knows and cares. It does not. The actual concern is that
> candidates themselves drop out, activists themselves leave, and so
> on,
> in response to these comments. These are serious concerns: we need
> candidates, we need activists, we need donors. Yet they cannot be
> our
> voting base, and we cannot serve only their interests. In fact,
> those
> observations are related. Other parties do not hemorrhage
> candidates,
> activists, and donors every time their Vice Chair says something,
> because their candidates, activists, and donors are not running,
> being
> active, and donating based on those sorts of internal concerns.
> Rather, their candidates run for their electoral base. Their
> activists
> volunteer to expand their electoral base. Their donors donate to
> make
> action happen, to make laws change - because they have an electoral
> base to sweep them to office, so long as work is done to fill the
> narrow gap remaining.
> The motions about Mr. Vohra are about people within our party being
> upset. We should react to such concerns, but they should not be the
> only concerns to which we react.
> Finally, we should respect the views of our delegates, who vote to
> form
> a board expressing the aggregate of their individual preferences
> (within the limits imposed by Arrow's Theorem). I disagree with
> those
> who say the delegates did not know what they were getting. Perhaps
> as
> a factual matter that is true, I can't say. But they could have,
> and
> should have, known what they were getting, and I consider their vote
> to
> be expressing a preference in that regard. It is not our role to
> reverse them or, depending on how we see it, to save them. This
> Party
> is ultimately ruled by the delegates, and we, should we choose to
> serve
> on this board, must live within their decisions (as restricted by
> corporate codes and bylaws). Censure is, in this regard, far
> different
> from removal, but arises from the same place.
>
> Virus-free. [1]www.avast.com
>
> Joshua A. Katz
> On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 9:03 PM, Alicia Mattson
> <[2]agmattson at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> We have an electronic mail ballot.
> Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by January 30, 2018 at
> 11:59:59pm Pacific time.
> Co-Sponsors: Hayes, Hewitt, Demarest, Hagan
> Motion: to censure LNC Vice Chair Arvin Vohra for repeated
> public
> comments which have presented libertarian ideas in an
> inflammatory and
> sometimes offensive manner not conducive to Libertarian leaders
> and
> candidates for public office winning hearts and minds for those
> ideas.
> -Alicia
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> [3]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> [4]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>
> References
>
> Visible links
> 1.
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link
> 2. mailto:agmattson at gmail.com
> 3. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> 4. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>
> Hidden links:
> 6.
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon
> 7.
> file://localhost/tmp/tmpoGaAKX.html#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list