Last night's GOP meeting

Leaving or joining is unimportant.
It's the coalitions and confederations that count.

Wow!!! If Libertarians keep living in the future, hoping for "liberty" to be understood by the general voting public, indeed the libertarian faction of the GOP will absorb all the current Libertarians who want to see results, not rhetoric from the "social club." As far as "leaving or joining" not being important, I agree. So maybe work to bring the Libertarian Party down to earth, and not leave it?

Marcy

What do you mean by "down to earth?" I suspect it means different things to different people.

Warm regards, Michael

Wow!!! If Libertarians keep living in the future, hoping for "liberty" to be understood by the general voting public, indeed the libertarian faction of the GOP will absorb all the current Libertarians who want to see results, not rhetoric from the "social club." As far as "leaving or joining" not being important, I agree. So maybe work to bring the Libertarian Party down to earth, and not leave it?

Marcy

In general I agree with John Bechtol. What we actually do is more important than which vehicle we use to do it.

  That said, I must respectfully disagree with John Howard on numerous points.

  I am not saying Ron Paul was lipstick on an elephant; I think his efforts to redefine the GOP as libertarian amounted to trying to *put* lipstick on an elephant -- and look how the elephant reacted, by marginalizing him, dissing his supporters, violating its own rules, and ramming through organizational roadblocks to further progress by libertarian Republicans.

  As for being "tarnished", there's a difference between simply being (relatively) small and powerless compared with the establishment parties, and being actively responsible for bad things taking place. As one of those establishment parties, the GOP is seen as having negative baggage in ways that the LP just isn't.

  Even if it were desirable for the Libertarian Party to simply fold and disband, which I don't think it is, that's simply not realistic. Why not? Because the party's name, and the ballot access it enjoys, are too valuable in political/market terms for the party to just quietly expire. If all the current LP members quit and went away and did something else, someone else would come in and take control of the LP and run with it. There is going to be a "Libertarian Party" in the United States for the foreseeable future regardless of whether anyone likes it or not. The only questions are how libertarian that party will be, and what role it will play.

  I think it is in the interests of the libertarian movement for a political party called the Libertarian Party to be strongly libertarian. If it is not, then we are undermining the progress that has been made over the past few decades -- which the LP has had a lot to do with -- in educating the public about the philosophy of libertarianism, and what it means to be libertarian.

  The restrictive ballot access laws John alludes to are a direct product ofDemocrat and Republicans seeking to prevent alternative parties and candidates from challenging their monopolistic two-party cartel. To say that "the LP will never get past that" is to say that the libertarians seeking to reform the GOP will fail, because if they succeed, one of the measures of that success will be the elimination of the GOP's anti-democratic restrictions on ballot access, participating in candidate debates, etc.

  Meanwhile, the LP can and does do a lot of good in various areas. Locally, we have had numerous ballot arguments published in the voter handbook that have generally done a better job arguing the case for freedom than the Republican Party's arguments have done. Nationwide, Libertarians have beaten back numerous bad laws and regulations, tax increases, and so on, as well as electing hundreds of people to state and local office, etc. The San Diego county LP alone has saved taxpayers billions of dollars. We also played a key part in Ron Paul's ability to accomplish what he did -- first by giving him a national platform when he ran for president on the LP ticket in 1988, then by helping him get reelected to Congress, and more recently by providing key grassroots support and impetus for his presidential campaigns that might not otherwise have taken off in the way they did. Certainly the LP is not just a "social club" or "debate society" -- these are old tropes that don't really have any concrete relevance. Certainly individual Libertarians *can* use the LP as a community in which to debate or socialize, but individuals in the GOP can do the same thing. Meanwhile, many of us will be doing actual activism.

  All this aside though, I want Libertarians to work with Republicans like John Howard, and support his efforts to advance libertarianism in the GOP, and I want Republicans like him to work with Libertarians and support our party's efforts to advance the cause. We can help each other and work toward our common goals. It is possible to attend and support Libertarian events without being a registered Libertarian (indeed, Ron Paul remains a life member of the LP). I have personally gone to numerous GOP events to support the libertarian cause, as well as supporting Ron Paul, John Dennis, Tom McClintock, and other liberty-leaning Republicans when they were the most pro-freedom candidates in their races.

Love & Liberty,
                                 ((( starchild )))

P.S. - Assemblyman Tim Donnelly was a featured speaker at the recent Libertarian Party convention in Sacramento. Did his own party give him that opportunity at its convention?

It means, as I have been trying to communicate for the last 10 years, language that can be understood by the general public, not just libertarian insiders. Nina posted an excellent remembrance of Goldwater -- good ideas going over people's head.

Marcy

Starchild,
I think there is not much to disagree with, either from you or John Howard.

John is a seasoned libertarian, working with the assets in his area in the best manner he sees fit.

His narrative of events suggests a reasonable point of view, especially if it brings larger numbers of people in closer alliance.

Meanwhile, we have much to build in our networks, so there are roots in the "grass roots" and not just blades, bending to the wind of a central organization.

I make no bones about my interest in putting the RP out of business in the nine Bay Area Counties. This doesn't mean there might not be new business under the same name, if that would be suitable. The problem with the brand is not whether we can shed its unsavory reputation here, but whether we cans shed its unsavory influences outside of the Bay Area.

Whatever the name, there will be a political home for the people who have been made homeless by the RP.

Maybe there will need to be two homes, with the LP...or three homes...

But in any case it is the "grass-roots" that will make the coalitions and alliances we need to win the contest we need to win.

John

________________________________
From: Starchild <sfdreamer@...>
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Cc: "john@..." <john@...>; "drthomas@naturedox.com" <drthomas@...>; 'Clayton Smith' <samizdat@...>; 'Mark Nebesky' <scoutneb@...>; 'Jim Finn' <jcfiii@...>; "tim@timhannanlaw.com" <tim@...>; 'Janice Edelstein' <janiceedelstein@comcast.net>; 'Marc Joffe' <joffemd@...>
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2013 6:26 PM
Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Last night's GOP meeting

In general I agree with John Bechtol. What we actually do is more important than which vehicle we use to do it.

That said, I must respectfully disagree with John Howard on numerous points.

I am not saying Ron Paul was lipstick on an elephant; I think his efforts to redefine the GOP as libertarian amounted to trying to *put* lipstick on an elephant -- and look how the elephant reacted, by marginalizing him, dissing his supporters, violating its own rules, and ramming through organizational roadblocks to further progress by libertarian Republicans.

As for being "tarnished", there's a difference between simply being (relatively) small and powerless compared with the establishment parties, and being actively responsible for bad things taking place. As one of those establishment parties, the GOP is seen as having negative baggage in ways that the LP just isn't.

Even if it were desirable for the Libertarian Party to simply fold and disband, which I don't think it is, that's simply not realistic. Why not? Because the party's name, and the ballot access it enjoys, are too valuable in political/market terms for the party to just quietly expire. If all the current LP members quit and went away and did something else, someone else would come in and take control of the LP and run with it. There is going to be a "Libertarian Party" in the United States for the foreseeable future regardless of whether anyone likes it or not. The only questions are how libertarian that party will be, and what role it will play.

I think it is in the interests of the libertarian movement for a political party called the Libertarian Party to be strongly libertarian. If it is not, then we are undermining the progress that has been made over the past few decades -- which the LP has had a lot to do with -- in educating the public about the philosophy of libertarianism, and what it means to be libertarian.

The restrictive ballot access laws John alludes to are a direct product ofDemocrat and Republicans seeking to prevent alternative parties and candidates from challenging their monopolistic two-party cartel. To say that "the LP will never get past that" is to say that the libertarians seeking to reform the GOP will fail, because if they succeed, one of the measures of that success will be the elimination of the GOP's anti-democratic restrictions on ballot access, participating in candidate debates, etc.

Meanwhile, the LP can and does do a lot of good in various areas. Locally, we have had numerous ballot arguments published in the voter handbook that have generally done a better job arguing the case for freedom than the Republican Party's arguments have done. Nationwide, Libertarians have beaten back numerous bad laws and regulations, tax increases, and so on, as well as electing hundreds of people to state and local office, etc. The San Diego county LP alone has saved taxpayers billions of dollars. We also played a key part in Ron Paul's ability to accomplish what he did -- first by giving him a national platform when he ran for president on the LP ticket in 1988, then by helping him get reelected to Congress, and more recently by providing key grassroots support and impetus for his presidential campaigns that might not otherwise have taken off in the way they did. Certainly the LP is not just a "social club" or "debate society" -- these are old

tropes that don't really have any concrete relevance. Certainly individual Libertarians *can* use the LP as a community in which to debate or socialize, but individuals in the GOP can do the same thing. Meanwhile, many of us will be doing actual activism.