Leilani,
Good for you. I wish everyone was so progressive-minded. Feel free to continue the discussion on party strategy whenever you have time.
Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>
Dear Starchild:
I appreciate both the clarification and the invitation. I do object however, to arbitrary classification. The designation of female I do not object to, but I object strongly to any racial or "ethnic" labels. First of all, I was born and raised in Berkeley to multi-racial/cultural parents, in a multi-racial/cultural environment. I, and I alone decided who and what I am. Neither my parents nor did my society indoctrinate me into any imposed "culture,"or identity. The only other label besides female will I accept is the same as everyone else; and that is human. I am thankful for the enviroment that I grew-up in, as I do not have preconceived notions about race or "ethnicity" when I inter-act with others.
I am very busy right now, as my orals are coming up in January, my Latin Final is next month, and I must finish my dissertation. I would be happy to dis-course with you further however, on these and other subjects when I am able.Yours in Anarchy, (and Liberty, of course.)
LeilaniLeilani,
I wasn't primarily trying to counter your words in the paragraph
below, but to clarify my own. I was the one who had previously written
something that could be interpreted as accusing Ron of advocating
selling out.If you have ideas for a party overhaul, I'm still all ears. And not
just in a "put up or shut up" way -- valuing your perspective not only
as a strongly principled Libertarian but as a gender and ethnic
minority in the party representing demographics we'd like to better
connect with, I really would like to hear anything you may come up with.Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>> Dear Starchild:
> My comment about not selling-out was not directed to Ron. It was
> directed to you!
> Have a great day,
> Leilani
>
> Starchild wrote:
>
> Leilani,
>
> I don't think Ron is advocating "selling out" [It's very hard to
> credibly criticize someone crying "revolution!" as a sell-out 8) ] but
> I think that's a fair description of the prescription offered by the
> original article that was posted. It was that article to which I was
> primarily responding. If you have ideas on how we can overhaul the LP
> to make ourselves more effective without abandoning the pursuit of what
> we're fighting for, I'm all ears.
>
> Yours in liberty,
> <<< Starchild >>>
>
> > Dear Ron:
> >
> > I could not have put it better. I concur with both your
> > comments/rebuttal and the originators words. And this is not because
> I
> > am disappointed with the results of the recent election. I, as well
> as
> > the rest of us knew (or should have known,) that the result was a
> > foregone conclusion. However, (in my opinion,) the over-haul is long
> > overdue. I am not trying to decry the accomplishments of the
> founders
> > and others that have worked hard to bring the party to fruition;
> > having said that, many great ideas at some point can use sometime
> fine
> > tuning to adapt to the present conditions instead of the past when
> > it/they were incepted. Otherwise, we would still be flying Bi-planes
> > and driving the earliest versions of automobiles, etcetera. This does
> > not have to mean that it is a sell-out.
> >
> > Leilani
> >
> > Ronald Getty wrote:
> >
> > Dear Starchild;
> >
> > Who said anything about sacrificing Libertarian principles to attract
> > money?? Or putting the Libertarian party up for sale? Having
> power for
> > a Libertarian does not mean giving up principles. Who said that!!!
> >
> > Michael Badnarik running for president wasn't a joke. The amount of
> > money raised on his behalf was in comparison to the cost of a single
> > ad run by the two jokes from those other two jokes of a party.
> >
> > A million dollars is nice but it doesn't get the national recognition
> > needed to help people understand who and what a Libertarian is and
> > what a Libertarian stands for and why people should consider becoming
> > a Libertarian or even convince them there is a Libertarian web site
> > with great stuff on it about becoming a Libertarian.
> >
> > Say what you want about pragmatics. Phil Burtons statement still
> > stands, "money is the mothers milk of politics." Without money and
> > lots of it you don't have a chance of overcoming the loudspeakers of
> > the Reps and Dems. With the needed investment capital then you can
> > create a groundswell of support across states and boundaries and
> > parties for a Libertarian presidential candidate who will get more
> > than 300,000 votes.
> >
> > Then you won't have someone arrested because he wanted to be part of
> > the taxpayer funded presidential debates because he was a from some
> no
> > nothing no name political party who we shouldn't even deign to
> mention
> > by name as we look down our long snooty noses at the very idea of
> this
> > person presuming he could be in a Presidential debate with two real
> > presidentail candidates from two real political parties. HAH! We
> > certainly must have only a dem or a rep getting a chance to say
> > something to the vast unwashed masses of bleating sheep being led to
> a
> > the slaughter by The MORON in the White House.
> >
> > Other view points? Never happen! People might actually start to
> > think!!! We can't have people thinking about who to vote for. What
> > would this country come to if people started thinking about who they
> > should vote for. Vote for the person you are told to vote for or
> > else!!! You want political power? Now that's real power to the
> > people!!! The power from being able to declare someone an enemy
> > combatant and having them whisked away to never never land never to
> be
> > seen again if they don't vote your way.
> >
> > That's what all that money bought! It wasn't about all the Bush Bleep
> > of the good he was going to do for everyone and fulfilling their
> moral
> > values. Bush Bleat! It was about retaining power to do what you want
> > when you want when you feel like it. And not having to give a damn
> > about it.
> >
> > It's time for another American Revolution!!!!! Viva La
> > Revoluciones!!! We need an American Che Guevera to lead the revolt
> > against the Robbing Hoods of the "Taxes are Good for You Because
> > We Are The Ones Who Know Best On How To Spend The Money We Stole From
> > You ."
> >
> > Ron Getty
> > SF LIbertarian
> > Starchild wrote:
> >
> > Ron,
> >
> > This kind of talk seems to surface after every big election, when
> some
> > Libertarians -- usually those who had unrealistic expectations going
> in
> > -- are discouraged by the results. Not understanding what we've done
> > right and how the party has flourished and grown to its present level
> > where so many alternative parties have failed, they jump to the
> > conclusion that the LP needs to be more pragmatic and more like the
> > establishment parties. It's a somewhat understandable attitude, but a
> > mistaken one. More comments follow...
> >
> > > Dear Everyone;
> > >
> > > The article about re-formatting the Libertarian Party speaks to the
> > > truth.
> > >
> > > It also means nominating a Presidential candidate who can raise and
> > > spend millions. As former San Francisco now deceased member of
> > > Congress Phil Burton once said publicly; "Money is the mothers milk
> > of
> > > politics."
> >
> > A political party should not be for sale. Sure, money can help win an
> > election battle in the short term. But if you sacrifice principle to
> > attract money, you've lost the war. Do you think that the LP could
> just
> > put its principles on the shelf until it had won a few high-profile
> > elections and was competing with the Republicans and Democrats, and
> > then take them down and dust them off and have them be good as new?
> > Hardly. The more power an organization wields, the harder it is to
> stay
> > principled. If we discard them in order to go after power more
> > efficiently, we won't get them back.
> >
> > > You can nominate a Presidential candidate who articulates the party
> > > line but if he doesn't have any money forget about it. The message
> > > will never get across. While Michael Badnarik raised and spent a
> > > million that's how much either of them other two jokes would spend
> on
> > > just one ad!
> > >
> > > Unless you have a party which is prepared to raise and spend tens
> of
> > > millions forget the presidential race and getting on every ballot
> in
> > > every state. 300,000 votes out of 115 million cast is a joke.
> >
> > It's not a joke. That's insulting to a whole bunch of hard-working
> > people who don't deserve it. We did better than all but one
> alternative
> > candidate (Nader) and came close to beating him, despite receiving
> much
> > less media coverage. Sure, we'd all like Michael Badnarik to have
> > gotten a lot more votes. Does that mean that his running was a joke,
> or
> > a waste of time? Hardly.
> >
> > > Concentrate on local offices and forget the Big Bust unless you
> have
> > a
> > > candidate who can raise and spend tens of millions and a party
> > > apparatus that can do likewise.
> >
> > We had a number of local candidates here in San Francisco, Ron. But
> > you're not talking about them. You're talking about presidential
> > politics. Most people are no different. They care a lot more about
> the
> > race for president than the race for Congress or School Board.
> > Especially non-political people, many of whom don't even have a clue
> > what the School Board does. I know -- I've fielded that question a
> > number of times over the past few months. A presidential campaign,
> even
> > one that only gets 1/2 a percent of the vote, attracts attention and
> > has a visibility in the media that local campaigns cannot match, even
> > when you have strong local candidates running. Many current
> > Libertarians have found out about the party through our presidential
> > candidates.
> >
> > > As far as reaching out to new group segments by altering the
> > > Libertarian message to reflect a groups cultural values - and how
> the
> > > Libertarian message does reflect those values. What do you think
> the
> > > Reps and Dems have been doing all along? Focused focus groups
> focused
> > > around a focal point.
> > >
> > > It's time for a sea change in how the Libertarian Party presents
> > > itself and its message.
> >
> > More libertarians actually getting active at the local level and
> doing
> > the necessary work would make a lot more of a difference. Too many
> > libertarians are standing on the sidelines complaining, whether out
> of
> > pique that everyone in the party isn't jumping up to follow *their*
> > grand strategic plan, or simply using the LP's imperfection as an
> > excuse not to get more involved in fighting for liberty.
> >
> > See further comments interspersed with the essay below...
> >
> > > Ron Getty
> > > SF Libertarian
> > >
> > >
> > > Mike Denny wrote:
> > >
> > > v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} o\:*
> {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
> > > w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} .shape
> > > {behavior:url(#default#VML);} st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui)
> }
> > > This is a good one Scottò.I√m sending to our local list.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Michael Denny
> > >
> > > Libertarian Party of San Francisco
> > >
> > > (415) 986-7677 x123
> > >
> > > mike@MichaelDenny.net
> > >
> > > www.MichaelDenny.net
> > >
> > > www.LPSF.org
> > >
> > > From:Scott Brown [mailto:sbrown@trashmanage.com]
> > > Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 1:11 PM
> > > To: Scott Brown
> > > Subject: Try this one (Modified by Scott Brown)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Libertarianism's Extreme Makeover
> > > By Max Borders
> > > Published
> > > 11/12/2004
> > >
> > > The Libertarian Party is politically moribund. Most libertarians
> > don't
> > > even vote for the Libertarian Party, much less affiliate with it.
> > Why?
> > > Because we have a pragmatic streak that we just can't shake.
> >
> > I wouldn't call it a pragmatic streak. As the author notes, you'll
> > have a greater impact on politics by calling in to a radio show than
> by
> > voting. Voting is not particularly pragmatic; it's an act of faith, a
> > statement of allegiance.
> >
> > > And that comes simply from being American. It's in our bones. Some
> of
> > > us vote Republican because we care about defense. Others vote
> > Democrat
> > > because we're afraid Crusaders will overrun the barricades between
> > > church and state. In either case, we hold our noses and go to the
> > > polls just to feel some civic connection with all those folks in
> our
> > > community -- even though we know they are wrong, and are voting for
> > > all the wrong reasons.
> >
> > Now I suspect that is closer to the heart of the matter. Being a
> > Libertarian can feel lonely. People can't stand feeling lonely, they
> > want more sense of civic connection, so they vote the way that more
> of
> > their neighbors are voting so that they'll feel more a part of
> things.
> >
> > > Most libertarians understand the profoundly irrational aspect of
> > > voting -- i.e. that you'll have a greater effect on politics if you
> > > call in to a radio show and say something clever instead of going
> to
> > > the polls. You have a better chance running into Michael Badnarik
> at
> > > the Piggly Wiggly than having your vote be the deciding factor in
> an
> > > election. In the meantime, the teeming hordes follow their baser
> > > instincts all the way to the church basement and vote their
> > > "consciences." But aside from the Constitution and the Courts,
> > > democracy is the only game in town.
> > >
> > > Thus, things can't get any lower for many libertarians. And that's
> > why
> > > if we're going to keep trying to enter politics through the front
> > > door, we have to prepare to change.
> >
> > That's a non-sequitur. Your vote has no greater an impact if you vote
> > for a Democrat or Republican than if you vote Libertarian. Slightly
> > less, actually. If there is a need for the LP to change -- and there
> > certainly *is* a need for change, just not of the kind advocated in
> > this article -- the fears of mainstream voters and the mathematics of
> > voting do not make the case for it.
> >
> > > Playing the Game
> > >
> > > Libertarians must get it together. That's going to mean shifting
> the
> > > mindset, overhauling the current LP, and spending lots of money.
> >
> > Where is the money going to come from, and who's going to give money
> > who isn't giving it now, and what's going to motivate them to do so?
> > Those obvious questions are left unanswered.
> >
> > > If we're going to have an effect on electoral politics, we're going
> > to
> > > have to get some people into office.
> >
> > We have some people in office. Over 600, which is more than all the
> > other alternative parties in the U.S. combined.
> >
> > > Now, for the immediate term, that may mean running as a D or an R
> and
> > > acting like Ron Paul -- or even supporting a Schwarzenegger.
> >
> > That certainly isn't going to help the LP grow.
> >
> > > But the other option is to begin transforming the LP inside and
> out.
> > > But how do we do that?
> >
> > We don't do it by running as Democrats or Republicans, or by voting
> > for Schwarzenegger.
> >
> > > First we need to define ourselves better. Some people think
> > > libertarians are the party of Lyndon LaRouche. (I kid you not.)
> Keep
> > > it simple. At the moment, our elevator pitch sounds like the Bill
> of
> > > Rights.
> >
> > Of course it's good to be able to deliver our ideas in pithy sound
> > bites when the occasion requires it. No mystery or controversy there.
> > But I see no evidence that people correctly understand what other
> > alternative parties stand for, and are just confused about the LP. If
> > that were true, then this criticism might have greater validity.
> >
> > > There's nothing wrong with the Constitution, but sadly, getting
> > people
> > > on board requires lowering ourselves to the level of vacuous talk
> > > employed by our bigger, better bipartisan counterparts. That means
> we
> > > need a simple, visceral message that works. Then, and only then,
> will
> > > we start to see some interest from the masses.
> >
> > There are better ways and worse ways of teaching liberty, but I'm
> > hardly convinced there is *a* simple way that *works* while all other
> > methods, by implication, do not. The Democrats and Republicans don't
> > have simple, visceral messages. They appeal to many different people
> > for many different reasons. Ask people why they vote for one party or
> > the other and you'll hear tons of different answers.
> >
> > > They're libertarian and they don't even know it. How many times
> have
> > > you heard someone describe him-or-herself as "socially liberal, but
> > > fiscally conservative?"
> >
> > Many people do fit this description, but I rarely hear them use it to
> > describe themselves. Libertarians are the ones who usually use the
> > description. I often use it myself when I need a quick explanation of
> > where Libertarians are coming from.
> >
> > > Many of these are the people who either hold their noses at the
> > polls,
> > > or simply don't bother. They are disenfranchised by the two-party
> > > system and the "Party of Principle" just isn't reaching them. The
> > > first order of business should be to tap this political market. But
> > > how do you get these libertarians-who-don't-know-it interested?
> > > Indeed, how do you steal them from the major parties?
> > >
> > > A Purple Brand and an Unyielding Media Blitz
> > >
> > > From the nominated candidates, to the branding, to the talking
> > points.
> > > Everything visible about the current LP (and the Movement) has to
> > > change -- maybe even the name.
> >
> > Then again, maybe not. The author certainly hasn't laid out any
> better
> > plan -- or more pragmatically, explained how he's going to get all
> the
> > Libertarians to follow his concept.
> >
> > > Consider the stereotypes of utopians and pot-smokers who throw
> around
> > > terms like "individual rights," "coercion," and "statism" like it
> > came
> > > from the Randian Scriptures. Rectitude isn't worth a dime when it
> > just
> > > smells funny to people.
> >
> > Instead of attacking your allies in print for daring to dream, for
> > using words that mean things, for being right, subtly reinforcing the
> > very stereotypes you supposedly find troublesome, explain the ideas
> to
> > the public in a way that doesn't "smell funny" without betraying them
> > in the process. The sentences above are worse than useless, they're
> > destructive.
> >
> > > One approach might be to tap into this popular blue-red dichotomy.
> > > Start coloring everything LP purple. Make it obvious that we're the
> > > best of both parties. Take the top Libertarian talking points from
> > the
> > > Rs and the Ds and merge them to make the LP talking points. Then
> > avoid
> > > the rest like the plague.
> >
> > Run away from content, run away from ideas. Put them on the shelf,
> > they'll be there later when we need them. No, they won't.
> >
> > > Who are we? The best way to tell the world about us is through good
> > > ole advertising -- name your medium. (Midterm elections might be a
> > > good time to start experimenting.)
> >
> > There's a place for advertising, especially in a national campaign,
> > but it should not be the main focus of the party's outreach.
> >
> > > How about this for a commercial?: split screen, red and blue. On
> the
> > > red side you see the words low taxesò securityò fiscal
> > > responsibilityòparental choice in educationòOne the blue side you
> see
> > > civil libertiesò freedom to live my life my wayòa woman's right to
> > > chooseòThe two sides merge into a large, purple screen. The New
> > > Libertarian Partyò Americais deserves the best of both.Or some
> such.
> > > TV, Radio, Newspaper, Internet. Again, defining ourselves is the
> > first
> > > step. And we're going to have to spend money doing it.
> >
> > Except for the "New Libertarian Party" part, this red/blue/purple ad
> > is the only good idea I've read in this essay so far.
> >
> > > From Principles to Pragmatics
> >
> > From Libertarian to Demopublican.
> >
> > > "The Party of Principle."
> > >
> > > Unless you just put down the Fountainhead, reading that line just
> > made
> > > your bile duct secrete.
> >
> > Wrong. "The Party of Pragmatism" -- now that would make my bile duct
> > secrete. Of course the pragmatists would never dream of using a
> slogan
> > like "The Party of Pragmatism" -- even they know that the concept
> > stinks to high heaven once you name it as such. That's why they talk
> > instead about the need to manipulate people (see below).
> >
> > > Most people think their party is the party of principle.
> >
> > Oh? I don't see any evidence of that.
> >
> > > The LP should get rid of that slogan, and fast. That doesn't mean=== message truncated ===
<image.tiff>
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! ñ Get yours free!
<image.tiff>
<image.tiff>