Thanks very much, Marcy.
I will be out of town again for the August meeting, but conceivably I could get a page or two drafted while I'm on vacation, to submit for the September meeting.
Mike,
Enjoy your vacation. We look forward to seeing you in September.
Marcy
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Acree, Michael" <acreem@o...>
wrote:
Thanks very much, Marcy.
I will be out of town again for the August meeting, but conceivably
I could get a page or two drafted while I'm on vacation, to submit
for the September meeting.
From: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Amarcy D. Berry
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 6:57 PM
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Constituency-based marketingMike,
Sounds to me that I have succeeded in hooking you into a promise to
write a page for the website! If your piece on LGBT rights is any
indication, that page will be of extremely high quality. I would
love it if others came forward, as you have, to write an outreach
piece to the constituencies of their choice. Huuummm, I guess I
better get busy myself.Marcy
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Acree, Michael" <acreem@o...>
wrote:
> Marcy:
>
> Thanks for a generous and thoughtful reply. With my concerns
having been understood, I don't think we have any substantial
differences here.
>
> On the point about appeals to self-interest being insulting: I
think most of us would agree that a libertarian society was
ultimately to everyone's self-interest, even those, like current
government employees or aid recipients, who benefit materially from
the current system. Most politicians focus on self-interest in a
narrower, more short-term sense: How much money are you going to
get
from the government now? The latter pitch is implicitly insulting,
I
think, in implying that that's what most of us mainly care about;
and
it was that implication that I wanted to distance us from. But it
was a minor point in any case, not worth defending.
>
> You say that illegal drug users, nudists, and sex workers have
already been identified as LP constituencies. It's true that both
drug use and prostitution are mentioned in the platform, but I
haven't ever seen any discussion in Party literature of nudism or
government dress codes in general. That's one page I would
volunteer
to draft. If we end up with such a page on our website, I might
well
be able to call attention to it in a letter to the editor of _N_
magazine, the official organ of The Naturist Society, to which I
belong. I would also be willing to draft a page on children.
>
> Thanks again for the energy, optimism, fairness, and diplomacy
you
bring to the Chair.
>
> Mike
>
> From: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Amarcy D. Berry
> Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 6:43 PM
> To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Constituency-based marketing
>
>
> Mike,
>
> Thank you for your excellent analysis of CBM vs issues-based
> marketing. Although one of the best pieces of writing I ever saw
was
> your constituency-based brochure on LGBT rights, the majority of
LPSF
> members seem to define the LP in terms of issues rather than
> constituencies; which would be fine with me, except that given
the
> fact that we always receive such a low percentage of votes
perhaps
> some other definitions and approaches might be in order. It might
> even be in order to start with the very basics, a definition
> of "political party;" however, I will see if I can respond to
your
> concerns now, without the benefit of such a definition.
>
> 1. CBM does refer to the identification of one or a few target
> constituencies. Republicans have identified conservatives and
big
> businesses. Democrats have identified liberals and workers (wage
> earners, labor unions). Greens have identified proponents of big
> government and of a managed environment. You suggest that the
LPSF
> consider identifying drug users, nudists, sex workers, and
children
> (i.e. individuals who, as you say, the other parties ignore at
best
> and maltreat at worst). I submit that we already have identified
the
> first three; and if we choose to continue focusing on only those
> constituencies, we will continue to be unknown to the general
> population. I have no problem including those constituencies you
> mention in an LPSF outreach program, but I am suggesting not
limiting
> ourselves to them.
>
> 2. Mark Schreiber, as my handout indicates, is the author of the
> paper to which I referred at the meeting. Yes, he is
the "marketing
> director" of LP who was hired to brand the LP. He apparently
made
an
> argument to choose small business as the (apparently only) target
> constituency. In my opinion "branding" the LP is a poor choice
of
> words; which gives opponents of his plan a good platform from
which
> to shoot down his entire approach. Singling out only one group
seems
> provincial at best. My suggestion was to simply identify a few
> constituencies and tailor our outreach to each.
>
> 3. My handout of the Republican party website showed only one
page
> of the website. There were several other pages, many of which
dealt
> with issues, such as the war in Iraq. My suggestion was to *add*
> constituency as a strong approach to our outreach, not to discard
> issues. In answer to your question of what would I want to see on
the
> website of a party with which I was not familiar, I would say:
clear
> indication on how the party stood on issues. HOWEVER, as most, I
> would consciously or unconsciously be looking for issues that
effect
> me (CONSTITUENCY) personally. I submit that we cannot possibly
> design an effective website, or other outreach tool, without a
grasp
> on the subject of constituency.
>
> 4. I am puzzled by your comment that "There is a hint of insult
in
> CBM: It takes us all to be mainly self-interested in the
narrowest,
> most short-term sense." I have no problem admitting that many
of
my
> actions are the result of self-interest, short term and long
term.
> Capitalism, which the LP espouses, is often described as a group
> voluntarily interacting in individual self interest; nothing
narrow
> or short term about that.
>
> 5. I completely agree with you that the LP does not view
government
> as a "bag of treats." There is a significant difference between
> telling a group what the party can do for them (liberal
approach),
> and telling a group how a party can help them get government off
> their backs so they can flourish (libertarian approach).
>
> 6. I would love it if you and other volunteers drafted some web
> pages, as you have offered to do. I suggest we proceed in the
manner
> that Phil Berg briefly described at the last meeting
(unfortunately,
> we had to end the discussion because of the vote on the Iraq
> Resolution): Volunteers pick a constituency (or constituencies)
they
> want to address and design outreach material that would be of
> interest to that particular constituency (or constituencies).
>
> Mike, thanks again for your input. I would also welcome the
input
of
> others.
>
> Marcy
>
> --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Acree, Michael"
<acreem@o...>
> wrote:
> > I was persuaded during Saturday's meeting that the idea of
> constituency-based marketing (CBM), properly implemented, may
have
> merit; but there are a couple of traps involved, so I wanted to
lay
> out the issues as I see them, partly for the benefit of members
who
> weren't at the meeting.
> >
> > It was natural for me to assume, in the first place, that CBM
> referred to the identification of one or a few target
constituencies,
> since the idea is most closely associated with the name of Mark
> Schreiber, who was behind the recent proposal to "brand" the LP
as
> the party of small business. Small business owners are
> unquestionably a very important constituency, in terms of both
their
> numbers and their treatment by the major parties; but evidently
many
> members besides me opposed the narrow identification of the LP
with
> any single such constituency, and I've heard no more about it.
The
> page Marcy circulated from the Republican Party website, on the
other
> hand, consisted of links for a large number (95?) of
constituencies-
-
> Arab Americans, Jewish Americans, evangelicals, and so on.
> >
> > I agree that a similar construction might be useful on an LP
> website--with this caveat: It strongly evokes the now-
traditional
> idea of a political party as Santa Claus, with something to offer
> everybody. We obviously don't have anything to offer except the
> promise to help get government out of people's lives, which they
may
> perceive as a benefit or not. Our identity as "The Party of
> Principle" really fits much better with an issue-oriented
approach
> than with a constituency-oriented approach. There is also a hint
of
> insult in CBM: It takes us all to be mainly self-interested in
the
> narrowest, most short-term sense. If you were browsing the
website
> of an unfamiliar party, would you want to know (a) where it
stood,
> for example, on the war in Iraq or Social Security, or (b) what
it
> had to offer, say, Brazilian Americans or labor unions?
> >
> > Nevertheless, there are many constituencies for whom getting
> government out of their lives would be a benefit--perhaps greater
> than they realize. Our most natural constituencies are all those
> groups--some large and some small--who are victims of victimless
> crime laws--who are not only neglected but actually persecuted by
the
> major parties. Probably the largest and most obvious of these is
> illegal drug users and their friends and families. That doesn't
> count all the people who would want to use those drugs if they
> weren't illegal. There are many other groups--e.g., nudists, sex
> workers--who may be comparatively small in themselves, but who
add
up
> to significant numbers. An even larger group than drug users is
> children. They are totally neglected by the major parties just
> because they have the status of slaves--of property; they can't
> vote. But, even under the present regime, they will be potential
> voters in the near future. These are all groups who won't find
> themselves on the constituency lists of any major party. Ralph
Raico
> did a tremendous service to the Party with his gay rights
pamphlet
> for the MacBride campaign in 1976--spelling out the implications
of
> the LP platform on issues like cross-dressing and gay marriage
for
> people who would never have bothered to read through the whole
> platform, or who might have doubted the implications of what they
> read. The CBM approach on a website can perhaps offer a similar
> benefit to people who define themselves in such terms, and I
would