I have changed my mind and decided now is the appropriate time to address what I did not agree with.
Over the past year I have seen attempt after attempt to "control" our messaging (whatever the heck that even means now) and each time it is defeated. And now, this is being used as a wedge to do it again when contained even within this post is the admission that it is not the Party message here that anyone is objecting to. Why is this being used to re-hash this yet again?
For instance, Joshua points out that unlike Larry and I he doesn't agree with the underlying message. Interesting. So which of us will be controlled then? Are we just taking about delivery? A need to be more empathetic? Tightly controlled empathy then? Also interesting. Because that wasn't the issue in the other arguments. For the record, I agree with empathatic delivery, and I agree, that we are selling a product - and we need good marketing - and that will include professional advice and assistance. But see here, there isn't even an agreement on what the underlying message is - since Joshua disagrees with what others of us have said. So what will be controlled? And this has to do this situation exactly how?
== It is our job, to agree with Mr. Somes, to construct a message so good, so coherent, so consistent, and broadcast so loud that no one: board member, candidate, or member, can be taken to speak for the party if they contradict that messaging or its tone. ==
Our message is already good and coherent and it is the Statement of Principles and the potentially transitional steps derived therein in our Platform. And we don't have the right to "change" it.
And we have been the most clear over the past year about our immigration stance, but that hasn't stopped controversies erupting over nationalism and other situations here that everyone is well aware of and doesn't need to be mentioned.
Which then leaves just the tone. But it isn't just the tone that Joshua disagreed with. And how in the world will our tone change what others do? We are not the dog. We are the tail. The affiliates are the dog, and the affiliates are our primary messengers. To think we are going to "control" that from on high is foolhardy. A great deal of them already refuse to use the chicken on a stick because they don't even appreciate our attempt to unify branding. Or we can expect more nuclear flaming middle fingers from affiliates who do not appreciate being tone-policed or otherwise "controlled" by the LNC. And I find it utopian (ironically) to think that we can magically be "so good, so coherent" so consistent, and broadcast so loud" that no one will ever be taken to speak otherwise. For instance, our presidential candidates often contradict key positions. Other candidates do too. Are they included in the "nobody"? Or take the very different personalities and tones of the contenders last run.. we are going to control that too? So a candidate that some thought was too boorish would never be taken to speak for the party? This is the stuff of dreams, not reality. It makes for good sloganeering not for accurate depictions of reality.
While I think we need to - as David Demarest as said - get some good professional assistance in targeted marking, none of that really has to do with this situation and none of that will make a message "so good, so coherent, so consistent, and broadcast so loud" that NO ONE will ever be taken to speak for us. Heck, on the fundamental question of anarchism v minarchism (yes let's get one of the elephants in the room out in the open) - this will control that? In violation of the Statement of Principles changes which take no position on the issue? The simple fact is that there are many ways to libertarian. And it is utterly impossible to "control" that nor should desire for that power.
This incident has absolutely ZERO to do with this near constant attempt at "messaging control" I have seen over the past year, and I am not pleased to see it capitalized upon this way. These were the words of an individual member speaking an individual opinion in an individual tone. A tone I disagreed with, and a tone for which that member has apologized (thank you for that Arvin).
I fear this is an example of not letting a good crisis go to waste. If we are removing the appropriateness of action against a personal opinion (and I am persuaded by that reasoning and Joshua really helped me there) then this has absolutely nothing to do with National Party messaging and it is not appropriate to use it as a wedge issue for same.
-Caryn Ann