<div dir="ltr">I found at least one major take-away that we Libertarians should be mindful of, in my opinion: You need people to like you if you want to win. I know that sounds simplistic, but I mean it seriously. We too often try to win on our ideas. That 11% who support both Walker and Obama clearly are not supportive of both based on their ideas. They're supportive of both based on liking the people.<div><br></div><div>Walker knows this, and can consistently win votes of those who do not agree with his ideas. That's why he sees no value, I'd suggest, in moderating his ideas - he knows that his beliefs aren't the basis of his votes anyway, so why bother? All he'd achieve would be alienating his base - it wouldn't change his appeal to the "low information voters" Dr. Lieberman mentioned.</div><div><br></div><div>Libertarians, though, often think that we should campaign primarily on our ideas. Of course, those come up - you can't campaign without talking issues, and if someone lets you, you shouldn't take them up on it. But having the best ideas is not enough for us to score wins. We have a far larger hurdle to overcome than any candidate from the GOP or D parties, and ideas will not do it. They're necessary but not sufficient (sorry, been studying for the LSATs for the last few weeks.) </div><div><br></div><div>So why is Walker electable, to the point where he wins in a state that Obama wins while doing arch-conservative things? I agree with the Walker comments on that from the WSJ (it's probably one of the only things I agree with Walker about.) He says that leadership is what makes him electable. I think he's right. People have heard lots of ideas - and any idea we can put forward, our opponents can co-opt, despite never following through in office - and voters who pay attention only at election time will see no compelling reason to vote for us. What turns heads is the person of the candidate - yet we as a party spend a lot more time vetting people on ideas than on candidate-ness. Of course, we need both - we don't want some likable non-libertarian candidate, and even if such a person won, it would hurt us in the long-run precisely because, that person may look like a leader, but the party would appear to have no clear direction. (Note that, for this purpose, I'm not talking about some disagreement on some issue of note largely to political wonks - I'm talking a full-on non-libertarian. The shades of grey can all be sorted out separately. Personally, I like to ensure that any candidate will be reliably libertarian within the scope of the office sought and will be reliably libertarian in their messaging - without going to the mat on every jot and tittle of libertarian philosophy.) But a balance will always need to be struck in choosing candidates, and I think we lean very far towards ideas and treat elect-ability as an afterthought. But having candidates who are persuasive and charismatic leaders is not only important for the purpose of winning. It is important because the majority of elected officials serve on boards and commissions - so, after winning, they can't use Obama's "phone and pen" methods. After they've won, their job of convincing others to embrace libertarian views on each issue begins. Ron Paul may be famous for voting against the majority, or by himself, so many times, but ideally you cast courageous, libertarian votes - and carry the decision also. It is also important, even in executive offices, because it means that we, as voters and as Libertarians, can believe that the official will do as they say. A person who cannot credibly claim to be a leader who manages to win an election is unlikely, even as an executive, to do much to move public policy - their actions will be meek and indecisive, they can be easy swayed by pressure groups - even at the local level, where a pressure group may be the homeowners on a particular street. Even if they do move policy, their impact is less likely to last if the changes are remembered as those instituted by "oh, that guy."</div><div><br></div><div>But there is a problem here. The LPUS runs two candidates (and, arguably, we don't even really run those; we ask our affiliates to run candidates for a different office who will vote for the candidates chosen at our convention for two offices.) So what can the board do about selecting and promoting the types of candidates I'm talking about? I'd suggest three things.</div><div><br></div><div>First, we can lead by example. The more each of us strives to demonstrate the personal traits of leadership that Walker talks about, in our party dealings and elsewhere, the more we demonstrate the value of this within the party. </div><div><br></div><div>Second, we can make resource decisions. We can look to the leadership and other traits of candidates when assisting with ballot access or litigation - ultimately making our decision on many variables centered on the success of this party, such as ballot access retention and improving the electoral environment overall (particularly when it comes to litigation) but at least always asking about this sends a positive message, regardless of our final decision. </div><div><br></div><div>The third is harder to define, and might be contained in the previous 2, but in my mind, the primary purpose of any leader, and in particular of boards, is to transmit a vision in a way that inspires others to try to advance that vision. I think the more common phrase here is "buy-in" but I hate business talk. Anyway, I think that's a far more important part of what a board can do than any sort of direct action to get a particular result.</div><div><br></div><div>I will disagree with Dr. Lieberman slightly regarding NOTA. I'm sure he agrees with me on this, but it's a difference of emphasis - Dr. Lieberman emphasized improving post-election ballot access. I agree, but I'd emphasize winning more elections first - such as, say, doubling the number of local elected officials in the party. If asked to choose between those two goals, I'd favor both over a Presidential campaign (and I recognize the elasticity arguments often made about this, I just happen to hold a different set of beliefs about the particular elasticity of our donations, membership, and other support than those making the arguments) but I'd favor more offices over more ballot access retention.</div><div><br></div><div>Joshua Katz</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr">Joshua A. Katz<div>Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)</div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Scott L. <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:scott73@earthlink.net" target="_blank">scott73@earthlink.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Verdana"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Verdana"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana">This 2 page article shows how Wisconsin Governor Scott
Walker won over the crowd at the Iowa Freedom Summit last week.<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Verdana"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Verdana"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Verdana"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana"> <a href="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/scott-walker-win-iowa-electability-no-compromise-to-democrats" target="_blank">http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/scott-walker-win-iowa-electability-no-compromise-to-democrats</a><u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Verdana"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Verdana"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Verdana"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana">Even if you are like me and you support NOTA for the 2016
Libertarian Presidential Nomination, the article still makes for good reading.<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Verdana"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Verdana"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Verdana"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana">Scott Walker obviously has very good street cred with
conservatives for not only talking the talk, but also walking the walk.<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Verdana"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Verdana"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana">The article demonstrates how important it is to present
political ideas not only in a way that makes your base voters feel good about
themselves, but mainly in a way that gives your base voters hope that at least
some “low-information voters” will actually vote for you.<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Verdana"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Verdana"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana">And for my fans who will read this e-mail on the LP web
site: I support NOTA for 2016 because it is a much better use of
Libertarian’s time, talent, and treasure in 2016 to pass as many vote
tests as possible so that we end up with 40 state ballot access in December
2016 instead of wasting time on a Don Quixote Presidential campaign. Far
too many LP members pretend that the Libertarian presidential campaign will increase
the number of donors that the Libertarian Party has, <u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Verdana"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana">when in fact the main purpose of the Presidential campaign
is to make LP members feel good about themselves without having to actually increase
the number of donors to the Libertarian Party.<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Verdana"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Verdana"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana"> Scott Lieberman<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Verdana"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
</div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Lnc-business mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org">Lnc-business@hq.lp.org</a><br>
<a href="http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org" target="_blank">http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>