Starchild:
I think your point here about different types of outreach is very
important. I'm personally at least as papyrocentric as the average
libertarian, so this stuff isn't me, but perhaps the world would be a
better place if it were.
Now it's "papyrocentric", besides "people-based outreach"! I tend to
be papyrocentric also, only because the papyrocentric approach lends
itself to perennial paucity of people power. However, I view
Starchild's rather ambitious list as do-able, if we committed
ourselves to ONE event per month. Here is a suggestion based on
Starchild's idea of bringing animals to events: Jawj takes in
homeless cats and puts them up for proper adoption (lots of cats!);
the SPCA does a land-office business when they bring their cages to a
street corner or a park; we could do the same, and publicize such an
event as a private (vs. government) solution to the problem of
homeless animals. Our constituency would be everyone who thinks
Libertarians are heartless. If Jawj is willing, is this event of
interest?
Marcy
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Acree, Michael" <acreem@o...>
wrote:
Starchild:
I think your point here about different types of outreach is very
important. I'm personally at least as papyrocentric as the average
libertarian, so this stuff isn't me, but perhaps the world would be
a
better place if it were.
From: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Starchild
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2005 12:09 AM
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Re: People-based outreachMarcy,
More outreach pieces, especially if they're locally focused,
can't
hurt! In fact, I'll volunteer to write a piece about San Francisco
history using some of the stuff that we dig up in connection with
the
walking tour project.
But at the same time we consider which groups to reach out to,
I'd
like to see us focus with equal emphasis on what *types* of
outreach we
can do. Written material has long been our main form of outreach;
i.e.
we have put a lot of resources into appealing to people who like
to
read about political issues and political philosophy. Here are a
few
different groups, and some ideas for types of outreach that might
be
effective at appealing to each of them:
movie-goers, film students, film industry
workers..............make
videos, show films
theater lovers, theater students, industry workers.............do
street theater skits
kids (& parents who tag
along).............................................put on puppet
shows,
have story-telling, carnival-type games
art lovers,
artists...............................................................
..
......make visual art, use creativity in getting our message out
rebels,
anti-
authoritarians......................................................pr
ac
tice civil disobedience, protests, subversive activities (e.g.
pirate
radio, confronting politicians, etc.)
teens.................................................................
..
.......................use rap/hip-hop, video games, to deliver
libertarian message
environmentalists, outdoors
enthusiasts.............................hold meetings & events
outdoors, sponsor clean-ups
animal
lovers................................................................
..
..........bring animals to events
djs, music lovers,
musicians..................................................organize
concerts & raves, offer opportunities to play or spin music or jam
at
LP events
teenagers,
students..............................................................
..
.offer cool stickers, posters, temporary tattoos, peer counseling
history buffs,
tourists..............................................................
..
offer walking tours
bicyclists............................................................
..
......................offer bicycle tours (similar material as
walking
tours but more area covered)
athletes, active
people............................................................play
volleyball, go river rafting, have paintball games, etc.
people looking for
friends.......................................................befriend
people
people looking for fun things to
do........................................organize more activities
people seeking spiritual
growth.............................................go on retreats,
have
readings/meditation sessions
people wanting to
learn...........................................................offer
mini-classes, internal education
people who like to
party..........................................................throw
parties
Note that some of this is as much about how we interact
among
ourselves as how we interact with the public. It is an ambitious
list
(though by no means an exhaustive one). I realize that we may lack
the
collective talents or inclination to do many of these things. On
the
other hand, if our group consisted mainly of musicians, or artists,
or
actors, or nature lovers, or basketball players, producing decent
articles and pamphlets about political issues and philosophy might
likewise be a project we were unable or reluctant to take on. And
if a
political group had to pick one thing to be good at, intelligent
written communication would probably be near the top of the list.
But
the fact remains that a party which can and does use many
different
types of outreach will be stronger and more effective than one
that
doesn't. I see two possible solutions to this dilemma -- start
going
outside our comfort zones and trying new things, or attract new
people
into the party who are comfortable doing different things than we
are
and have different talents than we do. Unfortunately, the latter
probably involves a little bit of the former.Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>P.S. - This may seem apropos of nothing, and on one level I find
it a
bit embarrassing, but one of our former national chairs once said
something rather interesting to me. It was near the end of one of
our
national conventions and I was eating lunch with him and his
family. We
were talking about the culture of the party and such, and I think I
had
said something about the danger of trying to make our party bland
and
non-threatening in order to appeal to mainstream, "normal" people,
when
he remarked, non-jokingly, that he thought I was one of the few
normal
people in the Libertarian Party and that we needed more normal
members.
This was *after* having seen me dressed in drag, wearing butterfly
wings and roller skates, and in numerous other unusual costumes at
our
conventions. Hmm...
> Mike,
>
> 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