VM & LPSF Membership Project

Activists List
1

I've been talking to the gay press a LOT more than usual over the last couple of months due to the Ron Paul situation -- and probably 10x more in the last week due to The New Republic's articles on Ron Paul's unsavory publishing exercises.

The way I see it, LPSF has two choices -- make the distinctions clear, or make them not clear. I can see one of two interview outcomes as a result of this, later this year.

Outcome 1:

Queer Press Guy: Hey Brian, thanks for talking to me.

Brian: My pleasure.

QPG: So I am just updating my coverage of the fallout from the Ron Paul press situation. Jamie Kirchik continues to publish ever-more-shocking findings about Ron Paul. You pointed out a lot of these troubling relationships a while back to your party, and they ridiculed you.

B: Yeah, but Jamie's story brought it out into the open. And most people saw at that point. They learned, no harm, no foul -- and it's pretty clear that Ron Paul's newsletters didn't reflect the LP's positions in the slightest.

QPG: Yes, but the LP is recruiting Ron Paul supporters.

B: Which isn't a problem -- when they're the sane ones. And the LPSF, my local party, explained the differences between the LP and Ron Paul on social issues through effective outreach communications... while underscoring the areas of commonality. Those attracted to Ron Paul's economic platform thus became Libertarians, while those who were attracted to his more, ehrm, *unconventional* positions on race, sexual orientation, etc. skeedaddled over to the Republican and Constitution Parties, where good little bigots belong. From a local level, to a state level, to the national level, the Libertarian Party has made it consistently known that it is a socially modern party for free people -- and has never supported, and never WILL support, the revenant and revolting positions from Ron Paul's publishing past.

QPG: Great, I'll write that up and report on how the LP has consistently opposed racism, sexism, and homophobia.

B: Coolio.

Outcome 2:

Queer Press Guy: Hey Brian, thanks for talking to me.

Brian: My pleasure.

QPG: So I am just updating my coverage of the fallout from the Ron Paul
press situation. Jamie Kirchik continues to publish ever-more-shocking
findings about Ron Paul. You pointed out a lot of these troubling
relationships a while back to your party, and they ridiculed you.

B: Yeah, and unfortunately there's been strong resistance to opposing the more right-wing unlibertarian elements of Ron Paul's policy, with a bit of a desperate effort to appeal to the far right for growth at any cost. As a result, our positions on social issues -- at a local level -- have been thrown in the garbage can to recruit all Ron Paul supporters, willy-nilly.

QPG: Your public list server seems to have people who think there are no racists or homophobes anywhere in San Francisco.

B: True. I disagree, of course.

QPG: Don't those people know about racist and homophobic broadcaster Michael Savage? He's based in San Francisco.

B: I know.

QPG: The SPLC indicates that San Francisco itself includes two racist hate groups, including an affiliate of Stormfront, and the Bay Area has another two dozen which almost certainly have members in San Francisco.

B: Dreadful, isn't it.

QPG: Are your party locals' heads in the sand?

B: I think they're not paying attention.

QPG: Pretty amazing, considering the Ron Paul situation and the fact that the head of neo-Nazi group Stormfront endorsed Ron Paul and gave him $500. And Ron Paul didn't return the money.

B: Appalling.

QPG: And doesn't it stand to reason that Stormfront's local affiliate in San Francisco would also consist of dozens -- if not hundreds -- of Ron Paul supporters as well, considering all the support he received from that group?

B: I'm no expert on the racist far right, but it seems pretty likely.

QPG: So how do you feel about your local party's effort to recruit Ron Paul supporters and resist the effort to ensure that some of those guys, along with other less desirable folks, remain outside the LP?

B: It's disappointing. You'll have to ask the folks on the list directly about it, because I don't understand the rationale.

QPG: It doesn't make the LP look good.

B: No, it doesn't. We've got a lot of work to do in modernizing our party and emphasizing that excuses for bigotry are never acceptable. But lots of us are working on it.

I know which scenario I'd prefer to have play out...

Cheers,

Brian

2

QPG: So I am just updating my coverage of the fallout from the Ron Paul
press situation. Jamie Kirchik continues to publish ever-more-shocking
findings about Ron Paul. You pointed out a lot of these troubling
relationships a while back to your party, and they ridiculed you.

B: Yeah, and unfortunately there's been strong resistance to opposing
the more right-wing unlibertarian elements of Ron Paul's policy, with a
bit of a desperate effort to appeal to the far right for growth at any
cost. As a result, our positions on social issues -- at a local level
-- have been thrown in the garbage can to recruit all Ron Paul
supporters, willy-nilly.

I certainly was not suggesting we throw our social positions in the
garbage can to recruit Ron Paul supporters. Indeed, since pretty much
every San Francisco Ron Paul supporter I've talked to (and I've talked to
many) is very socially liberal (many of them are more socially liberal
than I am, in fact), modifying our social positions wouldn't draw in more
SF Ron Paul supporters anyway. I was just saying I don't think we need to
be paranoid about a bunch of racist Ron Paul supporters attempting to
"infiltrate" the LPSF, as if there's much of any structure right now that
would really be worth commandeering.

QPG: Your public list server seems to have people who think there are no
racists or homophobes anywhere in San Francisco.

That's not at all what I was saying. I was saying that such people are
not represented in the Ron Paul campaign here. In fact (excuse my blatant
identity politics for a minute here), the SF Ron Paul campaign has a
significantly higher percentage of women and minorities than the LPSF
does, making it much more representative of San Francisco than we are. I
would also estimate that about 10% of the Ron Paul activists in SF are
gay, which would make it relatively representative of San Francisco as
well.

As a sidenote, this list isn't public: the archives are private and
membership is restricted to known LP activists.

QPG: Don't those people know about racist and homophobic broadcaster
Michael Savage? He's based in San Francisco.

Is he a Ron Paul supporter?

QPG: The SPLC indicates that San Francisco itself includes two racist
hate groups, including an affiliate of Stormfront, and the Bay Area has
another two dozen which almost certainly have members in San Francisco.

I haven't heard or seen anything about any racist affiliates of San
Francisco being active in Ron Paul events, and given the large number of
minorities and gays active in the Ron Paul campaign in SF, they probably
wouldn't feel very at home there, either.

QPG: And doesn't it stand to reason that Stormfront's local affiliate in
San Francisco would also consist of dozens -- if not hundreds -- of Ron
Paul supporters as well, considering all the support he received from
that group?

If the Stormfront affiliate in San Francisco has more than 5 members
total, much less 5 members actively supporting Ron Paul, I'd be shocked.
Many racist hate groups exist only online and have no actual meetings.

Jeremy