Re: [Lnc-business] I Do Not Agree With What You Say...
Our principles are immaculate. However we need to connect with people as human beings. It has nothing to do with our platform, it had to do with our mindset. Human beings make decisions based on emotion. Thanks, Patrick McKnight Region 8 Rep On May 18, 2017 9:07 AM, "Caryn Ann Harlos" <carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote: David- Agree and disagree (which proves your point - we are individuals - but bravo! Well spoken!). Our Platform speaks on some things clearly. Let me name one that I disagree with- abortion. But it speaks clearly so I NEVER give the impression that the Party is not pro-choice. Yet on so many issues we are not messaging the clear Party position- such as no force-financed education or no state mandated healthcare (I could name others including anti-war in anything but strict defense). We shy away particularly here. In that instance I agree that we should be saying those core positions so loudly, so strongly, etc that no one will mistake the "Party" position which may or may not be our own (like me with abortion). But tone? Other people are going to use their tone. We are not Stepford Libertarians and the idea that national is going to the grand conductor of tone so that no one will ever mistake a candidate or other prominent person for us is pure unadulterated fantasy. Great for campaign sloganeering and propo but not in practice. *I would suggest also that it's bad form to use someone's campaign materials aiming for a colleagues position as a point in a debate about policy and using this list to potentially indicate support for said candidacy.* or that is how it could be taken and we must not appear that way on this list. Other things or even the path to the things above are not so cut and dried. And it is in those areas we should fear mightily any forcing of a unified voice indeed and embrace diversity - the way our SoP does with mini or no state. They both exist and are welcome in this Party despite the divisive attempts of some to expunge that inconvenient truth (not anyone here or any comment here) Our messaging strategy should be clearly to state our actual platform - our actual SoP- and as this body in 2010 said are the two foundational pillars of Libertarianusm - *non aggression and self ownership* and expect there will be diversity in how that is done. Professional advice would be foolish to dismiss and that should be explored again particularly in social media targeting. But this undercurrent of using each thing as an opportunity to try to assert top down control is something I will call out and resist every time. It won't work and it's bad. Control of our message is the Statement of Principles (not optional and fixed though enough attempts have been made to bury it over the years) and the Platform which is up to the delegates. We should be so clear that it doesn't matter when our top ticket argues for gun control. We don't. It should be clear that is the Party position. We should not hesitate to show the Platform speaks to that. We should not hesitate to show that consistent non-force speaks to others. But within that there are different paths and ideas. But we have NOT been as clear or bold as we should be on the twin pillars of non aggression and self ownership. But using this issue of a personal page to this issue strikes me as a bit opportunistic to a preexisting agenda. Let's not be like the other parties in that. Nothing in a messaging strategy would have had a thing to do with personal posts on a personal wall for which an apology happened. -Caryn Ann On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 5:39 AM David Demarest <dpdemarest@centurylink.net> wrote:
The problem is that we as a group of “like-minded” politically-oriented people cannot agree on a core message beyond more freedom and less government (MFLG). As I have often said, there are at least as many Libertarian philosophies as there are Libertarians. Even among loose alliances within the LNC, we do not agree on message content details. Between alliances, we even disagree on core principles. The notion of all of us agreeing to and promoting a detailed common core message beyond MFLG is a flight of fancy and the stuff that statism and puppet masters are made of. The fact remains that groups are not living breathing entities. The notion that groups can have a freely agreed upon unified voice and message is pure unadulterated philosophical nonsense. Groups are conglomerates of individuals with individual voices. Without a police state, it is not possible for groups to have a single voice. Frankly, a group that could or would speak with a single voice would scare the hell out of me. We cannot and should not attempt to speak with one voice. Beware of those who would attempt to force us to speak with one voice. That is the message of statism that we as Libertarians are or should be fighting tooth and nail.
I happen to be one Libertarian that thinks education is a key component of our political action mission. However, if we have difficulty gaining a consensus without protracted debates on even simple political actions such as resolutions on Cuban Libertarian prisoners and medical cannabis and token support for activist candidates, how can we agree on education as part of our mission and what the education message should be? What to do?
Our diversity is a wonderful thing to be embraced. Let us celebrate that diversity that is loosely focused on MFLG and leverage it to empower ourselves as individuals who can go forth and deliver our own diverse individual educational messages of freedom. Point of fact, many or most of us are already delivering our own educational messages. We can have healthy open forum and institutional debates as to the merits of message content details and delivery techniques. However, attempts to muzzle the messages of individual Libertarians and outspoken elected officials beyond delegate elections is fraught with the dangers of statism. As long as I live and breathe, no political party will ever throttle my message short of the use of force.
I believe these recent incidents are fortuitous opportunities to rethink and repurpose our Libertarian institutions to focus on using our inspirational food-for-thought diversity to empower individuals. The flip side of our diversity is the difficulty in getting the consensus required for anything more that relatively trivial actions. However, that lack of consensus does not or should not prevent inspired and empowered individual Libertarians from accomplishing the bulk of Libertarian action as bottom-up volunteers, entrepreneurs and activists and even top-down elected officials. Let’s stop fooling ourselves on controlled unified message content and delivery technique. Through trial and error and healthy debate, we can build our army of empowered individual Libertarians armed with their arsenal of individual message content and delivery techniques who will get us where we want to go. Our Libertarian institution think-tank cauldrons of inspirational diversity have the potential to be a key part of the process of empowering individuals. Let us free ourselves from the bonds of the groupthink and groupspeak, repurpose our institutions and get on with the business of freedom beyond mere MFLG.
Our recent incidents are an opportunistic call to action. What must we do to repurpose our institutions to focus on empowering individual activists and messengers? Now is the time to get past our differences and leverage our diversity to think outside the box. Let the debates begin.
Thoughts?
~David
*Dec 28-Jan 1 Omaha Roads to Liberty Un-Convention*
~David Pratt Demarest
LNC Region 6 Representative (IA, IL, MN, MO, ND, NE, WI)
Secretary, LPNE State Central Committee
Cell: 402-981-6469 <(402)%20981-6469>
Home: 402-493-0873 <(402)%20493-0873>
*From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org] *On Behalf Of *Caryn Ann Harlos *Sent:* Thursday, May 18, 2017 5:01 AM *To:* lnc-business@hq.lp.org *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] I Do Not Agree With What You Say...
If we are talking "messaging problem" - with the exception of the lying word and a couple other turns of phrases I do not agree with, he is absolutely correct.
He is asking we boldly stand on our Platform and the SoP and educate newcomers to our actual positions.
Now THAT is a messaging problem we DO have. And it goes way beyond tone issues of an individual member on a personal way.
Part of our Bylaws mandated roles is to educate people about our core principles and whether in a platform or not they lead to no exchange that is not voluntary, no government interference that violates negative rights, no siezing of resources without consent.
We are not teaching people that thus is what our Statement of Principles says and the Platform is derived theherefrom. I have Libertarians shocked we oppose ALL eminent domain. Because we often deliver less than that in messaging.
Sieving upon the obviously rhetorical over the top flourishes of Arvin that I have avoided is the stuff of FB and should not be our tactic here to avoid the point of what he is saying.
We have always stood for eliminating all involuntary market transactions and asset sieving including taxation, public school, government healthcare etc. but we are not consistently telling people that while still accepting there may be steps from one point to another - we have made a certain step our position and failed to declare the goal. Over and over.
That is our messaging problem in education and outreach.
To anticipate Daniel's question to me- I will say - irrelevant to this discussion and if anyone insists to make it relevant, I will discuss when the special election is over next week and not sooner.
-Caryn Ann
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 3:25 AM Daniel Hayes <danielehayes@icloud.com> wrote:
Arvin,
So most of our candidates are now liars? Weak voices for Liberty?
What kind of steward of our donors money are you. You just voted to give $5000 to someone that doesn't match up on many areas of our platform. Which way is it? Where are your morals?
The REAL libertarian platform would be NONE. Leave our Statement of Principles. Maybe the Omissions plank. Danny Bedwell can tell you I have been advocating for this since at least my first convention in 2014. He kept turning around to me during platform saying, "Why are they telling me what I am supposed to think as a candidate?!" To that I replied, "I'm with ya Danny!"
I am constantly amazed at how authoritarian Libertarians are with regards to telling other people how they MUST think.
So what I am taking away from your email is that you want to cater to the growing segment of the populace that is more actively apathetic to voting than any other demographic. In turn you seem to want to turn off the segments of voters that vote more often than the average demographic.
Once again, your words don't match your recent actions. Why would you give money to a candidate you thought was weak? Is it because its mostly other people's money?
Are we to be a "pure" echo chamber or a party that works to be inclusive of many and that finds areas of common interest for people to work together on to protect and restore our Liberty?
Daniel Hayes
LNC At Large Member
Sent from my iPhone
On May 18, 2017, at 2:53 AM, Arvin Vohra <votevohra@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi All -
During the last months, I've traveled to many state conventions, interviewed many candidates, and kept track of the mood here in DC. In its current form, much of our messaging is largely opposed to our platform, and so anemic as to be politically irrelevant.
We have an education secretary that everyone thinks wants to end all government education. Whether this is true or not matters less than the fact that is what people think and say about her. Our platform is better than hers, as it involves complete elimination of government education and also tax funded education subsidies.
But despite what our platform specifically states, much of the messaging is far softer than the Republicans. Most of the educational messaging I hear and see is not even at the Republican lite level; it's just Republican Weak.
In discussions of healthcare and welfare, I'm seeing the same thing. Our platform is crystal clear on this: get government completely out of healthcare. Messaging? Nowhere near that.
It seems that this is motivated by an attempt to grow the party numerically by essentially tricking people into identifying with the word Libertarian, and then hope they magically develop Libertarian views. But the actual effect is to mislead, bring people in who do not know what Libertarianism is, then have them represent us with a further watered down message, etc. While many sign the NAP, it's not at all clear that they understand the specific policy implications.
In this process, we are losing our natural allies. Although the anarcho-capitalism movement is exploding through social media, most are Trump supporters. In other words, in our desperate attempt to get those who worship public schools and the military with a message of pro-status quo state worship, we are losing our most obvious base. There are those who actually agree with the big parts of our platform but are put off by the simple fact that we never talk about the big, anti-establishment issues, and fixate entirely on marijuana and occasionally alcohol.
I hear more Libertarians arguing in favor of universal welfare than I hear arguing in favor of ending all welfare. I hear many more discussions about eliminating minor alcohol restrictions than the big issues that comprise most of the money stolen from us: healthcare, education, military, and social security.
This has gone far past an issue of messaging. I bet that if today, we did a poll among Libertarian active donors, we'd see a minority that favored all of our positions on these critical issues, and I doubt we'd be even at 80 percent that favored our positions on even one of these issues.
This can be addressed through either education or outreach. If we go the education route, I recommend an automated email series to educate new people on our actual positions. If it's outreach, I'd recommend we stop lying about our position at the national, state, and especially candidate level. Phrase them nice, mean, calm, explosively, however. But for the love of god phrase them somehow.
Let's grow the Libertarian party, not the "I want to identify with a trendy word" party.
If we stop lying, will we lose some people? Maybe a few. But we'll also be welcoming the people who most strongly agree with our positions.
-Arvin
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 12:36 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos < carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:
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
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 3:12 PM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty@gmail.com> wrote:
Colleagues:
Like the many members we have heard from lately, I disagree strongly with recent comments of one of our members. I feel they are politically backward, and I wish they would stop because of the embarrassment they can bring on this party, and because they lack an appreciation of nuance, in my opinion. Nor is it my position that, as I've seen some claiming, these comments are "true but embarrassing." I am not one who believes that we need to hold back some sacred truths of liberty from the unwashed masses. I often am embarrassed by statements precisely because I think they are wrong - either false or, perhaps more commonly, in that realm of failing to be either true or false.
I am primarily writing, though, to let you know that I would vote 'no' on any of the proposed measures, including censure and suspension. I would vote no because I do not agree that LNC members are never "off the clock." Yes, it is true, people know who we are, and we can never, really, take off our "hats" in public. That's one reason I strive for a low social media profile - that's my personal vision of the position. But when I speak about politics, and do not identify my speech as that of the LP, I do not expect this body to sit in judgment of its truth or its effectiveness.
I believe that censure and suspension are best reserved for unacceptable activities carried out within office. I do not believe it is appropriate to define anything we do which touches on politics as 'within office.' As I've discussed before, in my view we each have almost no power, with some exceptions, except as members of this body. Our power is to vote, not to direct things ourselves. This cuts both ways. We do not have the power to speak for the LP, as individuals, except when specifically given this power by the bylaws or by an appropriate resolution or motion. Lacking that power, we cannot do it wrong.
Furthermore, we do not choose our chair and vice-chair. They are elected by the delegates. I resent the implication that a few outspoken members should, through LNC action, undo the will of the convention. It is not our job, if we think that actions of the delegates have led to insensitive messaging, to try to reverse those actions.
It is our job, on a semi-related note, to control our own messaging. Complaining about FB posts from one of our members is easier than thinking carefully about what we do and how we do it, but it is not a solution. 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. If we believe that one person, speaking on a platform not provided by this party, can derail our message, then shame on us.
Further, that hasn't happened. It is primarily our own people who are angry. I myself am offended, in addition to disagreeing, but I do not see outrage outside Libertarian circles. It will be objected that this is because of our small size and relative lack of success, that if we were larger, we could not afford to be silent. That may very well be true. Yet the world is as it is, and we can afford to be silent, and, in my opinion, should. Furthermore, if we were in the position described, it is also true that our own messaging would be better. I say let's deal with the meme in our own eye before criticizing extra-party messaging. (As an individual, I feel free to criticize, I am speaking about this board's activities.)
Is there any allegation that a member of this board has violated a fiduciary responsibility, has double-dealt for personal gain or gain of others, or has in any way done anything wrong in their party capacity? As far as I am aware, there is not. We are speaking about a person who has, in my view, governed well. We do not always agree, but I always respect his opinions and decisions - and I appreciate that he treats mine the same. Our job is to govern the party - Mr. Vohra does that very well. The vice-chair has additional duties: no one has made any allegation that these were carried out badly or incorrectly. Until I see allegations about those (and I am confident there are none, Mr. Vohra fulfills those responsibilities just fine) I will vote no on any motion on this topic.
In other news, the President of the United States may have revealed classified information to the Russian Foreign Minister and compromised an Israeli source. The travel ban is still working its way through the courts. The Republicans in the House have done what we thought was impossible: found a way to make the ACA more freedom-destroying. Democrats and Republicans are working in lockstep to attack prosperity and the freedom of all, around the world, through nationalist-protectionist policies. I would like to see this party focused on electing Libertarians to office who are serious about, and effective in, addressing these and other issues. In addition to rolling back the size and scope of government, I'd like to see our elected officials simply managing the thing more competently than the corrupt members of the other parties have shown themselves capable of doing. After all, a more effective government will require, in my opinion, a smaller, less powerful government. The government cannot be competent in doing tasks far beyond its competence. So yes, I'd like to see us not insulting key groups of voters or making other political missteps. I'd like to see us prioritize policy over both personal attacks and abstractions - while remembering that we can inspire not just with pocketbook issues, but also with the power of what is right and with strong ideals.
Joshua A. Katz
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
--
*In Liberty,*
*Caryn Ann Harlos*
Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org>
Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org>
Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
*We defend your rights*
*And oppose the use of force*
*Taxation is theft*
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
--
Arvin Vohra
www.VoteVohra.com VoteVohra@gmail.com (301) 320-3634
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
--
*In Liberty,*
*Caryn Ann Harlos*
Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org>
Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org>
Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
*We defend your rights*
*And oppose the use of force*
*Taxation is theft*
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee A haiku to the Statement of Principles: *We defend your rights* *And oppose the use of force* *Taxation is theft* _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
I agree Patrick and speak to that in my responses. But that is not going to control individual speech (*though I would wish individual Libertarians would keep that in mind*) and using an issue of individual speech as some kind of LNC mandate that national can control individual tone anywhere and everywhere and if it could, it should. Libertarians notoriously do not like being controlled particularly from on high. -Caryn Ann On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 7:20 AM Patrick McKnight < patrick.joseph.mcknight@gmail.com> wrote:
Our principles are immaculate. However we need to connect with people as human beings. It has nothing to do with our platform, it had to do with our mindset. Human beings make decisions based on emotion.
Thanks, Patrick McKnight Region 8 Rep
On May 18, 2017 9:07 AM, "Caryn Ann Harlos" <carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:
David-
Agree and disagree (which proves your point - we are individuals - but bravo! Well spoken!). Our Platform speaks on some things clearly. Let me name one that I disagree with- abortion. But it speaks clearly so I NEVER give the impression that the Party is not pro-choice. Yet on so many issues we are not messaging the clear Party position- such as no force-financed education or no state mandated healthcare (I could name others including anti-war in anything but strict defense). We shy away particularly here. In that instance I agree that we should be saying those core positions so loudly, so strongly, etc that no one will mistake the "Party" position which may or may not be our own (like me with abortion). But tone? Other people are going to use their tone. We are not Stepford Libertarians and the idea that national is going to the grand conductor of tone so that no one will ever mistake a candidate or other prominent person for us is pure unadulterated fantasy. Great for campaign sloganeering and propo but not in practice.
*I would suggest also that it's bad form to use someone's campaign materials aiming for a colleagues position as a point in a debate about policy and using this list to potentially indicate support for said candidacy.* or that is how it could be taken and we must not appear that way on this list.
Other things or even the path to the things above are not so cut and dried. And it is in those areas we should fear mightily any forcing of a unified voice indeed and embrace diversity - the way our SoP does with mini or no state. They both exist and are welcome in this Party despite the divisive attempts of some to expunge that inconvenient truth (not anyone here or any comment here)
Our messaging strategy should be clearly to state our actual platform - our actual SoP- and as this body in 2010 said are the two foundational pillars of Libertarianusm - *non aggression and self ownership* and expect there will be diversity in how that is done.
Professional advice would be foolish to dismiss and that should be explored again particularly in social media targeting.
But this undercurrent of using each thing as an opportunity to try to assert top down control is something I will call out and resist every time. It won't work and it's bad.
Control of our message is the Statement of Principles (not optional and fixed though enough attempts have been made to bury it over the years) and the Platform which is up to the delegates.
We should be so clear that it doesn't matter when our top ticket argues for gun control. We don't. It should be clear that is the Party position. We should not hesitate to show the Platform speaks to that.
We should not hesitate to show that consistent non-force speaks to others. But within that there are different paths and ideas. But we have NOT been as clear or bold as we should be on the twin pillars of non aggression and self ownership.
But using this issue of a personal page to this issue strikes me as a bit opportunistic to a preexisting agenda. Let's not be like the other parties in that.
Nothing in a messaging strategy would have had a thing to do with personal posts on a personal wall for which an apology happened.
-Caryn Ann
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 5:39 AM David Demarest <dpdemarest@centurylink.net> wrote:
The problem is that we as a group of “like-minded” politically-oriented people cannot agree on a core message beyond more freedom and less government (MFLG). As I have often said, there are at least as many Libertarian philosophies as there are Libertarians. Even among loose alliances within the LNC, we do not agree on message content details. Between alliances, we even disagree on core principles. The notion of all of us agreeing to and promoting a detailed common core message beyond MFLG is a flight of fancy and the stuff that statism and puppet masters are made of. The fact remains that groups are not living breathing entities. The notion that groups can have a freely agreed upon unified voice and message is pure unadulterated philosophical nonsense. Groups are conglomerates of individuals with individual voices. Without a police state, it is not possible for groups to have a single voice. Frankly, a group that could or would speak with a single voice would scare the hell out of me. We cannot and should not attempt to speak with one voice. Beware of those who would attempt to force us to speak with one voice. That is the message of statism that we as Libertarians are or should be fighting tooth and nail.
I happen to be one Libertarian that thinks education is a key component of our political action mission. However, if we have difficulty gaining a consensus without protracted debates on even simple political actions such as resolutions on Cuban Libertarian prisoners and medical cannabis and token support for activist candidates, how can we agree on education as part of our mission and what the education message should be? What to do?
Our diversity is a wonderful thing to be embraced. Let us celebrate that diversity that is loosely focused on MFLG and leverage it to empower ourselves as individuals who can go forth and deliver our own diverse individual educational messages of freedom. Point of fact, many or most of us are already delivering our own educational messages. We can have healthy open forum and institutional debates as to the merits of message content details and delivery techniques. However, attempts to muzzle the messages of individual Libertarians and outspoken elected officials beyond delegate elections is fraught with the dangers of statism. As long as I live and breathe, no political party will ever throttle my message short of the use of force.
I believe these recent incidents are fortuitous opportunities to rethink and repurpose our Libertarian institutions to focus on using our inspirational food-for-thought diversity to empower individuals. The flip side of our diversity is the difficulty in getting the consensus required for anything more that relatively trivial actions. However, that lack of consensus does not or should not prevent inspired and empowered individual Libertarians from accomplishing the bulk of Libertarian action as bottom-up volunteers, entrepreneurs and activists and even top-down elected officials. Let’s stop fooling ourselves on controlled unified message content and delivery technique. Through trial and error and healthy debate, we can build our army of empowered individual Libertarians armed with their arsenal of individual message content and delivery techniques who will get us where we want to go. Our Libertarian institution think-tank cauldrons of inspirational diversity have the potential to be a key part of the process of empowering individuals. Let us free ourselves from the bonds of the groupthink and groupspeak, repurpose our institutions and get on with the business of freedom beyond mere MFLG.
Our recent incidents are an opportunistic call to action. What must we do to repurpose our institutions to focus on empowering individual activists and messengers? Now is the time to get past our differences and leverage our diversity to think outside the box. Let the debates begin.
Thoughts?
~David
*Dec 28-Jan 1 Omaha Roads to Liberty Un-Convention*
~David Pratt Demarest
LNC Region 6 Representative (IA, IL, MN, MO, ND, NE, WI)
Secretary, LPNE State Central Committee
Cell: 402-981-6469 <(402)%20981-6469>
Home: 402-493-0873 <(402)%20493-0873>
*From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org] *On Behalf Of *Caryn Ann Harlos *Sent:* Thursday, May 18, 2017 5:01 AM *To:* lnc-business@hq.lp.org *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] I Do Not Agree With What You Say...
If we are talking "messaging problem" - with the exception of the lying word and a couple other turns of phrases I do not agree with, he is absolutely correct.
He is asking we boldly stand on our Platform and the SoP and educate newcomers to our actual positions.
Now THAT is a messaging problem we DO have. And it goes way beyond tone issues of an individual member on a personal way.
Part of our Bylaws mandated roles is to educate people about our core principles and whether in a platform or not they lead to no exchange that is not voluntary, no government interference that violates negative rights, no siezing of resources without consent.
We are not teaching people that thus is what our Statement of Principles says and the Platform is derived theherefrom. I have Libertarians shocked we oppose ALL eminent domain. Because we often deliver less than that in messaging.
Sieving upon the obviously rhetorical over the top flourishes of Arvin that I have avoided is the stuff of FB and should not be our tactic here to avoid the point of what he is saying.
We have always stood for eliminating all involuntary market transactions and asset sieving including taxation, public school, government healthcare etc. but we are not consistently telling people that while still accepting there may be steps from one point to another - we have made a certain step our position and failed to declare the goal. Over and over.
That is our messaging problem in education and outreach.
To anticipate Daniel's question to me- I will say - irrelevant to this discussion and if anyone insists to make it relevant, I will discuss when the special election is over next week and not sooner.
-Caryn Ann
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 3:25 AM Daniel Hayes <danielehayes@icloud.com> wrote:
Arvin,
So most of our candidates are now liars? Weak voices for Liberty?
What kind of steward of our donors money are you. You just voted to give $5000 to someone that doesn't match up on many areas of our platform. Which way is it? Where are your morals?
The REAL libertarian platform would be NONE. Leave our Statement of Principles. Maybe the Omissions plank. Danny Bedwell can tell you I have been advocating for this since at least my first convention in 2014. He kept turning around to me during platform saying, "Why are they telling me what I am supposed to think as a candidate?!" To that I replied, "I'm with ya Danny!"
I am constantly amazed at how authoritarian Libertarians are with regards to telling other people how they MUST think.
So what I am taking away from your email is that you want to cater to the growing segment of the populace that is more actively apathetic to voting than any other demographic. In turn you seem to want to turn off the segments of voters that vote more often than the average demographic.
Once again, your words don't match your recent actions. Why would you give money to a candidate you thought was weak? Is it because its mostly other people's money?
Are we to be a "pure" echo chamber or a party that works to be inclusive of many and that finds areas of common interest for people to work together on to protect and restore our Liberty?
Daniel Hayes
LNC At Large Member
Sent from my iPhone
On May 18, 2017, at 2:53 AM, Arvin Vohra <votevohra@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi All -
During the last months, I've traveled to many state conventions, interviewed many candidates, and kept track of the mood here in DC. In its current form, much of our messaging is largely opposed to our platform, and so anemic as to be politically irrelevant.
We have an education secretary that everyone thinks wants to end all government education. Whether this is true or not matters less than the fact that is what people think and say about her. Our platform is better than hers, as it involves complete elimination of government education and also tax funded education subsidies.
But despite what our platform specifically states, much of the messaging is far softer than the Republicans. Most of the educational messaging I hear and see is not even at the Republican lite level; it's just Republican Weak.
In discussions of healthcare and welfare, I'm seeing the same thing. Our platform is crystal clear on this: get government completely out of healthcare. Messaging? Nowhere near that.
It seems that this is motivated by an attempt to grow the party numerically by essentially tricking people into identifying with the word Libertarian, and then hope they magically develop Libertarian views. But the actual effect is to mislead, bring people in who do not know what Libertarianism is, then have them represent us with a further watered down message, etc. While many sign the NAP, it's not at all clear that they understand the specific policy implications.
In this process, we are losing our natural allies. Although the anarcho-capitalism movement is exploding through social media, most are Trump supporters. In other words, in our desperate attempt to get those who worship public schools and the military with a message of pro-status quo state worship, we are losing our most obvious base. There are those who actually agree with the big parts of our platform but are put off by the simple fact that we never talk about the big, anti-establishment issues, and fixate entirely on marijuana and occasionally alcohol.
I hear more Libertarians arguing in favor of universal welfare than I hear arguing in favor of ending all welfare. I hear many more discussions about eliminating minor alcohol restrictions than the big issues that comprise most of the money stolen from us: healthcare, education, military, and social security.
This has gone far past an issue of messaging. I bet that if today, we did a poll among Libertarian active donors, we'd see a minority that favored all of our positions on these critical issues, and I doubt we'd be even at 80 percent that favored our positions on even one of these issues.
This can be addressed through either education or outreach. If we go the education route, I recommend an automated email series to educate new people on our actual positions. If it's outreach, I'd recommend we stop lying about our position at the national, state, and especially candidate level. Phrase them nice, mean, calm, explosively, however. But for the love of god phrase them somehow.
Let's grow the Libertarian party, not the "I want to identify with a trendy word" party.
If we stop lying, will we lose some people? Maybe a few. But we'll also be welcoming the people who most strongly agree with our positions.
-Arvin
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 12:36 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos < carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:
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
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 3:12 PM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty@gmail.com> wrote:
Colleagues:
Like the many members we have heard from lately, I disagree strongly with recent comments of one of our members. I feel they are politically backward, and I wish they would stop because of the embarrassment they can bring on this party, and because they lack an appreciation of nuance, in my opinion. Nor is it my position that, as I've seen some claiming, these comments are "true but embarrassing." I am not one who believes that we need to hold back some sacred truths of liberty from the unwashed masses. I often am embarrassed by statements precisely because I think they are wrong - either false or, perhaps more commonly, in that realm of failing to be either true or false.
I am primarily writing, though, to let you know that I would vote 'no' on any of the proposed measures, including censure and suspension. I would vote no because I do not agree that LNC members are never "off the clock." Yes, it is true, people know who we are, and we can never, really, take off our "hats" in public. That's one reason I strive for a low social media profile - that's my personal vision of the position. But when I speak about politics, and do not identify my speech as that of the LP, I do not expect this body to sit in judgment of its truth or its effectiveness.
I believe that censure and suspension are best reserved for unacceptable activities carried out within office. I do not believe it is appropriate to define anything we do which touches on politics as 'within office.' As I've discussed before, in my view we each have almost no power, with some exceptions, except as members of this body. Our power is to vote, not to direct things ourselves. This cuts both ways. We do not have the power to speak for the LP, as individuals, except when specifically given this power by the bylaws or by an appropriate resolution or motion. Lacking that power, we cannot do it wrong.
Furthermore, we do not choose our chair and vice-chair. They are elected by the delegates. I resent the implication that a few outspoken members should, through LNC action, undo the will of the convention. It is not our job, if we think that actions of the delegates have led to insensitive messaging, to try to reverse those actions.
It is our job, on a semi-related note, to control our own messaging. Complaining about FB posts from one of our members is easier than thinking carefully about what we do and how we do it, but it is not a solution. 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. If we believe that one person, speaking on a platform not provided by this party, can derail our message, then shame on us.
Further, that hasn't happened. It is primarily our own people who are angry. I myself am offended, in addition to disagreeing, but I do not see outrage outside Libertarian circles. It will be objected that this is because of our small size and relative lack of success, that if we were larger, we could not afford to be silent. That may very well be true. Yet the world is as it is, and we can afford to be silent, and, in my opinion, should. Furthermore, if we were in the position described, it is also true that our own messaging would be better. I say let's deal with the meme in our own eye before criticizing extra-party messaging. (As an individual, I feel free to criticize, I am speaking about this board's activities.)
Is there any allegation that a member of this board has violated a fiduciary responsibility, has double-dealt for personal gain or gain of others, or has in any way done anything wrong in their party capacity? As far as I am aware, there is not. We are speaking about a person who has, in my view, governed well. We do not always agree, but I always respect his opinions and decisions - and I appreciate that he treats mine the same. Our job is to govern the party - Mr. Vohra does that very well. The vice-chair has additional duties: no one has made any allegation that these were carried out badly or incorrectly. Until I see allegations about those (and I am confident there are none, Mr. Vohra fulfills those responsibilities just fine) I will vote no on any motion on this topic.
In other news, the President of the United States may have revealed classified information to the Russian Foreign Minister and compromised an Israeli source. The travel ban is still working its way through the courts. The Republicans in the House have done what we thought was impossible: found a way to make the ACA more freedom-destroying. Democrats and Republicans are working in lockstep to attack prosperity and the freedom of all, around the world, through nationalist-protectionist policies. I would like to see this party focused on electing Libertarians to office who are serious about, and effective in, addressing these and other issues. In addition to rolling back the size and scope of government, I'd like to see our elected officials simply managing the thing more competently than the corrupt members of the other parties have shown themselves capable of doing. After all, a more effective government will require, in my opinion, a smaller, less powerful government. The government cannot be competent in doing tasks far beyond its competence. So yes, I'd like to see us not insulting key groups of voters or making other political missteps. I'd like to see us prioritize policy over both personal attacks and abstractions - while remembering that we can inspire not just with pocketbook issues, but also with the power of what is right and with strong ideals.
Joshua A. Katz
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
--
*In Liberty,*
*Caryn Ann Harlos*
Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org>
Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org>
Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
*We defend your rights*
*And oppose the use of force*
*Taxation is theft*
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
--
Arvin Vohra
www.VoteVohra.com VoteVohra@gmail.com (301) 320-3634
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
--
*In Liberty,*
*Caryn Ann Harlos*
Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org>
Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org>
Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
*We defend your rights*
*And oppose the use of force*
*Taxation is theft*
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
A haiku to the Statement of Principles: *We defend your rights* *And oppose the use of force* *Taxation is theft*
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee A haiku to the Statement of Principles: *We defend your rights* *And oppose the use of force* *Taxation is theft*
Agreeing with Mr. McKnight, I see simply another instance of us failing to differentiate the message from how it is expressed, although it so happens that I disagree with some of the content as well. As for agreeing with Mr. Somes, I refuse, in May 2017, to desist from expressing agreement with an LNC policy position because someone has declared a candidacy for May 2018 and said it. Call that bad form if you want, but I am not going to have the range of what I say narrowed by a race a year away. Finally, my position on our utter lack of a messaging strategy, which is only reinforced by most of the comments I've seen here which imply, to some extent, that a platform is a messaging strategy, is constant. It is a position I have taken, consistently, since I first joined this board in 2014. It is a position which is content-neutral - Mr. Vohra's comments on this very thread, for instance, also seem to point to need for a coherent and consistent messaging strategy - and, I might add, as much as I disagree with what he seems to be proposing, I would take that over the current situation. (In the past, Mr. Vohra advocated for another theme to our messaging, as it were. I'm not sure if he's abandoned that, or if it integrates with what he advocates here. I remain partially in agreement with "Libertarian Solutions" and partially in disagreement, and I tend to think that, while it is a messaging strategy, it might be too far in the direction of saying a single thing rather than speaking in a coherent voice.) I am not going to stop advocating for my position simply because there's a FB uproar, particularly considering that there is always a FB uproar. To call that reactionary is simply incorrect. I am not reacting to anything - you might recall that, when I brought this up in the past, I was criticized precisely because I was not reacting to anything in particular. If examples happen to crop up, I will point to them. Finally, our inability to focus and project our voice has everything to do with this instance. If we had a stronger voice, no one would care about the current brush-up, and we wouldn't be hearing these complaints. Everyone would understand that Mr. Vohra can speak for himself (and, I might add, I can speak for myself) and that the LP can speak for itself. When we lack such a voice, it is easy not just for officers to appear to be speaking for us when they speak, but for loud enough members. Such a situation causes all of us, officers, board members, and members alike, to choose between the sort of reaction we've seen this week, or shutting up. A party with a stronger voice would allow us not to make that choice, and to be able to speak our minds without becoming, in the public eye, the voice of the party. Joshua A. Katz On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 8:19 AM, Patrick McKnight < patrick.joseph.mcknight@gmail.com> wrote:
Our principles are immaculate. However we need to connect with people as human beings. It has nothing to do with our platform, it had to do with our mindset. Human beings make decisions based on emotion.
Thanks, Patrick McKnight Region 8 Rep
On May 18, 2017 9:07 AM, "Caryn Ann Harlos" <carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:
David-
Agree and disagree (which proves your point - we are individuals - but bravo! Well spoken!). Our Platform speaks on some things clearly. Let me name one that I disagree with- abortion. But it speaks clearly so I NEVER give the impression that the Party is not pro-choice. Yet on so many issues we are not messaging the clear Party position- such as no force-financed education or no state mandated healthcare (I could name others including anti-war in anything but strict defense). We shy away particularly here. In that instance I agree that we should be saying those core positions so loudly, so strongly, etc that no one will mistake the "Party" position which may or may not be our own (like me with abortion). But tone? Other people are going to use their tone. We are not Stepford Libertarians and the idea that national is going to the grand conductor of tone so that no one will ever mistake a candidate or other prominent person for us is pure unadulterated fantasy. Great for campaign sloganeering and propo but not in practice.
*I would suggest also that it's bad form to use someone's campaign materials aiming for a colleagues position as a point in a debate about policy and using this list to potentially indicate support for said candidacy.* or that is how it could be taken and we must not appear that way on this list.
Other things or even the path to the things above are not so cut and dried. And it is in those areas we should fear mightily any forcing of a unified voice indeed and embrace diversity - the way our SoP does with mini or no state. They both exist and are welcome in this Party despite the divisive attempts of some to expunge that inconvenient truth (not anyone here or any comment here)
Our messaging strategy should be clearly to state our actual platform - our actual SoP- and as this body in 2010 said are the two foundational pillars of Libertarianusm - *non aggression and self ownership* and expect there will be diversity in how that is done.
Professional advice would be foolish to dismiss and that should be explored again particularly in social media targeting.
But this undercurrent of using each thing as an opportunity to try to assert top down control is something I will call out and resist every time. It won't work and it's bad.
Control of our message is the Statement of Principles (not optional and fixed though enough attempts have been made to bury it over the years) and the Platform which is up to the delegates.
We should be so clear that it doesn't matter when our top ticket argues for gun control. We don't. It should be clear that is the Party position. We should not hesitate to show the Platform speaks to that.
We should not hesitate to show that consistent non-force speaks to others. But within that there are different paths and ideas. But we have NOT been as clear or bold as we should be on the twin pillars of non aggression and self ownership.
But using this issue of a personal page to this issue strikes me as a bit opportunistic to a preexisting agenda. Let's not be like the other parties in that.
Nothing in a messaging strategy would have had a thing to do with personal posts on a personal wall for which an apology happened.
-Caryn Ann
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 5:39 AM David Demarest <dpdemarest@centurylink.net> wrote:
The problem is that we as a group of “like-minded” politically-oriented people cannot agree on a core message beyond more freedom and less government (MFLG). As I have often said, there are at least as many Libertarian philosophies as there are Libertarians. Even among loose alliances within the LNC, we do not agree on message content details. Between alliances, we even disagree on core principles. The notion of all of us agreeing to and promoting a detailed common core message beyond MFLG is a flight of fancy and the stuff that statism and puppet masters are made of. The fact remains that groups are not living breathing entities. The notion that groups can have a freely agreed upon unified voice and message is pure unadulterated philosophical nonsense. Groups are conglomerates of individuals with individual voices. Without a police state, it is not possible for groups to have a single voice. Frankly, a group that could or would speak with a single voice would scare the hell out of me. We cannot and should not attempt to speak with one voice. Beware of those who would attempt to force us to speak with one voice. That is the message of statism that we as Libertarians are or should be fighting tooth and nail.
I happen to be one Libertarian that thinks education is a key component of our political action mission. However, if we have difficulty gaining a consensus without protracted debates on even simple political actions such as resolutions on Cuban Libertarian prisoners and medical cannabis and token support for activist candidates, how can we agree on education as part of our mission and what the education message should be? What to do?
Our diversity is a wonderful thing to be embraced. Let us celebrate that diversity that is loosely focused on MFLG and leverage it to empower ourselves as individuals who can go forth and deliver our own diverse individual educational messages of freedom. Point of fact, many or most of us are already delivering our own educational messages. We can have healthy open forum and institutional debates as to the merits of message content details and delivery techniques. However, attempts to muzzle the messages of individual Libertarians and outspoken elected officials beyond delegate elections is fraught with the dangers of statism. As long as I live and breathe, no political party will ever throttle my message short of the use of force.
I believe these recent incidents are fortuitous opportunities to rethink and repurpose our Libertarian institutions to focus on using our inspirational food-for-thought diversity to empower individuals. The flip side of our diversity is the difficulty in getting the consensus required for anything more that relatively trivial actions. However, that lack of consensus does not or should not prevent inspired and empowered individual Libertarians from accomplishing the bulk of Libertarian action as bottom-up volunteers, entrepreneurs and activists and even top-down elected officials. Let’s stop fooling ourselves on controlled unified message content and delivery technique. Through trial and error and healthy debate, we can build our army of empowered individual Libertarians armed with their arsenal of individual message content and delivery techniques who will get us where we want to go. Our Libertarian institution think-tank cauldrons of inspirational diversity have the potential to be a key part of the process of empowering individuals. Let us free ourselves from the bonds of the groupthink and groupspeak, repurpose our institutions and get on with the business of freedom beyond mere MFLG.
Our recent incidents are an opportunistic call to action. What must we do to repurpose our institutions to focus on empowering individual activists and messengers? Now is the time to get past our differences and leverage our diversity to think outside the box. Let the debates begin.
Thoughts?
~David
*Dec 28-Jan 1 Omaha Roads to Liberty Un-Convention*
~David Pratt Demarest
LNC Region 6 Representative (IA, IL, MN, MO, ND, NE, WI)
Secretary, LPNE State Central Committee
Cell: 402-981-6469 <(402)%20981-6469>
Home: 402-493-0873 <(402)%20493-0873>
*From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org] *On Behalf Of *Caryn Ann Harlos *Sent:* Thursday, May 18, 2017 5:01 AM *To:* lnc-business@hq.lp.org *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] I Do Not Agree With What You Say...
If we are talking "messaging problem" - with the exception of the lying word and a couple other turns of phrases I do not agree with, he is absolutely correct.
He is asking we boldly stand on our Platform and the SoP and educate newcomers to our actual positions.
Now THAT is a messaging problem we DO have. And it goes way beyond tone issues of an individual member on a personal way.
Part of our Bylaws mandated roles is to educate people about our core principles and whether in a platform or not they lead to no exchange that is not voluntary, no government interference that violates negative rights, no siezing of resources without consent.
We are not teaching people that thus is what our Statement of Principles says and the Platform is derived theherefrom. I have Libertarians shocked we oppose ALL eminent domain. Because we often deliver less than that in messaging.
Sieving upon the obviously rhetorical over the top flourishes of Arvin that I have avoided is the stuff of FB and should not be our tactic here to avoid the point of what he is saying.
We have always stood for eliminating all involuntary market transactions and asset sieving including taxation, public school, government healthcare etc. but we are not consistently telling people that while still accepting there may be steps from one point to another - we have made a certain step our position and failed to declare the goal. Over and over.
That is our messaging problem in education and outreach.
To anticipate Daniel's question to me- I will say - irrelevant to this discussion and if anyone insists to make it relevant, I will discuss when the special election is over next week and not sooner.
-Caryn Ann
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 3:25 AM Daniel Hayes <danielehayes@icloud.com> wrote:
Arvin,
So most of our candidates are now liars? Weak voices for Liberty?
What kind of steward of our donors money are you. You just voted to give $5000 to someone that doesn't match up on many areas of our platform. Which way is it? Where are your morals?
The REAL libertarian platform would be NONE. Leave our Statement of Principles. Maybe the Omissions plank. Danny Bedwell can tell you I have been advocating for this since at least my first convention in 2014. He kept turning around to me during platform saying, "Why are they telling me what I am supposed to think as a candidate?!" To that I replied, "I'm with ya Danny!"
I am constantly amazed at how authoritarian Libertarians are with regards to telling other people how they MUST think.
So what I am taking away from your email is that you want to cater to the growing segment of the populace that is more actively apathetic to voting than any other demographic. In turn you seem to want to turn off the segments of voters that vote more often than the average demographic.
Once again, your words don't match your recent actions. Why would you give money to a candidate you thought was weak? Is it because its mostly other people's money?
Are we to be a "pure" echo chamber or a party that works to be inclusive of many and that finds areas of common interest for people to work together on to protect and restore our Liberty?
Daniel Hayes
LNC At Large Member
Sent from my iPhone
On May 18, 2017, at 2:53 AM, Arvin Vohra <votevohra@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi All -
During the last months, I've traveled to many state conventions, interviewed many candidates, and kept track of the mood here in DC. In its current form, much of our messaging is largely opposed to our platform, and so anemic as to be politically irrelevant.
We have an education secretary that everyone thinks wants to end all government education. Whether this is true or not matters less than the fact that is what people think and say about her. Our platform is better than hers, as it involves complete elimination of government education and also tax funded education subsidies.
But despite what our platform specifically states, much of the messaging is far softer than the Republicans. Most of the educational messaging I hear and see is not even at the Republican lite level; it's just Republican Weak.
In discussions of healthcare and welfare, I'm seeing the same thing. Our platform is crystal clear on this: get government completely out of healthcare. Messaging? Nowhere near that.
It seems that this is motivated by an attempt to grow the party numerically by essentially tricking people into identifying with the word Libertarian, and then hope they magically develop Libertarian views. But the actual effect is to mislead, bring people in who do not know what Libertarianism is, then have them represent us with a further watered down message, etc. While many sign the NAP, it's not at all clear that they understand the specific policy implications.
In this process, we are losing our natural allies. Although the anarcho-capitalism movement is exploding through social media, most are Trump supporters. In other words, in our desperate attempt to get those who worship public schools and the military with a message of pro-status quo state worship, we are losing our most obvious base. There are those who actually agree with the big parts of our platform but are put off by the simple fact that we never talk about the big, anti-establishment issues, and fixate entirely on marijuana and occasionally alcohol.
I hear more Libertarians arguing in favor of universal welfare than I hear arguing in favor of ending all welfare. I hear many more discussions about eliminating minor alcohol restrictions than the big issues that comprise most of the money stolen from us: healthcare, education, military, and social security.
This has gone far past an issue of messaging. I bet that if today, we did a poll among Libertarian active donors, we'd see a minority that favored all of our positions on these critical issues, and I doubt we'd be even at 80 percent that favored our positions on even one of these issues.
This can be addressed through either education or outreach. If we go the education route, I recommend an automated email series to educate new people on our actual positions. If it's outreach, I'd recommend we stop lying about our position at the national, state, and especially candidate level. Phrase them nice, mean, calm, explosively, however. But for the love of god phrase them somehow.
Let's grow the Libertarian party, not the "I want to identify with a trendy word" party.
If we stop lying, will we lose some people? Maybe a few. But we'll also be welcoming the people who most strongly agree with our positions.
-Arvin
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 12:36 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos < carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:
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
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 3:12 PM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty@gmail.com> wrote:
Colleagues:
Like the many members we have heard from lately, I disagree strongly with recent comments of one of our members. I feel they are politically backward, and I wish they would stop because of the embarrassment they can bring on this party, and because they lack an appreciation of nuance, in my opinion. Nor is it my position that, as I've seen some claiming, these comments are "true but embarrassing." I am not one who believes that we need to hold back some sacred truths of liberty from the unwashed masses. I often am embarrassed by statements precisely because I think they are wrong - either false or, perhaps more commonly, in that realm of failing to be either true or false.
I am primarily writing, though, to let you know that I would vote 'no' on any of the proposed measures, including censure and suspension. I would vote no because I do not agree that LNC members are never "off the clock." Yes, it is true, people know who we are, and we can never, really, take off our "hats" in public. That's one reason I strive for a low social media profile - that's my personal vision of the position. But when I speak about politics, and do not identify my speech as that of the LP, I do not expect this body to sit in judgment of its truth or its effectiveness.
I believe that censure and suspension are best reserved for unacceptable activities carried out within office. I do not believe it is appropriate to define anything we do which touches on politics as 'within office.' As I've discussed before, in my view we each have almost no power, with some exceptions, except as members of this body. Our power is to vote, not to direct things ourselves. This cuts both ways. We do not have the power to speak for the LP, as individuals, except when specifically given this power by the bylaws or by an appropriate resolution or motion. Lacking that power, we cannot do it wrong.
Furthermore, we do not choose our chair and vice-chair. They are elected by the delegates. I resent the implication that a few outspoken members should, through LNC action, undo the will of the convention. It is not our job, if we think that actions of the delegates have led to insensitive messaging, to try to reverse those actions.
It is our job, on a semi-related note, to control our own messaging. Complaining about FB posts from one of our members is easier than thinking carefully about what we do and how we do it, but it is not a solution. 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. If we believe that one person, speaking on a platform not provided by this party, can derail our message, then shame on us.
Further, that hasn't happened. It is primarily our own people who are angry. I myself am offended, in addition to disagreeing, but I do not see outrage outside Libertarian circles. It will be objected that this is because of our small size and relative lack of success, that if we were larger, we could not afford to be silent. That may very well be true. Yet the world is as it is, and we can afford to be silent, and, in my opinion, should. Furthermore, if we were in the position described, it is also true that our own messaging would be better. I say let's deal with the meme in our own eye before criticizing extra-party messaging. (As an individual, I feel free to criticize, I am speaking about this board's activities.)
Is there any allegation that a member of this board has violated a fiduciary responsibility, has double-dealt for personal gain or gain of others, or has in any way done anything wrong in their party capacity? As far as I am aware, there is not. We are speaking about a person who has, in my view, governed well. We do not always agree, but I always respect his opinions and decisions - and I appreciate that he treats mine the same. Our job is to govern the party - Mr. Vohra does that very well. The vice-chair has additional duties: no one has made any allegation that these were carried out badly or incorrectly. Until I see allegations about those (and I am confident there are none, Mr. Vohra fulfills those responsibilities just fine) I will vote no on any motion on this topic.
In other news, the President of the United States may have revealed classified information to the Russian Foreign Minister and compromised an Israeli source. The travel ban is still working its way through the courts. The Republicans in the House have done what we thought was impossible: found a way to make the ACA more freedom-destroying. Democrats and Republicans are working in lockstep to attack prosperity and the freedom of all, around the world, through nationalist-protectionist policies. I would like to see this party focused on electing Libertarians to office who are serious about, and effective in, addressing these and other issues. In addition to rolling back the size and scope of government, I'd like to see our elected officials simply managing the thing more competently than the corrupt members of the other parties have shown themselves capable of doing. After all, a more effective government will require, in my opinion, a smaller, less powerful government. The government cannot be competent in doing tasks far beyond its competence. So yes, I'd like to see us not insulting key groups of voters or making other political missteps. I'd like to see us prioritize policy over both personal attacks and abstractions - while remembering that we can inspire not just with pocketbook issues, but also with the power of what is right and with strong ideals.
Joshua A. Katz
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
--
*In Liberty,*
*Caryn Ann Harlos*
Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org>
Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org>
Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
*We defend your rights*
*And oppose the use of force*
*Taxation is theft*
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
--
Arvin Vohra
www.VoteVohra.com VoteVohra@gmail.com (301) 320-3634
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
--
*In Liberty,*
*Caryn Ann Harlos*
Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org>
Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org>
Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
*We defend your rights*
*And oppose the use of force*
*Taxation is theft*
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
A haiku to the Statement of Principles: *We defend your rights* *And oppose the use of force* *Taxation is theft*
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
Joshua, You are (not deliberately) miscasting my words. You initial post spoke about content and tone and my comments spoke to that. I then reiterated that I favour professional strategy consultants. Through human nature and just like I saw (and still see in the campaign committee that turned into an unapproved messaging committee and is now being recast in propo as something that was a social media advisory solution when it was originally proposed and approved as a Gary Johnson campaign post mortem!) shows how these categories keep getting morphed and did once again. Our content and ideology is fixed to an extent or certainly in a range. How we might present it is not and that has nothing to do with a personal post on a personal page. -Caryn Ann On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 7:35 AM Joshua Katz <planning4liberty@gmail.com> wrote:
Agreeing with Mr. McKnight, I see simply another instance of us failing to differentiate the message from how it is expressed, although it so happens that I disagree with some of the content as well.
As for agreeing with Mr. Somes, I refuse, in May 2017, to desist from expressing agreement with an LNC policy position because someone has declared a candidacy for May 2018 and said it. Call that bad form if you want, but I am not going to have the range of what I say narrowed by a race a year away.
Finally, my position on our utter lack of a messaging strategy, which is only reinforced by most of the comments I've seen here which imply, to some extent, that a platform is a messaging strategy, is constant. It is a position I have taken, consistently, since I first joined this board in 2014. It is a position which is content-neutral - Mr. Vohra's comments on this very thread, for instance, also seem to point to need for a coherent and consistent messaging strategy - and, I might add, as much as I disagree with what he seems to be proposing, I would take that over the current situation. (In the past, Mr. Vohra advocated for another theme to our messaging, as it were. I'm not sure if he's abandoned that, or if it integrates with what he advocates here. I remain partially in agreement with "Libertarian Solutions" and partially in disagreement, and I tend to think that, while it is a messaging strategy, it might be too far in the direction of saying a single thing rather than speaking in a coherent voice.) I am not going to stop advocating for my position simply because there's a FB uproar, particularly considering that there is always a FB uproar. To call that reactionary is simply incorrect. I am not reacting to anything - you might recall that, when I brought this up in the past, I was criticized precisely because I was not reacting to anything in particular. If examples happen to crop up, I will point to them.
Finally, our inability to focus and project our voice has everything to do with this instance. If we had a stronger voice, no one would care about the current brush-up, and we wouldn't be hearing these complaints. Everyone would understand that Mr. Vohra can speak for himself (and, I might add, I can speak for myself) and that the LP can speak for itself. When we lack such a voice, it is easy not just for officers to appear to be speaking for us when they speak, but for loud enough members. Such a situation causes all of us, officers, board members, and members alike, to choose between the sort of reaction we've seen this week, or shutting up. A party with a stronger voice would allow us not to make that choice, and to be able to speak our minds without becoming, in the public eye, the voice of the party.
Joshua A. Katz
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 8:19 AM, Patrick McKnight < patrick.joseph.mcknight@gmail.com> wrote:
Our principles are immaculate. However we need to connect with people as human beings. It has nothing to do with our platform, it had to do with our mindset. Human beings make decisions based on emotion.
Thanks, Patrick McKnight Region 8 Rep
On May 18, 2017 9:07 AM, "Caryn Ann Harlos" <carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:
David-
Agree and disagree (which proves your point - we are individuals - but bravo! Well spoken!). Our Platform speaks on some things clearly. Let me name one that I disagree with- abortion. But it speaks clearly so I NEVER give the impression that the Party is not pro-choice. Yet on so many issues we are not messaging the clear Party position- such as no force-financed education or no state mandated healthcare (I could name others including anti-war in anything but strict defense). We shy away particularly here. In that instance I agree that we should be saying those core positions so loudly, so strongly, etc that no one will mistake the "Party" position which may or may not be our own (like me with abortion). But tone? Other people are going to use their tone. We are not Stepford Libertarians and the idea that national is going to the grand conductor of tone so that no one will ever mistake a candidate or other prominent person for us is pure unadulterated fantasy. Great for campaign sloganeering and propo but not in practice.
*I would suggest also that it's bad form to use someone's campaign materials aiming for a colleagues position as a point in a debate about policy and using this list to potentially indicate support for said candidacy.* or that is how it could be taken and we must not appear that way on this list.
Other things or even the path to the things above are not so cut and dried. And it is in those areas we should fear mightily any forcing of a unified voice indeed and embrace diversity - the way our SoP does with mini or no state. They both exist and are welcome in this Party despite the divisive attempts of some to expunge that inconvenient truth (not anyone here or any comment here)
Our messaging strategy should be clearly to state our actual platform - our actual SoP- and as this body in 2010 said are the two foundational pillars of Libertarianusm - *non aggression and self ownership* and expect there will be diversity in how that is done.
Professional advice would be foolish to dismiss and that should be explored again particularly in social media targeting.
But this undercurrent of using each thing as an opportunity to try to assert top down control is something I will call out and resist every time. It won't work and it's bad.
Control of our message is the Statement of Principles (not optional and fixed though enough attempts have been made to bury it over the years) and the Platform which is up to the delegates.
We should be so clear that it doesn't matter when our top ticket argues for gun control. We don't. It should be clear that is the Party position. We should not hesitate to show the Platform speaks to that.
We should not hesitate to show that consistent non-force speaks to others. But within that there are different paths and ideas. But we have NOT been as clear or bold as we should be on the twin pillars of non aggression and self ownership.
But using this issue of a personal page to this issue strikes me as a bit opportunistic to a preexisting agenda. Let's not be like the other parties in that.
Nothing in a messaging strategy would have had a thing to do with personal posts on a personal wall for which an apology happened.
-Caryn Ann
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 5:39 AM David Demarest < dpdemarest@centurylink.net> wrote:
The problem is that we as a group of “like-minded” politically-oriented people cannot agree on a core message beyond more freedom and less government (MFLG). As I have often said, there are at least as many Libertarian philosophies as there are Libertarians. Even among loose alliances within the LNC, we do not agree on message content details. Between alliances, we even disagree on core principles. The notion of all of us agreeing to and promoting a detailed common core message beyond MFLG is a flight of fancy and the stuff that statism and puppet masters are made of. The fact remains that groups are not living breathing entities. The notion that groups can have a freely agreed upon unified voice and message is pure unadulterated philosophical nonsense. Groups are conglomerates of individuals with individual voices. Without a police state, it is not possible for groups to have a single voice. Frankly, a group that could or would speak with a single voice would scare the hell out of me. We cannot and should not attempt to speak with one voice. Beware of those who would attempt to force us to speak with one voice. That is the message of statism that we as Libertarians are or should be fighting tooth and nail.
I happen to be one Libertarian that thinks education is a key component of our political action mission. However, if we have difficulty gaining a consensus without protracted debates on even simple political actions such as resolutions on Cuban Libertarian prisoners and medical cannabis and token support for activist candidates, how can we agree on education as part of our mission and what the education message should be? What to do?
Our diversity is a wonderful thing to be embraced. Let us celebrate that diversity that is loosely focused on MFLG and leverage it to empower ourselves as individuals who can go forth and deliver our own diverse individual educational messages of freedom. Point of fact, many or most of us are already delivering our own educational messages. We can have healthy open forum and institutional debates as to the merits of message content details and delivery techniques. However, attempts to muzzle the messages of individual Libertarians and outspoken elected officials beyond delegate elections is fraught with the dangers of statism. As long as I live and breathe, no political party will ever throttle my message short of the use of force.
I believe these recent incidents are fortuitous opportunities to rethink and repurpose our Libertarian institutions to focus on using our inspirational food-for-thought diversity to empower individuals. The flip side of our diversity is the difficulty in getting the consensus required for anything more that relatively trivial actions. However, that lack of consensus does not or should not prevent inspired and empowered individual Libertarians from accomplishing the bulk of Libertarian action as bottom-up volunteers, entrepreneurs and activists and even top-down elected officials. Let’s stop fooling ourselves on controlled unified message content and delivery technique. Through trial and error and healthy debate, we can build our army of empowered individual Libertarians armed with their arsenal of individual message content and delivery techniques who will get us where we want to go. Our Libertarian institution think-tank cauldrons of inspirational diversity have the potential to be a key part of the process of empowering individuals. Let us free ourselves from the bonds of the groupthink and groupspeak, repurpose our institutions and get on with the business of freedom beyond mere MFLG.
Our recent incidents are an opportunistic call to action. What must we do to repurpose our institutions to focus on empowering individual activists and messengers? Now is the time to get past our differences and leverage our diversity to think outside the box. Let the debates begin.
Thoughts?
~David
*Dec 28-Jan 1 Omaha Roads to Liberty Un-Convention*
~David Pratt Demarest
LNC Region 6 Representative (IA, IL, MN, MO, ND, NE, WI)
Secretary, LPNE State Central Committee
Cell: 402-981-6469 <(402)%20981-6469>
Home: 402-493-0873 <(402)%20493-0873>
*From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org] *On Behalf Of *Caryn Ann Harlos *Sent:* Thursday, May 18, 2017 5:01 AM *To:* lnc-business@hq.lp.org *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] I Do Not Agree With What You Say...
If we are talking "messaging problem" - with the exception of the lying word and a couple other turns of phrases I do not agree with, he is absolutely correct.
He is asking we boldly stand on our Platform and the SoP and educate newcomers to our actual positions.
Now THAT is a messaging problem we DO have. And it goes way beyond tone issues of an individual member on a personal way.
Part of our Bylaws mandated roles is to educate people about our core principles and whether in a platform or not they lead to no exchange that is not voluntary, no government interference that violates negative rights, no siezing of resources without consent.
We are not teaching people that thus is what our Statement of Principles says and the Platform is derived theherefrom. I have Libertarians shocked we oppose ALL eminent domain. Because we often deliver less than that in messaging.
Sieving upon the obviously rhetorical over the top flourishes of Arvin that I have avoided is the stuff of FB and should not be our tactic here to avoid the point of what he is saying.
We have always stood for eliminating all involuntary market transactions and asset sieving including taxation, public school, government healthcare etc. but we are not consistently telling people that while still accepting there may be steps from one point to another - we have made a certain step our position and failed to declare the goal. Over and over.
That is our messaging problem in education and outreach.
To anticipate Daniel's question to me- I will say - irrelevant to this discussion and if anyone insists to make it relevant, I will discuss when the special election is over next week and not sooner.
-Caryn Ann
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 3:25 AM Daniel Hayes <danielehayes@icloud.com> wrote:
Arvin,
So most of our candidates are now liars? Weak voices for Liberty?
What kind of steward of our donors money are you. You just voted to give $5000 to someone that doesn't match up on many areas of our platform. Which way is it? Where are your morals?
The REAL libertarian platform would be NONE. Leave our Statement of Principles. Maybe the Omissions plank. Danny Bedwell can tell you I have been advocating for this since at least my first convention in 2014. He kept turning around to me during platform saying, "Why are they telling me what I am supposed to think as a candidate?!" To that I replied, "I'm with ya Danny!"
I am constantly amazed at how authoritarian Libertarians are with regards to telling other people how they MUST think.
So what I am taking away from your email is that you want to cater to the growing segment of the populace that is more actively apathetic to voting than any other demographic. In turn you seem to want to turn off the segments of voters that vote more often than the average demographic.
Once again, your words don't match your recent actions. Why would you give money to a candidate you thought was weak? Is it because its mostly other people's money?
Are we to be a "pure" echo chamber or a party that works to be inclusive of many and that finds areas of common interest for people to work together on to protect and restore our Liberty?
Daniel Hayes
LNC At Large Member
Sent from my iPhone
On May 18, 2017, at 2:53 AM, Arvin Vohra <votevohra@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi All -
During the last months, I've traveled to many state conventions, interviewed many candidates, and kept track of the mood here in DC. In its current form, much of our messaging is largely opposed to our platform, and so anemic as to be politically irrelevant.
We have an education secretary that everyone thinks wants to end all government education. Whether this is true or not matters less than the fact that is what people think and say about her. Our platform is better than hers, as it involves complete elimination of government education and also tax funded education subsidies.
But despite what our platform specifically states, much of the messaging is far softer than the Republicans. Most of the educational messaging I hear and see is not even at the Republican lite level; it's just Republican Weak.
In discussions of healthcare and welfare, I'm seeing the same thing. Our platform is crystal clear on this: get government completely out of healthcare. Messaging? Nowhere near that.
It seems that this is motivated by an attempt to grow the party numerically by essentially tricking people into identifying with the word Libertarian, and then hope they magically develop Libertarian views. But the actual effect is to mislead, bring people in who do not know what Libertarianism is, then have them represent us with a further watered down message, etc. While many sign the NAP, it's not at all clear that they understand the specific policy implications.
In this process, we are losing our natural allies. Although the anarcho-capitalism movement is exploding through social media, most are Trump supporters. In other words, in our desperate attempt to get those who worship public schools and the military with a message of pro-status quo state worship, we are losing our most obvious base. There are those who actually agree with the big parts of our platform but are put off by the simple fact that we never talk about the big, anti-establishment issues, and fixate entirely on marijuana and occasionally alcohol.
I hear more Libertarians arguing in favor of universal welfare than I hear arguing in favor of ending all welfare. I hear many more discussions about eliminating minor alcohol restrictions than the big issues that comprise most of the money stolen from us: healthcare, education, military, and social security.
This has gone far past an issue of messaging. I bet that if today, we did a poll among Libertarian active donors, we'd see a minority that favored all of our positions on these critical issues, and I doubt we'd be even at 80 percent that favored our positions on even one of these issues.
This can be addressed through either education or outreach. If we go the education route, I recommend an automated email series to educate new people on our actual positions. If it's outreach, I'd recommend we stop lying about our position at the national, state, and especially candidate level. Phrase them nice, mean, calm, explosively, however. But for the love of god phrase them somehow.
Let's grow the Libertarian party, not the "I want to identify with a trendy word" party.
If we stop lying, will we lose some people? Maybe a few. But we'll also be welcoming the people who most strongly agree with our positions.
-Arvin
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 12:36 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos < carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:
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
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 3:12 PM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty@gmail.com> wrote:
Colleagues:
Like the many members we have heard from lately, I disagree strongly with recent comments of one of our members. I feel they are politically backward, and I wish they would stop because of the embarrassment they can bring on this party, and because they lack an appreciation of nuance, in my opinion. Nor is it my position that, as I've seen some claiming, these comments are "true but embarrassing." I am not one who believes that we need to hold back some sacred truths of liberty from the unwashed masses. I often am embarrassed by statements precisely because I think they are wrong - either false or, perhaps more commonly, in that realm of failing to be either true or false.
I am primarily writing, though, to let you know that I would vote 'no' on any of the proposed measures, including censure and suspension. I would vote no because I do not agree that LNC members are never "off the clock." Yes, it is true, people know who we are, and we can never, really, take off our "hats" in public. That's one reason I strive for a low social media profile - that's my personal vision of the position. But when I speak about politics, and do not identify my speech as that of the LP, I do not expect this body to sit in judgment of its truth or its effectiveness.
I believe that censure and suspension are best reserved for unacceptable activities carried out within office. I do not believe it is appropriate to define anything we do which touches on politics as 'within office.' As I've discussed before, in my view we each have almost no power, with some exceptions, except as members of this body. Our power is to vote, not to direct things ourselves. This cuts both ways. We do not have the power to speak for the LP, as individuals, except when specifically given this power by the bylaws or by an appropriate resolution or motion. Lacking that power, we cannot do it wrong.
Furthermore, we do not choose our chair and vice-chair. They are elected by the delegates. I resent the implication that a few outspoken members should, through LNC action, undo the will of the convention. It is not our job, if we think that actions of the delegates have led to insensitive messaging, to try to reverse those actions.
It is our job, on a semi-related note, to control our own messaging. Complaining about FB posts from one of our members is easier than thinking carefully about what we do and how we do it, but it is not a solution. 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. If we believe that one person, speaking on a platform not provided by this party, can derail our message, then shame on us.
Further, that hasn't happened. It is primarily our own people who are angry. I myself am offended, in addition to disagreeing, but I do not see outrage outside Libertarian circles. It will be objected that this is because of our small size and relative lack of success, that if we were larger, we could not afford to be silent. That may very well be true. Yet the world is as it is, and we can afford to be silent, and, in my opinion, should. Furthermore, if we were in the position described, it is also true that our own messaging would be better. I say let's deal with the meme in our own eye before criticizing extra-party messaging. (As an individual, I feel free to criticize, I am speaking about this board's activities.)
Is there any allegation that a member of this board has violated a fiduciary responsibility, has double-dealt for personal gain or gain of others, or has in any way done anything wrong in their party capacity? As far as I am aware, there is not. We are speaking about a person who has, in my view, governed well. We do not always agree, but I always respect his opinions and decisions - and I appreciate that he treats mine the same. Our job is to govern the party - Mr. Vohra does that very well. The vice-chair has additional duties: no one has made any allegation that these were carried out badly or incorrectly. Until I see allegations about those (and I am confident there are none, Mr. Vohra fulfills those responsibilities just fine) I will vote no on any motion on this topic.
In other news, the President of the United States may have revealed classified information to the Russian Foreign Minister and compromised an Israeli source. The travel ban is still working its way through the courts. The Republicans in the House have done what we thought was impossible: found a way to make the ACA more freedom-destroying. Democrats and Republicans are working in lockstep to attack prosperity and the freedom of all, around the world, through nationalist-protectionist policies. I would like to see this party focused on electing Libertarians to office who are serious about, and effective in, addressing these and other issues. In addition to rolling back the size and scope of government, I'd like to see our elected officials simply managing the thing more competently than the corrupt members of the other parties have shown themselves capable of doing. After all, a more effective government will require, in my opinion, a smaller, less powerful government. The government cannot be competent in doing tasks far beyond its competence. So yes, I'd like to see us not insulting key groups of voters or making other political missteps. I'd like to see us prioritize policy over both personal attacks and abstractions - while remembering that we can inspire not just with pocketbook issues, but also with the power of what is right and with strong ideals.
Joshua A. Katz
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
--
*In Liberty,*
*Caryn Ann Harlos*
Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org>
Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org>
Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
*We defend your rights*
*And oppose the use of force*
*Taxation is theft*
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
--
Arvin Vohra
www.VoteVohra.com VoteVohra@gmail.com (301) 320-3634
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
--
*In Liberty,*
*Caryn Ann Harlos*
Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org>
Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org>
Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
*We defend your rights*
*And oppose the use of force*
*Taxation is theft*
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
A haiku to the Statement of Principles: *We defend your rights* *And oppose the use of force* *Taxation is theft*
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee A haiku to the Statement of Principles: *We defend your rights* *And oppose the use of force* *Taxation is theft*
I certainly agree with that last sentence. That's why I started this thread to push past all the emails we've been getting and state my position: that we do not and should not control what individuals say on their own, and that I will oppose any effort to do so. I went on to say how, in my view, that policy can be reconciled (in fact, is sort of automatically reconciled) with avoiding the dangers and consequences the members writing to us are concerned about. Joshua A. Katz On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 8:47 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:
Joshua,
You are (not deliberately) miscasting my words. You initial post spoke about content and tone and my comments spoke to that. I then reiterated that I favour professional strategy consultants.
Through human nature and just like I saw (and still see in the campaign committee that turned into an unapproved messaging committee and is now being recast in propo as something that was a social media advisory solution when it was originally proposed and approved as a Gary Johnson campaign post mortem!) shows how these categories keep getting morphed and did once again.
Our content and ideology is fixed to an extent or certainly in a range. How we might present it is not and that has nothing to do with a personal post on a personal page.
-Caryn Ann
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 7:35 AM Joshua Katz <planning4liberty@gmail.com> wrote:
Agreeing with Mr. McKnight, I see simply another instance of us failing to differentiate the message from how it is expressed, although it so happens that I disagree with some of the content as well.
As for agreeing with Mr. Somes, I refuse, in May 2017, to desist from expressing agreement with an LNC policy position because someone has declared a candidacy for May 2018 and said it. Call that bad form if you want, but I am not going to have the range of what I say narrowed by a race a year away.
Finally, my position on our utter lack of a messaging strategy, which is only reinforced by most of the comments I've seen here which imply, to some extent, that a platform is a messaging strategy, is constant. It is a position I have taken, consistently, since I first joined this board in 2014. It is a position which is content-neutral - Mr. Vohra's comments on this very thread, for instance, also seem to point to need for a coherent and consistent messaging strategy - and, I might add, as much as I disagree with what he seems to be proposing, I would take that over the current situation. (In the past, Mr. Vohra advocated for another theme to our messaging, as it were. I'm not sure if he's abandoned that, or if it integrates with what he advocates here. I remain partially in agreement with "Libertarian Solutions" and partially in disagreement, and I tend to think that, while it is a messaging strategy, it might be too far in the direction of saying a single thing rather than speaking in a coherent voice.) I am not going to stop advocating for my position simply because there's a FB uproar, particularly considering that there is always a FB uproar. To call that reactionary is simply incorrect. I am not reacting to anything - you might recall that, when I brought this up in the past, I was criticized precisely because I was not reacting to anything in particular. If examples happen to crop up, I will point to them.
Finally, our inability to focus and project our voice has everything to do with this instance. If we had a stronger voice, no one would care about the current brush-up, and we wouldn't be hearing these complaints. Everyone would understand that Mr. Vohra can speak for himself (and, I might add, I can speak for myself) and that the LP can speak for itself. When we lack such a voice, it is easy not just for officers to appear to be speaking for us when they speak, but for loud enough members. Such a situation causes all of us, officers, board members, and members alike, to choose between the sort of reaction we've seen this week, or shutting up. A party with a stronger voice would allow us not to make that choice, and to be able to speak our minds without becoming, in the public eye, the voice of the party.
Joshua A. Katz
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 8:19 AM, Patrick McKnight < patrick.joseph.mcknight@gmail.com> wrote:
Our principles are immaculate. However we need to connect with people as human beings. It has nothing to do with our platform, it had to do with our mindset. Human beings make decisions based on emotion.
Thanks, Patrick McKnight Region 8 Rep
On May 18, 2017 9:07 AM, "Caryn Ann Harlos" <carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:
David-
Agree and disagree (which proves your point - we are individuals - but bravo! Well spoken!). Our Platform speaks on some things clearly. Let me name one that I disagree with- abortion. But it speaks clearly so I NEVER give the impression that the Party is not pro-choice. Yet on so many issues we are not messaging the clear Party position- such as no force-financed education or no state mandated healthcare (I could name others including anti-war in anything but strict defense). We shy away particularly here. In that instance I agree that we should be saying those core positions so loudly, so strongly, etc that no one will mistake the "Party" position which may or may not be our own (like me with abortion). But tone? Other people are going to use their tone. We are not Stepford Libertarians and the idea that national is going to the grand conductor of tone so that no one will ever mistake a candidate or other prominent person for us is pure unadulterated fantasy. Great for campaign sloganeering and propo but not in practice.
*I would suggest also that it's bad form to use someone's campaign materials aiming for a colleagues position as a point in a debate about policy and using this list to potentially indicate support for said candidacy.* or that is how it could be taken and we must not appear that way on this list.
Other things or even the path to the things above are not so cut and dried. And it is in those areas we should fear mightily any forcing of a unified voice indeed and embrace diversity - the way our SoP does with mini or no state. They both exist and are welcome in this Party despite the divisive attempts of some to expunge that inconvenient truth (not anyone here or any comment here)
Our messaging strategy should be clearly to state our actual platform - our actual SoP- and as this body in 2010 said are the two foundational pillars of Libertarianusm - *non aggression and self ownership* and expect there will be diversity in how that is done.
Professional advice would be foolish to dismiss and that should be explored again particularly in social media targeting.
But this undercurrent of using each thing as an opportunity to try to assert top down control is something I will call out and resist every time. It won't work and it's bad.
Control of our message is the Statement of Principles (not optional and fixed though enough attempts have been made to bury it over the years) and the Platform which is up to the delegates.
We should be so clear that it doesn't matter when our top ticket argues for gun control. We don't. It should be clear that is the Party position. We should not hesitate to show the Platform speaks to that.
We should not hesitate to show that consistent non-force speaks to others. But within that there are different paths and ideas. But we have NOT been as clear or bold as we should be on the twin pillars of non aggression and self ownership.
But using this issue of a personal page to this issue strikes me as a bit opportunistic to a preexisting agenda. Let's not be like the other parties in that.
Nothing in a messaging strategy would have had a thing to do with personal posts on a personal wall for which an apology happened.
-Caryn Ann
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 5:39 AM David Demarest < dpdemarest@centurylink.net> wrote:
The problem is that we as a group of “like-minded” politically-oriented people cannot agree on a core message beyond more freedom and less government (MFLG). As I have often said, there are at least as many Libertarian philosophies as there are Libertarians. Even among loose alliances within the LNC, we do not agree on message content details. Between alliances, we even disagree on core principles. The notion of all of us agreeing to and promoting a detailed common core message beyond MFLG is a flight of fancy and the stuff that statism and puppet masters are made of. The fact remains that groups are not living breathing entities. The notion that groups can have a freely agreed upon unified voice and message is pure unadulterated philosophical nonsense. Groups are conglomerates of individuals with individual voices. Without a police state, it is not possible for groups to have a single voice. Frankly, a group that could or would speak with a single voice would scare the hell out of me. We cannot and should not attempt to speak with one voice. Beware of those who would attempt to force us to speak with one voice. That is the message of statism that we as Libertarians are or should be fighting tooth and nail.
I happen to be one Libertarian that thinks education is a key component of our political action mission. However, if we have difficulty gaining a consensus without protracted debates on even simple political actions such as resolutions on Cuban Libertarian prisoners and medical cannabis and token support for activist candidates, how can we agree on education as part of our mission and what the education message should be? What to do?
Our diversity is a wonderful thing to be embraced. Let us celebrate that diversity that is loosely focused on MFLG and leverage it to empower ourselves as individuals who can go forth and deliver our own diverse individual educational messages of freedom. Point of fact, many or most of us are already delivering our own educational messages. We can have healthy open forum and institutional debates as to the merits of message content details and delivery techniques. However, attempts to muzzle the messages of individual Libertarians and outspoken elected officials beyond delegate elections is fraught with the dangers of statism. As long as I live and breathe, no political party will ever throttle my message short of the use of force.
I believe these recent incidents are fortuitous opportunities to rethink and repurpose our Libertarian institutions to focus on using our inspirational food-for-thought diversity to empower individuals. The flip side of our diversity is the difficulty in getting the consensus required for anything more that relatively trivial actions. However, that lack of consensus does not or should not prevent inspired and empowered individual Libertarians from accomplishing the bulk of Libertarian action as bottom-up volunteers, entrepreneurs and activists and even top-down elected officials. Let’s stop fooling ourselves on controlled unified message content and delivery technique. Through trial and error and healthy debate, we can build our army of empowered individual Libertarians armed with their arsenal of individual message content and delivery techniques who will get us where we want to go. Our Libertarian institution think-tank cauldrons of inspirational diversity have the potential to be a key part of the process of empowering individuals. Let us free ourselves from the bonds of the groupthink and groupspeak, repurpose our institutions and get on with the business of freedom beyond mere MFLG.
Our recent incidents are an opportunistic call to action. What must we do to repurpose our institutions to focus on empowering individual activists and messengers? Now is the time to get past our differences and leverage our diversity to think outside the box. Let the debates begin.
Thoughts?
~David
*Dec 28-Jan 1 Omaha Roads to Liberty Un-Convention*
~David Pratt Demarest
LNC Region 6 Representative (IA, IL, MN, MO, ND, NE, WI)
Secretary, LPNE State Central Committee
Cell: 402-981-6469 <(402)%20981-6469>
Home: 402-493-0873 <(402)%20493-0873>
*From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org] *On Behalf Of *Caryn Ann Harlos *Sent:* Thursday, May 18, 2017 5:01 AM *To:* lnc-business@hq.lp.org *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] I Do Not Agree With What You Say...
If we are talking "messaging problem" - with the exception of the lying word and a couple other turns of phrases I do not agree with, he is absolutely correct.
He is asking we boldly stand on our Platform and the SoP and educate newcomers to our actual positions.
Now THAT is a messaging problem we DO have. And it goes way beyond tone issues of an individual member on a personal way.
Part of our Bylaws mandated roles is to educate people about our core principles and whether in a platform or not they lead to no exchange that is not voluntary, no government interference that violates negative rights, no siezing of resources without consent.
We are not teaching people that thus is what our Statement of Principles says and the Platform is derived theherefrom. I have Libertarians shocked we oppose ALL eminent domain. Because we often deliver less than that in messaging.
Sieving upon the obviously rhetorical over the top flourishes of Arvin that I have avoided is the stuff of FB and should not be our tactic here to avoid the point of what he is saying.
We have always stood for eliminating all involuntary market transactions and asset sieving including taxation, public school, government healthcare etc. but we are not consistently telling people that while still accepting there may be steps from one point to another - we have made a certain step our position and failed to declare the goal. Over and over.
That is our messaging problem in education and outreach.
To anticipate Daniel's question to me- I will say - irrelevant to this discussion and if anyone insists to make it relevant, I will discuss when the special election is over next week and not sooner.
-Caryn Ann
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 3:25 AM Daniel Hayes <danielehayes@icloud.com> wrote:
Arvin,
So most of our candidates are now liars? Weak voices for Liberty?
What kind of steward of our donors money are you. You just voted to give $5000 to someone that doesn't match up on many areas of our platform. Which way is it? Where are your morals?
The REAL libertarian platform would be NONE. Leave our Statement of Principles. Maybe the Omissions plank. Danny Bedwell can tell you I have been advocating for this since at least my first convention in 2014. He kept turning around to me during platform saying, "Why are they telling me what I am supposed to think as a candidate?!" To that I replied, "I'm with ya Danny!"
I am constantly amazed at how authoritarian Libertarians are with regards to telling other people how they MUST think.
So what I am taking away from your email is that you want to cater to the growing segment of the populace that is more actively apathetic to voting than any other demographic. In turn you seem to want to turn off the segments of voters that vote more often than the average demographic.
Once again, your words don't match your recent actions. Why would you give money to a candidate you thought was weak? Is it because its mostly other people's money?
Are we to be a "pure" echo chamber or a party that works to be inclusive of many and that finds areas of common interest for people to work together on to protect and restore our Liberty?
Daniel Hayes
LNC At Large Member
Sent from my iPhone
On May 18, 2017, at 2:53 AM, Arvin Vohra <votevohra@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi All -
During the last months, I've traveled to many state conventions, interviewed many candidates, and kept track of the mood here in DC. In its current form, much of our messaging is largely opposed to our platform, and so anemic as to be politically irrelevant.
We have an education secretary that everyone thinks wants to end all government education. Whether this is true or not matters less than the fact that is what people think and say about her. Our platform is better than hers, as it involves complete elimination of government education and also tax funded education subsidies.
But despite what our platform specifically states, much of the messaging is far softer than the Republicans. Most of the educational messaging I hear and see is not even at the Republican lite level; it's just Republican Weak.
In discussions of healthcare and welfare, I'm seeing the same thing. Our platform is crystal clear on this: get government completely out of healthcare. Messaging? Nowhere near that.
It seems that this is motivated by an attempt to grow the party numerically by essentially tricking people into identifying with the word Libertarian, and then hope they magically develop Libertarian views. But the actual effect is to mislead, bring people in who do not know what Libertarianism is, then have them represent us with a further watered down message, etc. While many sign the NAP, it's not at all clear that they understand the specific policy implications.
In this process, we are losing our natural allies. Although the anarcho-capitalism movement is exploding through social media, most are Trump supporters. In other words, in our desperate attempt to get those who worship public schools and the military with a message of pro-status quo state worship, we are losing our most obvious base. There are those who actually agree with the big parts of our platform but are put off by the simple fact that we never talk about the big, anti-establishment issues, and fixate entirely on marijuana and occasionally alcohol.
I hear more Libertarians arguing in favor of universal welfare than I hear arguing in favor of ending all welfare. I hear many more discussions about eliminating minor alcohol restrictions than the big issues that comprise most of the money stolen from us: healthcare, education, military, and social security.
This has gone far past an issue of messaging. I bet that if today, we did a poll among Libertarian active donors, we'd see a minority that favored all of our positions on these critical issues, and I doubt we'd be even at 80 percent that favored our positions on even one of these issues.
This can be addressed through either education or outreach. If we go the education route, I recommend an automated email series to educate new people on our actual positions. If it's outreach, I'd recommend we stop lying about our position at the national, state, and especially candidate level. Phrase them nice, mean, calm, explosively, however. But for the love of god phrase them somehow.
Let's grow the Libertarian party, not the "I want to identify with a trendy word" party.
If we stop lying, will we lose some people? Maybe a few. But we'll also be welcoming the people who most strongly agree with our positions.
-Arvin
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 12:36 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos < carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:
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
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 3:12 PM, Joshua Katz < planning4liberty@gmail.com> wrote:
Colleagues:
Like the many members we have heard from lately, I disagree strongly with recent comments of one of our members. I feel they are politically backward, and I wish they would stop because of the embarrassment they can bring on this party, and because they lack an appreciation of nuance, in my opinion. Nor is it my position that, as I've seen some claiming, these comments are "true but embarrassing." I am not one who believes that we need to hold back some sacred truths of liberty from the unwashed masses. I often am embarrassed by statements precisely because I think they are wrong - either false or, perhaps more commonly, in that realm of failing to be either true or false.
I am primarily writing, though, to let you know that I would vote 'no' on any of the proposed measures, including censure and suspension. I would vote no because I do not agree that LNC members are never "off the clock." Yes, it is true, people know who we are, and we can never, really, take off our "hats" in public. That's one reason I strive for a low social media profile - that's my personal vision of the position. But when I speak about politics, and do not identify my speech as that of the LP, I do not expect this body to sit in judgment of its truth or its effectiveness.
I believe that censure and suspension are best reserved for unacceptable activities carried out within office. I do not believe it is appropriate to define anything we do which touches on politics as 'within office.' As I've discussed before, in my view we each have almost no power, with some exceptions, except as members of this body. Our power is to vote, not to direct things ourselves. This cuts both ways. We do not have the power to speak for the LP, as individuals, except when specifically given this power by the bylaws or by an appropriate resolution or motion. Lacking that power, we cannot do it wrong.
Furthermore, we do not choose our chair and vice-chair. They are elected by the delegates. I resent the implication that a few outspoken members should, through LNC action, undo the will of the convention. It is not our job, if we think that actions of the delegates have led to insensitive messaging, to try to reverse those actions.
It is our job, on a semi-related note, to control our own messaging. Complaining about FB posts from one of our members is easier than thinking carefully about what we do and how we do it, but it is not a solution. 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. If we believe that one person, speaking on a platform not provided by this party, can derail our message, then shame on us.
Further, that hasn't happened. It is primarily our own people who are angry. I myself am offended, in addition to disagreeing, but I do not see outrage outside Libertarian circles. It will be objected that this is because of our small size and relative lack of success, that if we were larger, we could not afford to be silent. That may very well be true. Yet the world is as it is, and we can afford to be silent, and, in my opinion, should. Furthermore, if we were in the position described, it is also true that our own messaging would be better. I say let's deal with the meme in our own eye before criticizing extra-party messaging. (As an individual, I feel free to criticize, I am speaking about this board's activities.)
Is there any allegation that a member of this board has violated a fiduciary responsibility, has double-dealt for personal gain or gain of others, or has in any way done anything wrong in their party capacity? As far as I am aware, there is not. We are speaking about a person who has, in my view, governed well. We do not always agree, but I always respect his opinions and decisions - and I appreciate that he treats mine the same. Our job is to govern the party - Mr. Vohra does that very well. The vice-chair has additional duties: no one has made any allegation that these were carried out badly or incorrectly. Until I see allegations about those (and I am confident there are none, Mr. Vohra fulfills those responsibilities just fine) I will vote no on any motion on this topic.
In other news, the President of the United States may have revealed classified information to the Russian Foreign Minister and compromised an Israeli source. The travel ban is still working its way through the courts. The Republicans in the House have done what we thought was impossible: found a way to make the ACA more freedom-destroying. Democrats and Republicans are working in lockstep to attack prosperity and the freedom of all, around the world, through nationalist-protectionist policies. I would like to see this party focused on electing Libertarians to office who are serious about, and effective in, addressing these and other issues. In addition to rolling back the size and scope of government, I'd like to see our elected officials simply managing the thing more competently than the corrupt members of the other parties have shown themselves capable of doing. After all, a more effective government will require, in my opinion, a smaller, less powerful government. The government cannot be competent in doing tasks far beyond its competence. So yes, I'd like to see us not insulting key groups of voters or making other political missteps. I'd like to see us prioritize policy over both personal attacks and abstractions - while remembering that we can inspire not just with pocketbook issues, but also with the power of what is right and with strong ideals.
Joshua A. Katz
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
--
*In Liberty,*
*Caryn Ann Harlos*
Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org>
Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org>
Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
*We defend your rights*
*And oppose the use of force*
*Taxation is theft*
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
--
Arvin Vohra
www.VoteVohra.com VoteVohra@gmail.com (301) 320-3634
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
--
*In Liberty,*
*Caryn Ann Harlos*
Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org>
Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org>
Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
*We defend your rights*
*And oppose the use of force*
*Taxation is theft*
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
A haiku to the Statement of Principles: *We defend your rights* *And oppose the use of force* *Taxation is theft*
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
A haiku to the Statement of Principles: *We defend your rights* *And oppose the use of force* *Taxation is theft*
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
My largest concern is that when we speak in public, our titles and roles do come with us. This is politics. When you speak, you are speaking on behalf of others. It is a burden of leadership. And sometimes, that even extends beyond our term in a leadership position. There's no such thing as "Off Time". Should Donald Trump get a pass because "it's his personal Twitter"? Likewise, when we speak in public, we are speaking for others, whether we like it, or not. I personally hate it - the burden of trying to watch every word you speak - that's why I never want to be a chair ever again. We should all be wary that HOW we say something can often be the core problem. Let's review the last 3 blow-ups. Against oligarchy and political dynasties? Yes! Dragging in people with cross-over into our own group? Bad idea. Satanic Temple post? Fine. Satanic Temple post on Easter week? Bad idea. Being against the Military Industrial Complex and/or against lying recruiters? Yes! Taking it out on soldiers, most of whom signed up for honorable reasons? Bad idea. It wasn't the core principle, but the delivery. How an argument is framed can be the difference between getting through and bringing someone to our point of view, and galvanizing existing sides by drawing a sharp line in the sand. In case no one has noticed, we can't afford to draw lines. We don't have the numbers to play the "Us vs Them" game that the Ds and Rs play to galvanize their political bases. We need to speak in ways that bring people to our perspective, not repulse them from us. In this particular instance, I personally think it's very wrong to blame the people trapped in the system, rather than focusing on the system itself. I thought Larry's livestream on "blame politicians, or blame everyone" was on-point. The system is the problem. We're all trapped in it. People tend to do what's right for them, and in fact that's how the market is supposed to work. The problem is that we have a system that gerrymanders choices and manipulates results. The system of manipulation is the problem, not the people just trying to get by inside the system. I live in the Cincinnati area, and specifically Northern Kentucky. The big IRS processing center is here -- the one that is tied up in the targeting scandal -- and we have members, past and present, that work at that facility. They don't work there because they love the IRS. They work there because they needed a job, it paid well, and they use the money to support themselves and their families. As they've been awakened, some chose to leave the IRS, with mixed results. Others stay because it feeds their family. I don't condemn those people - they have an obligation to their families. I blame the system that takes skillsets out of the private sector by creating a higher demand, thus increasing wages and making it impossible to reasonably find work outside of the IRS which maintains the standard of living their family currently has. I don't want to censure anyone - though I'm being hit all over with requests to do so; email, facebook, and pretty much wherever anyone else can find me. I don't want to recall anyone, either. I'm a Region Alternate, and on this sort of matter, I'll follow the lead of the Region Chairs. I am encouraging those that feel strongly about this to take action in NOLA, not through the LNC. I honestly hope that everyone thinks about ways to focus on attacking the system of manipulation, rather than the people trapped inside of it. We're all trapped inside of it. Every single one of us. Some of us are more aware of it than others. Smacking people in the face by claiming they are heinous criminals, or (perceptively) attacking their religion, or attacking their "favorite" elected official isn't going to turn them to us; instead, it's more likely to repulse people from ever considering us. And even if the goal of some members may be only to reach people to educate, pushing people away from ever considering us is a failure to that end. My too-long $0.02. ken On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty@gmail.com> wrote:
I certainly agree with that last sentence. That's why I started this thread to push past all the emails we've been getting and state my position: that we do not and should not control what individuals say on their own, and that I will oppose any effort to do so. I went on to say how, in my view, that policy can be reconciled (in fact, is sort of automatically reconciled) with avoiding the dangers and consequences the members writing to us are concerned about.
Joshua A. Katz
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 8:47 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos < carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:
Joshua,
You are (not deliberately) miscasting my words. You initial post spoke about content and tone and my comments spoke to that. I then reiterated that I favour professional strategy consultants.
Through human nature and just like I saw (and still see in the campaign committee that turned into an unapproved messaging committee and is now being recast in propo as something that was a social media advisory solution when it was originally proposed and approved as a Gary Johnson campaign post mortem!) shows how these categories keep getting morphed and did once again.
Our content and ideology is fixed to an extent or certainly in a range. How we might present it is not and that has nothing to do with a personal post on a personal page.
-Caryn Ann
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 7:35 AM Joshua Katz <planning4liberty@gmail.com> wrote:
Agreeing with Mr. McKnight, I see simply another instance of us failing to differentiate the message from how it is expressed, although it so happens that I disagree with some of the content as well.
As for agreeing with Mr. Somes, I refuse, in May 2017, to desist from expressing agreement with an LNC policy position because someone has declared a candidacy for May 2018 and said it. Call that bad form if you want, but I am not going to have the range of what I say narrowed by a race a year away.
Finally, my position on our utter lack of a messaging strategy, which is only reinforced by most of the comments I've seen here which imply, to some extent, that a platform is a messaging strategy, is constant. It is a position I have taken, consistently, since I first joined this board in 2014. It is a position which is content-neutral - Mr. Vohra's comments on this very thread, for instance, also seem to point to need for a coherent and consistent messaging strategy - and, I might add, as much as I disagree with what he seems to be proposing, I would take that over the current situation. (In the past, Mr. Vohra advocated for another theme to our messaging, as it were. I'm not sure if he's abandoned that, or if it integrates with what he advocates here. I remain partially in agreement with "Libertarian Solutions" and partially in disagreement, and I tend to think that, while it is a messaging strategy, it might be too far in the direction of saying a single thing rather than speaking in a coherent voice.) I am not going to stop advocating for my position simply because there's a FB uproar, particularly considering that there is always a FB uproar. To call that reactionary is simply incorrect. I am not reacting to anything - you might recall that, when I brought this up in the past, I was criticized precisely because I was not reacting to anything in particular. If examples happen to crop up, I will point to them.
Finally, our inability to focus and project our voice has everything to do with this instance. If we had a stronger voice, no one would care about the current brush-up, and we wouldn't be hearing these complaints. Everyone would understand that Mr. Vohra can speak for himself (and, I might add, I can speak for myself) and that the LP can speak for itself. When we lack such a voice, it is easy not just for officers to appear to be speaking for us when they speak, but for loud enough members. Such a situation causes all of us, officers, board members, and members alike, to choose between the sort of reaction we've seen this week, or shutting up. A party with a stronger voice would allow us not to make that choice, and to be able to speak our minds without becoming, in the public eye, the voice of the party.
Joshua A. Katz
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 8:19 AM, Patrick McKnight < patrick.joseph.mcknight@gmail.com> wrote:
Our principles are immaculate. However we need to connect with people as human beings. It has nothing to do with our platform, it had to do with our mindset. Human beings make decisions based on emotion.
Thanks, Patrick McKnight Region 8 Rep
On May 18, 2017 9:07 AM, "Caryn Ann Harlos" <carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:
David-
Agree and disagree (which proves your point - we are individuals - but bravo! Well spoken!). Our Platform speaks on some things clearly. Let me name one that I disagree with- abortion. But it speaks clearly so I NEVER give the impression that the Party is not pro-choice. Yet on so many issues we are not messaging the clear Party position- such as no force-financed education or no state mandated healthcare (I could name others including anti-war in anything but strict defense). We shy away particularly here. In that instance I agree that we should be saying those core positions so loudly, so strongly, etc that no one will mistake the "Party" position which may or may not be our own (like me with abortion). But tone? Other people are going to use their tone. We are not Stepford Libertarians and the idea that national is going to the grand conductor of tone so that no one will ever mistake a candidate or other prominent person for us is pure unadulterated fantasy. Great for campaign sloganeering and propo but not in practice.
*I would suggest also that it's bad form to use someone's campaign materials aiming for a colleagues position as a point in a debate about policy and using this list to potentially indicate support for said candidacy.* or that is how it could be taken and we must not appear that way on this list.
Other things or even the path to the things above are not so cut and dried. And it is in those areas we should fear mightily any forcing of a unified voice indeed and embrace diversity - the way our SoP does with mini or no state. They both exist and are welcome in this Party despite the divisive attempts of some to expunge that inconvenient truth (not anyone here or any comment here)
Our messaging strategy should be clearly to state our actual platform - our actual SoP- and as this body in 2010 said are the two foundational pillars of Libertarianusm - *non aggression and self ownership* and expect there will be diversity in how that is done.
Professional advice would be foolish to dismiss and that should be explored again particularly in social media targeting.
But this undercurrent of using each thing as an opportunity to try to assert top down control is something I will call out and resist every time. It won't work and it's bad.
Control of our message is the Statement of Principles (not optional and fixed though enough attempts have been made to bury it over the years) and the Platform which is up to the delegates.
We should be so clear that it doesn't matter when our top ticket argues for gun control. We don't. It should be clear that is the Party position. We should not hesitate to show the Platform speaks to that.
We should not hesitate to show that consistent non-force speaks to others. But within that there are different paths and ideas. But we have NOT been as clear or bold as we should be on the twin pillars of non aggression and self ownership.
But using this issue of a personal page to this issue strikes me as a bit opportunistic to a preexisting agenda. Let's not be like the other parties in that.
Nothing in a messaging strategy would have had a thing to do with personal posts on a personal wall for which an apology happened.
-Caryn Ann
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 5:39 AM David Demarest < dpdemarest@centurylink.net> wrote:
The problem is that we as a group of “like-minded” politically-oriented people cannot agree on a core message beyond more freedom and less government (MFLG). As I have often said, there are at least as many Libertarian philosophies as there are Libertarians. Even among loose alliances within the LNC, we do not agree on message content details. Between alliances, we even disagree on core principles. The notion of all of us agreeing to and promoting a detailed common core message beyond MFLG is a flight of fancy and the stuff that statism and puppet masters are made of. The fact remains that groups are not living breathing entities. The notion that groups can have a freely agreed upon unified voice and message is pure unadulterated philosophical nonsense. Groups are conglomerates of individuals with individual voices. Without a police state, it is not possible for groups to have a single voice. Frankly, a group that could or would speak with a single voice would scare the hell out of me. We cannot and should not attempt to speak with one voice. Beware of those who would attempt to force us to speak with one voice. That is the message of statism that we as Libertarians are or should be fighting tooth and nail.
I happen to be one Libertarian that thinks education is a key component of our political action mission. However, if we have difficulty gaining a consensus without protracted debates on even simple political actions such as resolutions on Cuban Libertarian prisoners and medical cannabis and token support for activist candidates, how can we agree on education as part of our mission and what the education message should be? What to do?
Our diversity is a wonderful thing to be embraced. Let us celebrate that diversity that is loosely focused on MFLG and leverage it to empower ourselves as individuals who can go forth and deliver our own diverse individual educational messages of freedom. Point of fact, many or most of us are already delivering our own educational messages. We can have healthy open forum and institutional debates as to the merits of message content details and delivery techniques. However, attempts to muzzle the messages of individual Libertarians and outspoken elected officials beyond delegate elections is fraught with the dangers of statism. As long as I live and breathe, no political party will ever throttle my message short of the use of force.
I believe these recent incidents are fortuitous opportunities to rethink and repurpose our Libertarian institutions to focus on using our inspirational food-for-thought diversity to empower individuals. The flip side of our diversity is the difficulty in getting the consensus required for anything more that relatively trivial actions. However, that lack of consensus does not or should not prevent inspired and empowered individual Libertarians from accomplishing the bulk of Libertarian action as bottom-up volunteers, entrepreneurs and activists and even top-down elected officials. Let’s stop fooling ourselves on controlled unified message content and delivery technique. Through trial and error and healthy debate, we can build our army of empowered individual Libertarians armed with their arsenal of individual message content and delivery techniques who will get us where we want to go. Our Libertarian institution think-tank cauldrons of inspirational diversity have the potential to be a key part of the process of empowering individuals. Let us free ourselves from the bonds of the groupthink and groupspeak, repurpose our institutions and get on with the business of freedom beyond mere MFLG.
Our recent incidents are an opportunistic call to action. What must we do to repurpose our institutions to focus on empowering individual activists and messengers? Now is the time to get past our differences and leverage our diversity to think outside the box. Let the debates begin.
Thoughts?
~David
*Dec 28-Jan 1 Omaha Roads to Liberty Un-Convention*
~David Pratt Demarest
LNC Region 6 Representative (IA, IL, MN, MO, ND, NE, WI)
Secretary, LPNE State Central Committee
Cell: 402-981-6469 <(402)%20981-6469>
Home: 402-493-0873 <(402)%20493-0873>
*From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org] *On Behalf Of *Caryn Ann Harlos *Sent:* Thursday, May 18, 2017 5:01 AM *To:* lnc-business@hq.lp.org *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] I Do Not Agree With What You Say...
If we are talking "messaging problem" - with the exception of the lying word and a couple other turns of phrases I do not agree with, he is absolutely correct.
He is asking we boldly stand on our Platform and the SoP and educate newcomers to our actual positions.
Now THAT is a messaging problem we DO have. And it goes way beyond tone issues of an individual member on a personal way.
Part of our Bylaws mandated roles is to educate people about our core principles and whether in a platform or not they lead to no exchange that is not voluntary, no government interference that violates negative rights, no siezing of resources without consent.
We are not teaching people that thus is what our Statement of Principles says and the Platform is derived theherefrom. I have Libertarians shocked we oppose ALL eminent domain. Because we often deliver less than that in messaging.
Sieving upon the obviously rhetorical over the top flourishes of Arvin that I have avoided is the stuff of FB and should not be our tactic here to avoid the point of what he is saying.
We have always stood for eliminating all involuntary market transactions and asset sieving including taxation, public school, government healthcare etc. but we are not consistently telling people that while still accepting there may be steps from one point to another - we have made a certain step our position and failed to declare the goal. Over and over.
That is our messaging problem in education and outreach.
To anticipate Daniel's question to me- I will say - irrelevant to this discussion and if anyone insists to make it relevant, I will discuss when the special election is over next week and not sooner.
-Caryn Ann
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 3:25 AM Daniel Hayes <danielehayes@icloud.com> wrote:
Arvin,
So most of our candidates are now liars? Weak voices for Liberty?
What kind of steward of our donors money are you. You just voted to give $5000 to someone that doesn't match up on many areas of our platform. Which way is it? Where are your morals?
The REAL libertarian platform would be NONE. Leave our Statement of Principles. Maybe the Omissions plank. Danny Bedwell can tell you I have been advocating for this since at least my first convention in 2014. He kept turning around to me during platform saying, "Why are they telling me what I am supposed to think as a candidate?!" To that I replied, "I'm with ya Danny!"
I am constantly amazed at how authoritarian Libertarians are with regards to telling other people how they MUST think.
So what I am taking away from your email is that you want to cater to the growing segment of the populace that is more actively apathetic to voting than any other demographic. In turn you seem to want to turn off the segments of voters that vote more often than the average demographic.
Once again, your words don't match your recent actions. Why would you give money to a candidate you thought was weak? Is it because its mostly other people's money?
Are we to be a "pure" echo chamber or a party that works to be inclusive of many and that finds areas of common interest for people to work together on to protect and restore our Liberty?
Daniel Hayes
LNC At Large Member
Sent from my iPhone
On May 18, 2017, at 2:53 AM, Arvin Vohra <votevohra@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi All -
During the last months, I've traveled to many state conventions, interviewed many candidates, and kept track of the mood here in DC. In its current form, much of our messaging is largely opposed to our platform, and so anemic as to be politically irrelevant.
We have an education secretary that everyone thinks wants to end all government education. Whether this is true or not matters less than the fact that is what people think and say about her. Our platform is better than hers, as it involves complete elimination of government education and also tax funded education subsidies.
But despite what our platform specifically states, much of the messaging is far softer than the Republicans. Most of the educational messaging I hear and see is not even at the Republican lite level; it's just Republican Weak.
In discussions of healthcare and welfare, I'm seeing the same thing. Our platform is crystal clear on this: get government completely out of healthcare. Messaging? Nowhere near that.
It seems that this is motivated by an attempt to grow the party numerically by essentially tricking people into identifying with the word Libertarian, and then hope they magically develop Libertarian views. But the actual effect is to mislead, bring people in who do not know what Libertarianism is, then have them represent us with a further watered down message, etc. While many sign the NAP, it's not at all clear that they understand the specific policy implications.
In this process, we are losing our natural allies. Although the anarcho-capitalism movement is exploding through social media, most are Trump supporters. In other words, in our desperate attempt to get those who worship public schools and the military with a message of pro-status quo state worship, we are losing our most obvious base. There are those who actually agree with the big parts of our platform but are put off by the simple fact that we never talk about the big, anti-establishment issues, and fixate entirely on marijuana and occasionally alcohol.
I hear more Libertarians arguing in favor of universal welfare than I hear arguing in favor of ending all welfare. I hear many more discussions about eliminating minor alcohol restrictions than the big issues that comprise most of the money stolen from us: healthcare, education, military, and social security.
This has gone far past an issue of messaging. I bet that if today, we did a poll among Libertarian active donors, we'd see a minority that favored all of our positions on these critical issues, and I doubt we'd be even at 80 percent that favored our positions on even one of these issues.
This can be addressed through either education or outreach. If we go the education route, I recommend an automated email series to educate new people on our actual positions. If it's outreach, I'd recommend we stop lying about our position at the national, state, and especially candidate level. Phrase them nice, mean, calm, explosively, however. But for the love of god phrase them somehow.
Let's grow the Libertarian party, not the "I want to identify with a trendy word" party.
If we stop lying, will we lose some people? Maybe a few. But we'll also be welcoming the people who most strongly agree with our positions.
-Arvin
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 12:36 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos < carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:
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
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 3:12 PM, Joshua Katz < planning4liberty@gmail.com> wrote:
Colleagues:
Like the many members we have heard from lately, I disagree strongly with recent comments of one of our members. I feel they are politically backward, and I wish they would stop because of the embarrassment they can bring on this party, and because they lack an appreciation of nuance, in my opinion. Nor is it my position that, as I've seen some claiming, these comments are "true but embarrassing." I am not one who believes that we need to hold back some sacred truths of liberty from the unwashed masses. I often am embarrassed by statements precisely because I think they are wrong - either false or, perhaps more commonly, in that realm of failing to be either true or false.
I am primarily writing, though, to let you know that I would vote 'no' on any of the proposed measures, including censure and suspension. I would vote no because I do not agree that LNC members are never "off the clock." Yes, it is true, people know who we are, and we can never, really, take off our "hats" in public. That's one reason I strive for a low social media profile - that's my personal vision of the position. But when I speak about politics, and do not identify my speech as that of the LP, I do not expect this body to sit in judgment of its truth or its effectiveness.
I believe that censure and suspension are best reserved for unacceptable activities carried out within office. I do not believe it is appropriate to define anything we do which touches on politics as 'within office.' As I've discussed before, in my view we each have almost no power, with some exceptions, except as members of this body. Our power is to vote, not to direct things ourselves. This cuts both ways. We do not have the power to speak for the LP, as individuals, except when specifically given this power by the bylaws or by an appropriate resolution or motion. Lacking that power, we cannot do it wrong.
Furthermore, we do not choose our chair and vice-chair. They are elected by the delegates. I resent the implication that a few outspoken members should, through LNC action, undo the will of the convention. It is not our job, if we think that actions of the delegates have led to insensitive messaging, to try to reverse those actions.
It is our job, on a semi-related note, to control our own messaging. Complaining about FB posts from one of our members is easier than thinking carefully about what we do and how we do it, but it is not a solution. 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. If we believe that one person, speaking on a platform not provided by this party, can derail our message, then shame on us.
Further, that hasn't happened. It is primarily our own people who are angry. I myself am offended, in addition to disagreeing, but I do not see outrage outside Libertarian circles. It will be objected that this is because of our small size and relative lack of success, that if we were larger, we could not afford to be silent. That may very well be true. Yet the world is as it is, and we can afford to be silent, and, in my opinion, should. Furthermore, if we were in the position described, it is also true that our own messaging would be better. I say let's deal with the meme in our own eye before criticizing extra-party messaging. (As an individual, I feel free to criticize, I am speaking about this board's activities.)
Is there any allegation that a member of this board has violated a fiduciary responsibility, has double-dealt for personal gain or gain of others, or has in any way done anything wrong in their party capacity? As far as I am aware, there is not. We are speaking about a person who has, in my view, governed well. We do not always agree, but I always respect his opinions and decisions - and I appreciate that he treats mine the same. Our job is to govern the party - Mr. Vohra does that very well. The vice-chair has additional duties: no one has made any allegation that these were carried out badly or incorrectly. Until I see allegations about those (and I am confident there are none, Mr. Vohra fulfills those responsibilities just fine) I will vote no on any motion on this topic.
In other news, the President of the United States may have revealed classified information to the Russian Foreign Minister and compromised an Israeli source. The travel ban is still working its way through the courts. The Republicans in the House have done what we thought was impossible: found a way to make the ACA more freedom-destroying. Democrats and Republicans are working in lockstep to attack prosperity and the freedom of all, around the world, through nationalist-protectionist policies. I would like to see this party focused on electing Libertarians to office who are serious about, and effective in, addressing these and other issues. In addition to rolling back the size and scope of government, I'd like to see our elected officials simply managing the thing more competently than the corrupt members of the other parties have shown themselves capable of doing. After all, a more effective government will require, in my opinion, a smaller, less powerful government. The government cannot be competent in doing tasks far beyond its competence. So yes, I'd like to see us not insulting key groups of voters or making other political missteps. I'd like to see us prioritize policy over both personal attacks and abstractions - while remembering that we can inspire not just with pocketbook issues, but also with the power of what is right and with strong ideals.
Joshua A. Katz
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
--
*In Liberty,*
*Caryn Ann Harlos*
Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org>
Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org>
Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
*We defend your rights*
*And oppose the use of force*
*Taxation is theft*
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
--
Arvin Vohra
www.VoteVohra.com VoteVohra@gmail.com (301) 320-3634
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
--
*In Liberty,*
*Caryn Ann Harlos*
Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org>
Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org>
Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
*We defend your rights*
*And oppose the use of force*
*Taxation is theft*
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
A haiku to the Statement of Principles: *We defend your rights* *And oppose the use of force* *Taxation is theft*
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
A haiku to the Statement of Principles: *We defend your rights* *And oppose the use of force* *Taxation is theft*
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
Thanks for the post Ken Ed Marsh Sent from my iPhone
On May 18, 2017, at 11:35 AM, Ken Moellman <lpky@mu-net.org> wrote:
My largest concern is that when we speak in public, our titles and roles do come with us. This is politics. When you speak, you are speaking on behalf of others. It is a burden of leadership. And sometimes, that even extends beyond our term in a leadership position.
There's no such thing as "Off Time". Should Donald Trump get a pass because "it's his personal Twitter"? Likewise, when we speak in public, we are speaking for others, whether we like it, or not. I personally hate it - the burden of trying to watch every word you speak - that's why I never want to be a chair ever again.
We should all be wary that HOW we say something can often be the core problem. Let's review the last 3 blow-ups.
Against oligarchy and political dynasties? Yes! Dragging in people with cross-over into our own group? Bad idea.
Satanic Temple post? Fine. Satanic Temple post on Easter week? Bad idea.
Being against the Military Industrial Complex and/or against lying recruiters? Yes! Taking it out on soldiers, most of whom signed up for honorable reasons? Bad idea.
It wasn't the core principle, but the delivery. How an argument is framed can be the difference between getting through and bringing someone to our point of view, and galvanizing existing sides by drawing a sharp line in the sand. In case no one has noticed, we can't afford to draw lines. We don't have the numbers to play the "Us vs Them" game that the Ds and Rs play to galvanize their political bases. We need to speak in ways that bring people to our perspective, not repulse them from us.
In this particular instance, I personally think it's very wrong to blame the people trapped in the system, rather than focusing on the system itself. I thought Larry's livestream on "blame politicians, or blame everyone" was on-point. The system is the problem. We're all trapped in it. People tend to do what's right for them, and in fact that's how the market is supposed to work. The problem is that we have a system that gerrymanders choices and manipulates results. The system of manipulation is the problem, not the people just trying to get by inside the system.
I live in the Cincinnati area, and specifically Northern Kentucky. The big IRS processing center is here -- the one that is tied up in the targeting scandal -- and we have members, past and present, that work at that facility. They don't work there because they love the IRS. They work there because they needed a job, it paid well, and they use the money to support themselves and their families. As they've been awakened, some chose to leave the IRS, with mixed results. Others stay because it feeds their family. I don't condemn those people - they have an obligation to their families. I blame the system that takes skillsets out of the private sector by creating a higher demand, thus increasing wages and making it impossible to reasonably find work outside of the IRS which maintains the standard of living their family currently has.
I don't want to censure anyone - though I'm being hit all over with requests to do so; email, facebook, and pretty much wherever anyone else can find me. I don't want to recall anyone, either. I'm a Region Alternate, and on this sort of matter, I'll follow the lead of the Region Chairs. I am encouraging those that feel strongly about this to take action in NOLA, not through the LNC.
I honestly hope that everyone thinks about ways to focus on attacking the system of manipulation, rather than the people trapped inside of it. We're all trapped inside of it. Every single one of us. Some of us are more aware of it than others. Smacking people in the face by claiming they are heinous criminals, or (perceptively) attacking their religion, or attacking their "favorite" elected official isn't going to turn them to us; instead, it's more likely to repulse people from ever considering us. And even if the goal of some members may be only to reach people to educate, pushing people away from ever considering us is a failure to that end.
My too-long $0.02. ken
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty@gmail.com> wrote: I certainly agree with that last sentence. That's why I started this thread to push past all the emails we've been getting and state my position: that we do not and should not control what individuals say on their own, and that I will oppose any effort to do so. I went on to say how, in my view, that policy can be reconciled (in fact, is sort of automatically reconciled) with avoiding the dangers and consequences the members writing to us are concerned about.
Joshua A. Katz
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 8:47 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote: Joshua,
You are (not deliberately) miscasting my words. You initial post spoke about content and tone and my comments spoke to that. I then reiterated that I favour professional strategy consultants.
Through human nature and just like I saw (and still see in the campaign committee that turned into an unapproved messaging committee and is now being recast in propo as something that was a social media advisory solution when it was originally proposed and approved as a Gary Johnson campaign post mortem!) shows how these categories keep getting morphed and did once again.
Our content and ideology is fixed to an extent or certainly in a range. How we might present it is not and that has nothing to do with a personal post on a personal page.
-Caryn Ann
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 7:35 AM Joshua Katz <planning4liberty@gmail.com> wrote: Agreeing with Mr. McKnight, I see simply another instance of us failing to differentiate the message from how it is expressed, although it so happens that I disagree with some of the content as well.
As for agreeing with Mr. Somes, I refuse, in May 2017, to desist from expressing agreement with an LNC policy position because someone has declared a candidacy for May 2018 and said it. Call that bad form if you want, but I am not going to have the range of what I say narrowed by a race a year away.
Finally, my position on our utter lack of a messaging strategy, which is only reinforced by most of the comments I've seen here which imply, to some extent, that a platform is a messaging strategy, is constant. It is a position I have taken, consistently, since I first joined this board in 2014. It is a position which is content-neutral - Mr. Vohra's comments on this very thread, for instance, also seem to point to need for a coherent and consistent messaging strategy - and, I might add, as much as I disagree with what he seems to be proposing, I would take that over the current situation. (In the past, Mr. Vohra advocated for another theme to our messaging, as it were. I'm not sure if he's abandoned that, or if it integrates with what he advocates here. I remain partially in agreement with "Libertarian Solutions" and partially in disagreement, and I tend to think that, while it is a messaging strategy, it might be too far in the direction of saying a single thing rather than speaking in a coherent voice.) I am not going to stop advocating for my position simply because there's a FB uproar, particularly considering that there is always a FB uproar. To call that reactionary is simply incorrect. I am not reacting to anything - you might recall that, when I brought this up in the past, I was criticized precisely because I was not reacting to anything in particular. If examples happen to crop up, I will point to them.
Finally, our inability to focus and project our voice has everything to do with this instance. If we had a stronger voice, no one would care about the current brush-up, and we wouldn't be hearing these complaints. Everyone would understand that Mr. Vohra can speak for himself (and, I might add, I can speak for myself) and that the LP can speak for itself. When we lack such a voice, it is easy not just for officers to appear to be speaking for us when they speak, but for loud enough members. Such a situation causes all of us, officers, board members, and members alike, to choose between the sort of reaction we've seen this week, or shutting up. A party with a stronger voice would allow us not to make that choice, and to be able to speak our minds without becoming, in the public eye, the voice of the party.
Joshua A. Katz
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 8:19 AM, Patrick McKnight <patrick.joseph.mcknight@gmail.com> wrote: Our principles are immaculate. However we need to connect with people as human beings. It has nothing to do with our platform, it had to do with our mindset. Human beings make decisions based on emotion.
Thanks, Patrick McKnight Region 8 Rep
On May 18, 2017 9:07 AM, "Caryn Ann Harlos" <carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote: David-
Agree and disagree (which proves your point - we are individuals - but bravo! Well spoken!). Our Platform speaks on some things clearly. Let me name one that I disagree with- abortion. But it speaks clearly so I NEVER give the impression that the Party is not pro-choice. Yet on so many issues we are not messaging the clear Party position- such as no force-financed education or no state mandated healthcare (I could name others including anti-war in anything but strict defense). We shy away particularly here. In that instance I agree that we should be saying those core positions so loudly, so strongly, etc that no one will mistake the "Party" position which may or may not be our own (like me with abortion). But tone? Other people are going to use their tone. We are not Stepford Libertarians and the idea that national is going to the grand conductor of tone so that no one will ever mistake a candidate or other prominent person for us is pure unadulterated fantasy. Great for campaign sloganeering and propo but not in practice.
*I would suggest also that it's bad form to use someone's campaign materials aiming for a colleagues position as a point in a debate about policy and using this list to potentially indicate support for said candidacy.* or that is how it could be taken and we must not appear that way on this list.
Other things or even the path to the things above are not so cut and dried. And it is in those areas we should fear mightily any forcing of a unified voice indeed and embrace diversity - the way our SoP does with mini or no state. They both exist and are welcome in this Party despite the divisive attempts of some to expunge that inconvenient truth (not anyone here or any comment here)
Our messaging strategy should be clearly to state our actual platform - our actual SoP- and as this body in 2010 said are the two foundational pillars of Libertarianusm - *non aggression and self ownership* and expect there will be diversity in how that is done.
Professional advice would be foolish to dismiss and that should be explored again particularly in social media targeting.
But this undercurrent of using each thing as an opportunity to try to assert top down control is something I will call out and resist every time. It won't work and it's bad.
Control of our message is the Statement of Principles (not optional and fixed though enough attempts have been made to bury it over the years) and the Platform which is up to the delegates.
We should be so clear that it doesn't matter when our top ticket argues for gun control. We don't. It should be clear that is the Party position. We should not hesitate to show the Platform speaks to that.
We should not hesitate to show that consistent non-force speaks to others. But within that there are different paths and ideas. But we have NOT been as clear or bold as we should be on the twin pillars of non aggression and self ownership.
But using this issue of a personal page to this issue strikes me as a bit opportunistic to a preexisting agenda. Let's not be like the other parties in that.
Nothing in a messaging strategy would have had a thing to do with personal posts on a personal wall for which an apology happened.
-Caryn Ann
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 5:39 AM David Demarest <dpdemarest@centurylink.net> wrote: The problem is that we as a group of “like-minded” politically-oriented people cannot agree on a core message beyond more freedom and less government (MFLG). As I have often said, there are at least as many Libertarian philosophies as there are Libertarians. Even among loose alliances within the LNC, we do not agree on message content details. Between alliances, we even disagree on core principles. The notion of all of us agreeing to and promoting a detailed common core message beyond MFLG is a flight of fancy and the stuff that statism and puppet masters are made of. The fact remains that groups are not living breathing entities. The notion that groups can have a freely agreed upon unified voice and message is pure unadulterated philosophical nonsense. Groups are conglomerates of individuals with individual voices. Without a police state, it is not possible for groups to have a single voice. Frankly, a group that could or would speak with a single voice would scare the hell out of me. We cannot and should not attempt to speak with one voice. Beware of those who would attempt to force us to speak with one voice. That is the message of statism that we as Libertarians are or should be fighting tooth and nail.
I happen to be one Libertarian that thinks education is a key component of our political action mission. However, if we have difficulty gaining a consensus without protracted debates on even simple political actions such as resolutions on Cuban Libertarian prisoners and medical cannabis and token support for activist candidates, how can we agree on education as part of our mission and what the education message should be? What to do?
Our diversity is a wonderful thing to be embraced. Let us celebrate that diversity that is loosely focused on MFLG and leverage it to empower ourselves as individuals who can go forth and deliver our own diverse individual educational messages of freedom. Point of fact, many or most of us are already delivering our own educational messages. We can have healthy open forum and institutional debates as to the merits of message content details and delivery techniques. However, attempts to muzzle the messages of individual Libertarians and outspoken elected officials beyond delegate elections is fraught with the dangers of statism. As long as I live and breathe, no political party will ever throttle my message short of the use of force.
I believe these recent incidents are fortuitous opportunities to rethink and repurpose our Libertarian institutions to focus on using our inspirational food-for-thought diversity to empower individuals. The flip side of our diversity is the difficulty in getting the consensus required for anything more that relatively trivial actions. However, that lack of consensus does not or should not prevent inspired and empowered individual Libertarians from accomplishing the bulk of Libertarian action as bottom-up volunteers, entrepreneurs and activists and even top-down elected officials. Let’s stop fooling ourselves on controlled unified message content and delivery technique. Through trial and error and healthy debate, we can build our army of empowered individual Libertarians armed with their arsenal of individual message content and delivery techniques who will get us where we want to go. Our Libertarian institution think-tank cauldrons of inspirational diversity have the potential to be a key part of the process of empowering individuals. Let us free ourselves from the bonds of the groupthink and groupspeak, repurpose our institutions and get on with the business of freedom beyond mere MFLG.
Our recent incidents are an opportunistic call to action. What must we do to repurpose our institutions to focus on empowering individual activists and messengers? Now is the time to get past our differences and leverage our diversity to think outside the box. Let the debates begin.
Thoughts?
~David
Dec 28-Jan 1 Omaha Roads to Liberty Un-Convention
~David Pratt Demarest
LNC Region 6 Representative (IA, IL, MN, MO, ND, NE, WI)
Secretary, LPNE State Central Committee
Cell: 402-981-6469
Home: 402-493-0873
From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of Caryn Ann Harlos Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 5:01 AM To: lnc-business@hq.lp.org Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] I Do Not Agree With What You Say...
If we are talking "messaging problem" - with the exception of the lying word and a couple other turns of phrases I do not agree with, he is absolutely correct.
He is asking we boldly stand on our Platform and the SoP and educate newcomers to our actual positions.
Now THAT is a messaging problem we DO have. And it goes way beyond tone issues of an individual member on a personal way.
Part of our Bylaws mandated roles is to educate people about our core principles and whether in a platform or not they lead to no exchange that is not voluntary, no government interference that violates negative rights, no siezing of resources without consent.
We are not teaching people that thus is what our Statement of Principles says and the Platform is derived theherefrom. I have Libertarians shocked we oppose ALL eminent domain. Because we often deliver less than that in messaging.
Sieving upon the obviously rhetorical over the top flourishes of Arvin that I have avoided is the stuff of FB and should not be our tactic here to avoid the point of what he is saying.
We have always stood for eliminating all involuntary market transactions and asset sieving including taxation, public school, government healthcare etc. but we are not consistently telling people that while still accepting there may be steps from one point to another - we have made a certain step our position and failed to declare the goal. Over and over.
That is our messaging problem in education and outreach.
To anticipate Daniel's question to me- I will say - irrelevant to this discussion and if anyone insists to make it relevant, I will discuss when the special election is over next week and not sooner.
-Caryn Ann
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 3:25 AM Daniel Hayes <danielehayes@icloud.com> wrote:
Arvin,
So most of our candidates are now liars? Weak voices for Liberty?
What kind of steward of our donors money are you. You just voted to give $5000 to someone that doesn't match up on many areas of our platform. Which way is it? Where are your morals?
The REAL libertarian platform would be NONE. Leave our Statement of Principles. Maybe the Omissions plank. Danny Bedwell can tell you I have been advocating for this since at least my first convention in 2014. He kept turning around to me during platform saying, "Why are they telling me what I am supposed to think as a candidate?!" To that I replied, "I'm with ya Danny!"
I am constantly amazed at how authoritarian Libertarians are with regards to telling other people how they MUST think.
So what I am taking away from your email is that you want to cater to the growing segment of the populace that is more actively apathetic to voting than any other demographic. In turn you seem to want to turn off the segments of voters that vote more often than the average demographic.
Once again, your words don't match your recent actions. Why would you give money to a candidate you thought was weak? Is it because its mostly other people's money?
Are we to be a "pure" echo chamber or a party that works to be inclusive of many and that finds areas of common interest for people to work together on to protect and restore our Liberty?
Daniel Hayes
LNC At Large Member
Sent from my iPhone
On May 18, 2017, at 2:53 AM, Arvin Vohra <votevohra@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi All -
During the last months, I've traveled to many state conventions, interviewed many candidates, and kept track of the mood here in DC. In its current form, much of our messaging is largely opposed to our platform, and so anemic as to be politically irrelevant.
We have an education secretary that everyone thinks wants to end all government education. Whether this is true or not matters less than the fact that is what people think and say about her. Our platform is better than hers, as it involves complete elimination of government education and also tax funded education subsidies.
But despite what our platform specifically states, much of the messaging is far softer than the Republicans. Most of the educational messaging I hear and see is not even at the Republican lite level; it's just Republican Weak.
In discussions of healthcare and welfare, I'm seeing the same thing. Our platform is crystal clear on this: get government completely out of healthcare. Messaging? Nowhere near that.
It seems that this is motivated by an attempt to grow the party numerically by essentially tricking people into identifying with the word Libertarian, and then hope they magically develop Libertarian views. But the actual effect is to mislead, bring people in who do not know what Libertarianism is, then have them represent us with a further watered down message, etc. While many sign the NAP, it's not at all clear that they understand the specific policy implications.
In this process, we are losing our natural allies. Although the anarcho-capitalism movement is exploding through social media, most are Trump supporters. In other words, in our desperate attempt to get those who worship public schools and the military with a message of pro-status quo state worship, we are losing our most obvious base. There are those who actually agree with the big parts of our platform but are put off by the simple fact that we never talk about the big, anti-establishment issues, and fixate entirely on marijuana and occasionally alcohol.
I hear more Libertarians arguing in favor of universal welfare than I hear arguing in favor of ending all welfare. I hear many more discussions about eliminating minor alcohol restrictions than the big issues that comprise most of the money stolen from us: healthcare, education, military, and social security.
This has gone far past an issue of messaging. I bet that if today, we did a poll among Libertarian active donors, we'd see a minority that favored all of our positions on these critical issues, and I doubt we'd be even at 80 percent that favored our positions on even one of these issues.
This can be addressed through either education or outreach. If we go the education route, I recommend an automated email series to educate new people on our actual positions. If it's outreach, I'd recommend we stop lying about our position at the national, state, and especially candidate level. Phrase them nice, mean, calm, explosively, however. But for the love of god phrase them somehow.
Let's grow the Libertarian party, not the "I want to identify with a trendy word" party.
If we stop lying, will we lose some people? Maybe a few. But we'll also be welcoming the people who most strongly agree with our positions.
-Arvin
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 12:36 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:
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
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 3:12 PM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty@gmail.com> wrote:
Colleagues:
Like the many members we have heard from lately, I disagree strongly with recent comments of one of our members. I feel they are politically backward, and I wish they would stop because of the embarrassment they can bring on this party, and because they lack an appreciation of nuance, in my opinion. Nor is it my position that, as I've seen some claiming, these comments are "true but embarrassing." I am not one who believes that we need to hold back some sacred truths of liberty from the unwashed masses. I often am embarrassed by statements precisely because I think they are wrong - either false or, perhaps more commonly, in that realm of failing to be either true or false.
I am primarily writing, though, to let you know that I would vote 'no' on any of the proposed measures, including censure and suspension. I would vote no because I do not agree that LNC members are never "off the clock." Yes, it is true, people know who we are, and we can never, really, take off our "hats" in public. That's one reason I strive for a low social media profile - that's my personal vision of the position. But when I speak about politics, and do not identify my speech as that of the LP, I do not expect this body to sit in judgment of its truth or its effectiveness.
I believe that censure and suspension are best reserved for unacceptable activities carried out within office. I do not believe it is appropriate to define anything we do which touches on politics as 'within office.' As I've discussed before, in my view we each have almost no power, with some exceptions, except as members of this body. Our power is to vote, not to direct things ourselves. This cuts both ways. We do not have the power to speak for the LP, as individuals, except when specifically given this power by the bylaws or by an appropriate resolution or motion. Lacking that power, we cannot do it wrong.
Furthermore, we do not choose our chair and vice-chair. They are elected by the delegates. I resent the implication that a few outspoken members should, through LNC action, undo the will of the convention. It is not our job, if we think that actions of the delegates have led to insensitive messaging, to try to reverse those actions.
It is our job, on a semi-related note, to control our own messaging. Complaining about FB posts from one of our members is easier than thinking carefully about what we do and how we do it, but it is not a solution. 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. If we believe that one person, speaking on a platform not provided by this party, can derail our message, then shame on us.
Further, that hasn't happened. It is primarily our own people who are angry. I myself am offended, in addition to disagreeing, but I do not see outrage outside Libertarian circles. It will be objected that this is because of our small size and relative lack of success, that if we were larger, we could not afford to be silent. That may very well be true. Yet the world is as it is, and we can afford to be silent, and, in my opinion, should. Furthermore, if we were in the position described, it is also true that our own messaging would be better. I say let's deal with the meme in our own eye before criticizing extra-party messaging. (As an individual, I feel free to criticize, I am speaking about this board's activities.)
Is there any allegation that a member of this board has violated a fiduciary responsibility, has double-dealt for personal gain or gain of others, or has in any way done anything wrong in their party capacity? As far as I am aware, there is not. We are speaking about a person who has, in my view, governed well. We do not always agree, but I always respect his opinions and decisions - and I appreciate that he treats mine the same. Our job is to govern the party - Mr. Vohra does that very well. The vice-chair has additional duties: no one has made any allegation that these were carried out badly or incorrectly. Until I see allegations about those (and I am confident there are none, Mr. Vohra fulfills those responsibilities just fine) I will vote no on any motion on this topic.
In other news, the President of the United States may have revealed classified information to the Russian Foreign Minister and compromised an Israeli source. The travel ban is still working its way through the courts. The Republicans in the House have done what we thought was impossible: found a way to make the ACA more freedom-destroying. Democrats and Republicans are working in lockstep to attack prosperity and the freedom of all, around the world, through nationalist-protectionist policies. I would like to see this party focused on electing Libertarians to office who are serious about, and effective in, addressing these and other issues. In addition to rolling back the size and scope of government, I'd like to see our elected officials simply managing the thing more competently than the corrupt members of the other parties have shown themselves capable of doing. After all, a more effective government will require, in my opinion, a smaller, less powerful government. The government cannot be competent in doing tasks far beyond its competence. So yes, I'd like to see us not insulting key groups of voters or making other political missteps. I'd like to see us prioritize policy over both personal attacks and abstractions - while remembering that we can inspire not just with pocketbook issues, but also with the power of what is right and with strong ideals.
Joshua A. Katz
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
--
In Liberty,
Caryn Ann Harlos
Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org
Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
We defend your rights
And oppose the use of force
Taxation is theft
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
--
Arvin Vohra
www.VoteVohra.com VoteVohra@gmail.com (301) 320-3634
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
--
In Liberty,
Caryn Ann Harlos
Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org
Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
We defend your rights
And oppose the use of force
Taxation is theft
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
-- In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
A haiku to the Statement of Principles: We defend your rights And oppose the use of force Taxation is theft
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
-- In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
A haiku to the Statement of Principles: We defend your rights And oppose the use of force Taxation is theft
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
Ken, I fully agree that we are all trapped in this huge scam government manipulation system. How did we get there? With the permission of the majority. Due to the timerity of Arvin, are we now more aware of our role in this manipulation system? I certainly am. How do we get ourselves out of this system? We start by becoming more aware of our role. Then we must answer Arvin's challenge by leveraging our increased awareness as an incentive to get on with our Libertarian responsibilities for thoughtful due diligence instead of acting out because Arvin abruptly nudged us out of our comfort zone. Could this internal hubbub cost us in a few elections? Possibly in the very short term but likely the opposite in the long term. More important, those candidates and their supporters who hysterically run for damage control cover at the expense of long term clarity on our principles will set a dubious example with possible unintended consequences in our pursuit of freedom. Ken, thank you for your astute observation that we are all trapped in in a pervasive manipulation system. What are your proposals for eliminating the manipulation system? Thoughts? On May 18, 2017 10:36 AM, "Ken Moellman" <lpky@mu-net.org> wrote: My largest concern is that when we speak in public, our titles and roles do come with us. This is politics. When you speak, you are speaking on behalf of others. It is a burden of leadership. And sometimes, that even extends beyond our term in a leadership position. There's no such thing as "Off Time". Should Donald Trump get a pass because "it's his personal Twitter"? Likewise, when we speak in public, we are speaking for others, whether we like it, or not. I personally hate it - the burden of trying to watch every word you speak - that's why I never want to be a chair ever again. We should all be wary that HOW we say something can often be the core problem. Let's review the last 3 blow-ups. Against oligarchy and political dynasties? Yes! Dragging in people with cross-over into our own group? Bad idea. Satanic Temple post? Fine. Satanic Temple post on Easter week? Bad idea. Being against the Military Industrial Complex and/or against lying recruiters? Yes! Taking it out on soldiers, most of whom signed up for honorable reasons? Bad idea. It wasn't the core principle, but the delivery. How an argument is framed can be the difference between getting through and bringing someone to our point of view, and galvanizing existing sides by drawing a sharp line in the sand. In case no one has noticed, we can't afford to draw lines. We don't have the numbers to play the "Us vs Them" game that the Ds and Rs play to galvanize their political bases. We need to speak in ways that bring people to our perspective, not repulse them from us. In this particular instance, I personally think it's very wrong to blame the people trapped in the system, rather than focusing on the system itself. I thought Larry's livestream on "blame politicians, or blame everyone" was on-point. The system is the problem. We're all trapped in it. People tend to do what's right for them, and in fact that's how the market is supposed to work. The problem is that we have a system that gerrymanders choices and manipulates results. The system of manipulation is the problem, not the people just trying to get by inside the system. I live in the Cincinnati area, and specifically Northern Kentucky. The big IRS processing center is here -- the one that is tied up in the targeting scandal -- and we have members, past and present, that work at that facility. They don't work there because they love the IRS. They work there because they needed a job, it paid well, and they use the money to support themselves and their families. As they've been awakened, some chose to leave the IRS, with mixed results. Others stay because it feeds their family. I don't condemn those people - they have an obligation to their families. I blame the system that takes skillsets out of the private sector by creating a higher demand, thus increasing wages and making it impossible to reasonably find work outside of the IRS which maintains the standard of living their family currently has. I don't want to censure anyone - though I'm being hit all over with requests to do so; email, facebook, and pretty much wherever anyone else can find me. I don't want to recall anyone, either. I'm a Region Alternate, and on this sort of matter, I'll follow the lead of the Region Chairs. I am encouraging those that feel strongly about this to take action in NOLA, not through the LNC. I honestly hope that everyone thinks about ways to focus on attacking the system of manipulation, rather than the people trapped inside of it. We're all trapped inside of it. Every single one of us. Some of us are more aware of it than others. Smacking people in the face by claiming they are heinous criminals, or (perceptively) attacking their religion, or attacking their "favorite" elected official isn't going to turn them to us; instead, it's more likely to repulse people from ever considering us. And even if the goal of some members may be only to reach people to educate, pushing people away from ever considering us is a failure to that end. My too-long $0.02. ken On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty@gmail.com> wrote:
I certainly agree with that last sentence. That's why I started this thread to push past all the emails we've been getting and state my position: that we do not and should not control what individuals say on their own, and that I will oppose any effort to do so. I went on to say how, in my view, that policy can be reconciled (in fact, is sort of automatically reconciled) with avoiding the dangers and consequences the members writing to us are concerned about.
Joshua A. Katz
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 8:47 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos < carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:
Joshua,
You are (not deliberately) miscasting my words. You initial post spoke about content and tone and my comments spoke to that. I then reiterated that I favour professional strategy consultants.
Through human nature and just like I saw (and still see in the campaign committee that turned into an unapproved messaging committee and is now being recast in propo as something that was a social media advisory solution when it was originally proposed and approved as a Gary Johnson campaign post mortem!) shows how these categories keep getting morphed and did once again.
Our content and ideology is fixed to an extent or certainly in a range. How we might present it is not and that has nothing to do with a personal post on a personal page.
-Caryn Ann
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 7:35 AM Joshua Katz <planning4liberty@gmail.com> wrote:
Agreeing with Mr. McKnight, I see simply another instance of us failing to differentiate the message from how it is expressed, although it so happens that I disagree with some of the content as well.
As for agreeing with Mr. Somes, I refuse, in May 2017, to desist from expressing agreement with an LNC policy position because someone has declared a candidacy for May 2018 and said it. Call that bad form if you want, but I am not going to have the range of what I say narrowed by a race a year away.
Finally, my position on our utter lack of a messaging strategy, which is only reinforced by most of the comments I've seen here which imply, to some extent, that a platform is a messaging strategy, is constant. It is a position I have taken, consistently, since I first joined this board in 2014. It is a position which is content-neutral - Mr. Vohra's comments on this very thread, for instance, also seem to point to need for a coherent and consistent messaging strategy - and, I might add, as much as I disagree with what he seems to be proposing, I would take that over the current situation. (In the past, Mr. Vohra advocated for another theme to our messaging, as it were. I'm not sure if he's abandoned that, or if it integrates with what he advocates here. I remain partially in agreement with "Libertarian Solutions" and partially in disagreement, and I tend to think that, while it is a messaging strategy, it might be too far in the direction of saying a single thing rather than speaking in a coherent voice.) I am not going to stop advocating for my position simply because there's a FB uproar, particularly considering that there is always a FB uproar. To call that reactionary is simply incorrect. I am not reacting to anything - you might recall that, when I brought this up in the past, I was criticized precisely because I was not reacting to anything in particular. If examples happen to crop up, I will point to them.
Finally, our inability to focus and project our voice has everything to do with this instance. If we had a stronger voice, no one would care about the current brush-up, and we wouldn't be hearing these complaints. Everyone would understand that Mr. Vohra can speak for himself (and, I might add, I can speak for myself) and that the LP can speak for itself. When we lack such a voice, it is easy not just for officers to appear to be speaking for us when they speak, but for loud enough members. Such a situation causes all of us, officers, board members, and members alike, to choose between the sort of reaction we've seen this week, or shutting up. A party with a stronger voice would allow us not to make that choice, and to be able to speak our minds without becoming, in the public eye, the voice of the party.
Joshua A. Katz
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 8:19 AM, Patrick McKnight < patrick.joseph.mcknight@gmail.com> wrote:
Our principles are immaculate. However we need to connect with people as human beings. It has nothing to do with our platform, it had to do with our mindset. Human beings make decisions based on emotion.
Thanks, Patrick McKnight Region 8 Rep
On May 18, 2017 9:07 AM, "Caryn Ann Harlos" <carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:
David-
Agree and disagree (which proves your point - we are individuals - but bravo! Well spoken!). Our Platform speaks on some things clearly. Let me name one that I disagree with- abortion. But it speaks clearly so I NEVER give the impression that the Party is not pro-choice. Yet on so many issues we are not messaging the clear Party position- such as no force-financed education or no state mandated healthcare (I could name others including anti-war in anything but strict defense). We shy away particularly here. In that instance I agree that we should be saying those core positions so loudly, so strongly, etc that no one will mistake the "Party" position which may or may not be our own (like me with abortion). But tone? Other people are going to use their tone. We are not Stepford Libertarians and the idea that national is going to the grand conductor of tone so that no one will ever mistake a candidate or other prominent person for us is pure unadulterated fantasy. Great for campaign sloganeering and propo but not in practice.
*I would suggest also that it's bad form to use someone's campaign materials aiming for a colleagues position as a point in a debate about policy and using this list to potentially indicate support for said candidacy.* or that is how it could be taken and we must not appear that way on this list.
Other things or even the path to the things above are not so cut and dried. And it is in those areas we should fear mightily any forcing of a unified voice indeed and embrace diversity - the way our SoP does with mini or no state. They both exist and are welcome in this Party despite the divisive attempts of some to expunge that inconvenient truth (not anyone here or any comment here)
Our messaging strategy should be clearly to state our actual platform - our actual SoP- and as this body in 2010 said are the two foundational pillars of Libertarianusm - *non aggression and self ownership* and expect there will be diversity in how that is done.
Professional advice would be foolish to dismiss and that should be explored again particularly in social media targeting.
But this undercurrent of using each thing as an opportunity to try to assert top down control is something I will call out and resist every time. It won't work and it's bad.
Control of our message is the Statement of Principles (not optional and fixed though enough attempts have been made to bury it over the years) and the Platform which is up to the delegates.
We should be so clear that it doesn't matter when our top ticket argues for gun control. We don't. It should be clear that is the Party position. We should not hesitate to show the Platform speaks to that.
We should not hesitate to show that consistent non-force speaks to others. But within that there are different paths and ideas. But we have NOT been as clear or bold as we should be on the twin pillars of non aggression and self ownership.
But using this issue of a personal page to this issue strikes me as a bit opportunistic to a preexisting agenda. Let's not be like the other parties in that.
Nothing in a messaging strategy would have had a thing to do with personal posts on a personal wall for which an apology happened.
-Caryn Ann
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 5:39 AM David Demarest < dpdemarest@centurylink.net> wrote:
The problem is that we as a group of “like-minded” politically-oriented people cannot agree on a core message beyond more freedom and less government (MFLG). As I have often said, there are at least as many Libertarian philosophies as there are Libertarians. Even among loose alliances within the LNC, we do not agree on message content details. Between alliances, we even disagree on core principles. The notion of all of us agreeing to and promoting a detailed common core message beyond MFLG is a flight of fancy and the stuff that statism and puppet masters are made of. The fact remains that groups are not living breathing entities. The notion that groups can have a freely agreed upon unified voice and message is pure unadulterated philosophical nonsense. Groups are conglomerates of individuals with individual voices. Without a police state, it is not possible for groups to have a single voice. Frankly, a group that could or would speak with a single voice would scare the hell out of me. We cannot and should not attempt to speak with one voice. Beware of those who would attempt to force us to speak with one voice. That is the message of statism that we as Libertarians are or should be fighting tooth and nail.
I happen to be one Libertarian that thinks education is a key component of our political action mission. However, if we have difficulty gaining a consensus without protracted debates on even simple political actions such as resolutions on Cuban Libertarian prisoners and medical cannabis and token support for activist candidates, how can we agree on education as part of our mission and what the education message should be? What to do?
Our diversity is a wonderful thing to be embraced. Let us celebrate that diversity that is loosely focused on MFLG and leverage it to empower ourselves as individuals who can go forth and deliver our own diverse individual educational messages of freedom. Point of fact, many or most of us are already delivering our own educational messages. We can have healthy open forum and institutional debates as to the merits of message content details and delivery techniques. However, attempts to muzzle the messages of individual Libertarians and outspoken elected officials beyond delegate elections is fraught with the dangers of statism. As long as I live and breathe, no political party will ever throttle my message short of the use of force.
I believe these recent incidents are fortuitous opportunities to rethink and repurpose our Libertarian institutions to focus on using our inspirational food-for-thought diversity to empower individuals. The flip side of our diversity is the difficulty in getting the consensus required for anything more that relatively trivial actions. However, that lack of consensus does not or should not prevent inspired and empowered individual Libertarians from accomplishing the bulk of Libertarian action as bottom-up volunteers, entrepreneurs and activists and even top-down elected officials. Let’s stop fooling ourselves on controlled unified message content and delivery technique. Through trial and error and healthy debate, we can build our army of empowered individual Libertarians armed with their arsenal of individual message content and delivery techniques who will get us where we want to go. Our Libertarian institution think-tank cauldrons of inspirational diversity have the potential to be a key part of the process of empowering individuals. Let us free ourselves from the bonds of the groupthink and groupspeak, repurpose our institutions and get on with the business of freedom beyond mere MFLG.
Our recent incidents are an opportunistic call to action. What must we do to repurpose our institutions to focus on empowering individual activists and messengers? Now is the time to get past our differences and leverage our diversity to think outside the box. Let the debates begin.
Thoughts?
~David
*Dec 28-Jan 1 Omaha Roads to Liberty Un-Convention*
~David Pratt Demarest
LNC Region 6 Representative (IA, IL, MN, MO, ND, NE, WI)
Secretary, LPNE State Central Committee
Cell: 402-981-6469 <(402)%20981-6469>
Home: 402-493-0873 <(402)%20493-0873>
*From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org] *On Behalf Of *Caryn Ann Harlos *Sent:* Thursday, May 18, 2017 5:01 AM *To:* lnc-business@hq.lp.org *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] I Do Not Agree With What You Say...
If we are talking "messaging problem" - with the exception of the lying word and a couple other turns of phrases I do not agree with, he is absolutely correct.
He is asking we boldly stand on our Platform and the SoP and educate newcomers to our actual positions.
Now THAT is a messaging problem we DO have. And it goes way beyond tone issues of an individual member on a personal way.
Part of our Bylaws mandated roles is to educate people about our core principles and whether in a platform or not they lead to no exchange that is not voluntary, no government interference that violates negative rights, no siezing of resources without consent.
We are not teaching people that thus is what our Statement of Principles says and the Platform is derived theherefrom. I have Libertarians shocked we oppose ALL eminent domain. Because we often deliver less than that in messaging.
Sieving upon the obviously rhetorical over the top flourishes of Arvin that I have avoided is the stuff of FB and should not be our tactic here to avoid the point of what he is saying.
We have always stood for eliminating all involuntary market transactions and asset sieving including taxation, public school, government healthcare etc. but we are not consistently telling people that while still accepting there may be steps from one point to another - we have made a certain step our position and failed to declare the goal. Over and over.
That is our messaging problem in education and outreach.
To anticipate Daniel's question to me- I will say - irrelevant to this discussion and if anyone insists to make it relevant, I will discuss when the special election is over next week and not sooner.
-Caryn Ann
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 3:25 AM Daniel Hayes <danielehayes@icloud.com> wrote:
Arvin,
So most of our candidates are now liars? Weak voices for Liberty?
What kind of steward of our donors money are you. You just voted to give $5000 to someone that doesn't match up on many areas of our platform. Which way is it? Where are your morals?
The REAL libertarian platform would be NONE. Leave our Statement of Principles. Maybe the Omissions plank. Danny Bedwell can tell you I have been advocating for this since at least my first convention in 2014. He kept turning around to me during platform saying, "Why are they telling me what I am supposed to think as a candidate?!" To that I replied, "I'm with ya Danny!"
I am constantly amazed at how authoritarian Libertarians are with regards to telling other people how they MUST think.
So what I am taking away from your email is that you want to cater to the growing segment of the populace that is more actively apathetic to voting than any other demographic. In turn you seem to want to turn off the segments of voters that vote more often than the average demographic.
Once again, your words don't match your recent actions. Why would you give money to a candidate you thought was weak? Is it because its mostly other people's money?
Are we to be a "pure" echo chamber or a party that works to be inclusive of many and that finds areas of common interest for people to work together on to protect and restore our Liberty?
Daniel Hayes
LNC At Large Member
Sent from my iPhone
On May 18, 2017, at 2:53 AM, Arvin Vohra <votevohra@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi All -
During the last months, I've traveled to many state conventions, interviewed many candidates, and kept track of the mood here in DC. In its current form, much of our messaging is largely opposed to our platform, and so anemic as to be politically irrelevant.
We have an education secretary that everyone thinks wants to end all government education. Whether this is true or not matters less than the fact that is what people think and say about her. Our platform is better than hers, as it involves complete elimination of government education and also tax funded education subsidies.
But despite what our platform specifically states, much of the messaging is far softer than the Republicans. Most of the educational messaging I hear and see is not even at the Republican lite level; it's just Republican Weak.
In discussions of healthcare and welfare, I'm seeing the same thing. Our platform is crystal clear on this: get government completely out of healthcare. Messaging? Nowhere near that.
It seems that this is motivated by an attempt to grow the party numerically by essentially tricking people into identifying with the word Libertarian, and then hope they magically develop Libertarian views. But the actual effect is to mislead, bring people in who do not know what Libertarianism is, then have them represent us with a further watered down message, etc. While many sign the NAP, it's not at all clear that they understand the specific policy implications.
In this process, we are losing our natural allies. Although the anarcho-capitalism movement is exploding through social media, most are Trump supporters. In other words, in our desperate attempt to get those who worship public schools and the military with a message of pro-status quo state worship, we are losing our most obvious base. There are those who actually agree with the big parts of our platform but are put off by the simple fact that we never talk about the big, anti-establishment issues, and fixate entirely on marijuana and occasionally alcohol.
I hear more Libertarians arguing in favor of universal welfare than I hear arguing in favor of ending all welfare. I hear many more discussions about eliminating minor alcohol restrictions than the big issues that comprise most of the money stolen from us: healthcare, education, military, and social security.
This has gone far past an issue of messaging. I bet that if today, we did a poll among Libertarian active donors, we'd see a minority that favored all of our positions on these critical issues, and I doubt we'd be even at 80 percent that favored our positions on even one of these issues.
This can be addressed through either education or outreach. If we go the education route, I recommend an automated email series to educate new people on our actual positions. If it's outreach, I'd recommend we stop lying about our position at the national, state, and especially candidate level. Phrase them nice, mean, calm, explosively, however. But for the love of god phrase them somehow.
Let's grow the Libertarian party, not the "I want to identify with a trendy word" party.
If we stop lying, will we lose some people? Maybe a few. But we'll also be welcoming the people who most strongly agree with our positions.
-Arvin
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 12:36 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos < carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:
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
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 3:12 PM, Joshua Katz < planning4liberty@gmail.com> wrote:
Colleagues:
Like the many members we have heard from lately, I disagree strongly with recent comments of one of our members. I feel they are politically backward, and I wish they would stop because of the embarrassment they can bring on this party, and because they lack an appreciation of nuance, in my opinion. Nor is it my position that, as I've seen some claiming, these comments are "true but embarrassing." I am not one who believes that we need to hold back some sacred truths of liberty from the unwashed masses. I often am embarrassed by statements precisely because I think they are wrong - either false or, perhaps more commonly, in that realm of failing to be either true or false.
I am primarily writing, though, to let you know that I would vote 'no' on any of the proposed measures, including censure and suspension. I would vote no because I do not agree that LNC members are never "off the clock." Yes, it is true, people know who we are, and we can never, really, take off our "hats" in public. That's one reason I strive for a low social media profile - that's my personal vision of the position. But when I speak about politics, and do not identify my speech as that of the LP, I do not expect this body to sit in judgment of its truth or its effectiveness.
I believe that censure and suspension are best reserved for unacceptable activities carried out within office. I do not believe it is appropriate to define anything we do which touches on politics as 'within office.' As I've discussed before, in my view we each have almost no power, with some exceptions, except as members of this body. Our power is to vote, not to direct things ourselves. This cuts both ways. We do not have the power to speak for the LP, as individuals, except when specifically given this power by the bylaws or by an appropriate resolution or motion. Lacking that power, we cannot do it wrong.
Furthermore, we do not choose our chair and vice-chair. They are elected by the delegates. I resent the implication that a few outspoken members should, through LNC action, undo the will of the convention. It is not our job, if we think that actions of the delegates have led to insensitive messaging, to try to reverse those actions.
It is our job, on a semi-related note, to control our own messaging. Complaining about FB posts from one of our members is easier than thinking carefully about what we do and how we do it, but it is not a solution. 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. If we believe that one person, speaking on a platform not provided by this party, can derail our message, then shame on us.
Further, that hasn't happened. It is primarily our own people who are angry. I myself am offended, in addition to disagreeing, but I do not see outrage outside Libertarian circles. It will be objected that this is because of our small size and relative lack of success, that if we were larger, we could not afford to be silent. That may very well be true. Yet the world is as it is, and we can afford to be silent, and, in my opinion, should. Furthermore, if we were in the position described, it is also true that our own messaging would be better. I say let's deal with the meme in our own eye before criticizing extra-party messaging. (As an individual, I feel free to criticize, I am speaking about this board's activities.)
Is there any allegation that a member of this board has violated a fiduciary responsibility, has double-dealt for personal gain or gain of others, or has in any way done anything wrong in their party capacity? As far as I am aware, there is not. We are speaking about a person who has, in my view, governed well. We do not always agree, but I always respect his opinions and decisions - and I appreciate that he treats mine the same. Our job is to govern the party - Mr. Vohra does that very well. The vice-chair has additional duties: no one has made any allegation that these were carried out badly or incorrectly. Until I see allegations about those (and I am confident there are none, Mr. Vohra fulfills those responsibilities just fine) I will vote no on any motion on this topic.
In other news, the President of the United States may have revealed classified information to the Russian Foreign Minister and compromised an Israeli source. The travel ban is still working its way through the courts. The Republicans in the House have done what we thought was impossible: found a way to make the ACA more freedom-destroying. Democrats and Republicans are working in lockstep to attack prosperity and the freedom of all, around the world, through nationalist-protectionist policies. I would like to see this party focused on electing Libertarians to office who are serious about, and effective in, addressing these and other issues. In addition to rolling back the size and scope of government, I'd like to see our elected officials simply managing the thing more competently than the corrupt members of the other parties have shown themselves capable of doing. After all, a more effective government will require, in my opinion, a smaller, less powerful government. The government cannot be competent in doing tasks far beyond its competence. So yes, I'd like to see us not insulting key groups of voters or making other political missteps. I'd like to see us prioritize policy over both personal attacks and abstractions - while remembering that we can inspire not just with pocketbook issues, but also with the power of what is right and with strong ideals.
Joshua A. Katz
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
--
*In Liberty,*
*Caryn Ann Harlos*
Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org>
Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org>
Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
*We defend your rights*
*And oppose the use of force*
*Taxation is theft*
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
--
Arvin Vohra
www.VoteVohra.com VoteVohra@gmail.com (301) 320-3634
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
--
*In Liberty,*
*Caryn Ann Harlos*
Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org>
Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org>
Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
*We defend your rights*
*And oppose the use of force*
*Taxation is theft*
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
A haiku to the Statement of Principles: *We defend your rights* *And oppose the use of force* *Taxation is theft*
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
A haiku to the Statement of Principles: *We defend your rights* *And oppose the use of force* *Taxation is theft*
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
My way of waking people up is strategic in nature, and situational. When addressing a large audience, I generally scale back to a generally accepted message. When one-on-one, I am likely to speak much more specifically to particular issues of value to that other individual. The interesting thing about repulsing people is that no matter what happens, you can pretty much never mend the bridge and never reach that person or those persons. When it switches from the policy to the personal, things like principles and goals get thrown out the window, in favor of "Eff that guy." In fact, repulsion can create (an) activist(s) specifically against you, or even your position, because of the emotional response. In trying to come up with a good analogy, I remembered that once upon a time, in High School, I was involved in an RPG. In this RPG, the "good guys" turned into "bad guys", and upon discovering time travel decided to go back in time and convince their "good guys" selves to become "bad guys" sooner, so they would become richer in the future. The "good guys" version of the past were repulsed by this idea of turning bad, and became firm in their resolve to never become "bad guys" (and since time travel was involved this created a paradox, but that's not the point right now). The point is that if you draw a hard line between yourself and someone else, it makes it far less likely that you'll convert them to your side of the line later. On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 12:30 PM, David Demarest <dprattdemarest@gmail.com> wrote:
Ken, I fully agree that we are all trapped in this huge scam government manipulation system. How did we get there? With the permission of the majority.
Due to the timerity of Arvin, are we now more aware of our role in this manipulation system? I certainly am.
How do we get ourselves out of this system? We start by becoming more aware of our role. Then we must answer Arvin's challenge by leveraging our increased awareness as an incentive to get on with our Libertarian responsibilities for thoughtful due diligence instead of acting out because Arvin abruptly nudged us out of our comfort zone.
Could this internal hubbub cost us in a few elections? Possibly in the very short term but likely the opposite in the long term. More important, those candidates and their supporters who hysterically run for damage control cover at the expense of long term clarity on our principles will set a dubious example with possible unintended consequences in our pursuit of freedom.
Ken, thank you for your astute observation that we are all trapped in in a pervasive manipulation system. What are your proposals for eliminating the manipulation system?
Thoughts?
On May 18, 2017 10:36 AM, "Ken Moellman" <lpky@mu-net.org> wrote:
My largest concern is that when we speak in public, our titles and roles do come with us. This is politics. When you speak, you are speaking on behalf of others. It is a burden of leadership. And sometimes, that even extends beyond our term in a leadership position.
There's no such thing as "Off Time". Should Donald Trump get a pass because "it's his personal Twitter"? Likewise, when we speak in public, we are speaking for others, whether we like it, or not. I personally hate it - the burden of trying to watch every word you speak - that's why I never want to be a chair ever again.
We should all be wary that HOW we say something can often be the core problem. Let's review the last 3 blow-ups.
Against oligarchy and political dynasties? Yes! Dragging in people with cross-over into our own group? Bad idea.
Satanic Temple post? Fine. Satanic Temple post on Easter week? Bad idea.
Being against the Military Industrial Complex and/or against lying recruiters? Yes! Taking it out on soldiers, most of whom signed up for honorable reasons? Bad idea.
It wasn't the core principle, but the delivery. How an argument is framed can be the difference between getting through and bringing someone to our point of view, and galvanizing existing sides by drawing a sharp line in the sand. In case no one has noticed, we can't afford to draw lines. We don't have the numbers to play the "Us vs Them" game that the Ds and Rs play to galvanize their political bases. We need to speak in ways that bring people to our perspective, not repulse them from us.
In this particular instance, I personally think it's very wrong to blame the people trapped in the system, rather than focusing on the system itself. I thought Larry's livestream on "blame politicians, or blame everyone" was on-point. The system is the problem. We're all trapped in it. People tend to do what's right for them, and in fact that's how the market is supposed to work. The problem is that we have a system that gerrymanders choices and manipulates results. The system of manipulation is the problem, not the people just trying to get by inside the system.
I live in the Cincinnati area, and specifically Northern Kentucky. The big IRS processing center is here -- the one that is tied up in the targeting scandal -- and we have members, past and present, that work at that facility. They don't work there because they love the IRS. They work there because they needed a job, it paid well, and they use the money to support themselves and their families. As they've been awakened, some chose to leave the IRS, with mixed results. Others stay because it feeds their family. I don't condemn those people - they have an obligation to their families. I blame the system that takes skillsets out of the private sector by creating a higher demand, thus increasing wages and making it impossible to reasonably find work outside of the IRS which maintains the standard of living their family currently has.
I don't want to censure anyone - though I'm being hit all over with requests to do so; email, facebook, and pretty much wherever anyone else can find me. I don't want to recall anyone, either. I'm a Region Alternate, and on this sort of matter, I'll follow the lead of the Region Chairs. I am encouraging those that feel strongly about this to take action in NOLA, not through the LNC.
I honestly hope that everyone thinks about ways to focus on attacking the system of manipulation, rather than the people trapped inside of it. We're all trapped inside of it. Every single one of us. Some of us are more aware of it than others. Smacking people in the face by claiming they are heinous criminals, or (perceptively) attacking their religion, or attacking their "favorite" elected official isn't going to turn them to us; instead, it's more likely to repulse people from ever considering us. And even if the goal of some members may be only to reach people to educate, pushing people away from ever considering us is a failure to that end.
My too-long $0.02. ken
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty@gmail.com> wrote:
I certainly agree with that last sentence. That's why I started this thread to push past all the emails we've been getting and state my position: that we do not and should not control what individuals say on their own, and that I will oppose any effort to do so. I went on to say how, in my view, that policy can be reconciled (in fact, is sort of automatically reconciled) with avoiding the dangers and consequences the members writing to us are concerned about.
Joshua A. Katz
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 8:47 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos < carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:
Joshua,
You are (not deliberately) miscasting my words. You initial post spoke about content and tone and my comments spoke to that. I then reiterated that I favour professional strategy consultants.
Through human nature and just like I saw (and still see in the campaign committee that turned into an unapproved messaging committee and is now being recast in propo as something that was a social media advisory solution when it was originally proposed and approved as a Gary Johnson campaign post mortem!) shows how these categories keep getting morphed and did once again.
Our content and ideology is fixed to an extent or certainly in a range. How we might present it is not and that has nothing to do with a personal post on a personal page.
-Caryn Ann
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 7:35 AM Joshua Katz <planning4liberty@gmail.com> wrote:
Agreeing with Mr. McKnight, I see simply another instance of us failing to differentiate the message from how it is expressed, although it so happens that I disagree with some of the content as well.
As for agreeing with Mr. Somes, I refuse, in May 2017, to desist from expressing agreement with an LNC policy position because someone has declared a candidacy for May 2018 and said it. Call that bad form if you want, but I am not going to have the range of what I say narrowed by a race a year away.
Finally, my position on our utter lack of a messaging strategy, which is only reinforced by most of the comments I've seen here which imply, to some extent, that a platform is a messaging strategy, is constant. It is a position I have taken, consistently, since I first joined this board in 2014. It is a position which is content-neutral - Mr. Vohra's comments on this very thread, for instance, also seem to point to need for a coherent and consistent messaging strategy - and, I might add, as much as I disagree with what he seems to be proposing, I would take that over the current situation. (In the past, Mr. Vohra advocated for another theme to our messaging, as it were. I'm not sure if he's abandoned that, or if it integrates with what he advocates here. I remain partially in agreement with "Libertarian Solutions" and partially in disagreement, and I tend to think that, while it is a messaging strategy, it might be too far in the direction of saying a single thing rather than speaking in a coherent voice.) I am not going to stop advocating for my position simply because there's a FB uproar, particularly considering that there is always a FB uproar. To call that reactionary is simply incorrect. I am not reacting to anything - you might recall that, when I brought this up in the past, I was criticized precisely because I was not reacting to anything in particular. If examples happen to crop up, I will point to them.
Finally, our inability to focus and project our voice has everything to do with this instance. If we had a stronger voice, no one would care about the current brush-up, and we wouldn't be hearing these complaints. Everyone would understand that Mr. Vohra can speak for himself (and, I might add, I can speak for myself) and that the LP can speak for itself. When we lack such a voice, it is easy not just for officers to appear to be speaking for us when they speak, but for loud enough members. Such a situation causes all of us, officers, board members, and members alike, to choose between the sort of reaction we've seen this week, or shutting up. A party with a stronger voice would allow us not to make that choice, and to be able to speak our minds without becoming, in the public eye, the voice of the party.
Joshua A. Katz
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 8:19 AM, Patrick McKnight < patrick.joseph.mcknight@gmail.com> wrote:
Our principles are immaculate. However we need to connect with people as human beings. It has nothing to do with our platform, it had to do with our mindset. Human beings make decisions based on emotion.
Thanks, Patrick McKnight Region 8 Rep
On May 18, 2017 9:07 AM, "Caryn Ann Harlos" <carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:
David-
Agree and disagree (which proves your point - we are individuals - but bravo! Well spoken!). Our Platform speaks on some things clearly. Let me name one that I disagree with- abortion. But it speaks clearly so I NEVER give the impression that the Party is not pro-choice. Yet on so many issues we are not messaging the clear Party position- such as no force-financed education or no state mandated healthcare (I could name others including anti-war in anything but strict defense). We shy away particularly here. In that instance I agree that we should be saying those core positions so loudly, so strongly, etc that no one will mistake the "Party" position which may or may not be our own (like me with abortion). But tone? Other people are going to use their tone. We are not Stepford Libertarians and the idea that national is going to the grand conductor of tone so that no one will ever mistake a candidate or other prominent person for us is pure unadulterated fantasy. Great for campaign sloganeering and propo but not in practice.
*I would suggest also that it's bad form to use someone's campaign materials aiming for a colleagues position as a point in a debate about policy and using this list to potentially indicate support for said candidacy.* or that is how it could be taken and we must not appear that way on this list.
Other things or even the path to the things above are not so cut and dried. And it is in those areas we should fear mightily any forcing of a unified voice indeed and embrace diversity - the way our SoP does with mini or no state. They both exist and are welcome in this Party despite the divisive attempts of some to expunge that inconvenient truth (not anyone here or any comment here)
Our messaging strategy should be clearly to state our actual platform - our actual SoP- and as this body in 2010 said are the two foundational pillars of Libertarianusm - *non aggression and self ownership* and expect there will be diversity in how that is done.
Professional advice would be foolish to dismiss and that should be explored again particularly in social media targeting.
But this undercurrent of using each thing as an opportunity to try to assert top down control is something I will call out and resist every time. It won't work and it's bad.
Control of our message is the Statement of Principles (not optional and fixed though enough attempts have been made to bury it over the years) and the Platform which is up to the delegates.
We should be so clear that it doesn't matter when our top ticket argues for gun control. We don't. It should be clear that is the Party position. We should not hesitate to show the Platform speaks to that.
We should not hesitate to show that consistent non-force speaks to others. But within that there are different paths and ideas. But we have NOT been as clear or bold as we should be on the twin pillars of non aggression and self ownership.
But using this issue of a personal page to this issue strikes me as a bit opportunistic to a preexisting agenda. Let's not be like the other parties in that.
Nothing in a messaging strategy would have had a thing to do with personal posts on a personal wall for which an apology happened.
-Caryn Ann
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 5:39 AM David Demarest < dpdemarest@centurylink.net> wrote:
The problem is that we as a group of “like-minded” politically-oriented people cannot agree on a core message beyond more freedom and less government (MFLG). As I have often said, there are at least as many Libertarian philosophies as there are Libertarians. Even among loose alliances within the LNC, we do not agree on message content details. Between alliances, we even disagree on core principles. The notion of all of us agreeing to and promoting a detailed common core message beyond MFLG is a flight of fancy and the stuff that statism and puppet masters are made of. The fact remains that groups are not living breathing entities. The notion that groups can have a freely agreed upon unified voice and message is pure unadulterated philosophical nonsense. Groups are conglomerates of individuals with individual voices. Without a police state, it is not possible for groups to have a single voice. Frankly, a group that could or would speak with a single voice would scare the hell out of me. We cannot and should not attempt to speak with one voice. Beware of those who would attempt to force us to speak with one voice. That is the message of statism that we as Libertarians are or should be fighting tooth and nail.
I happen to be one Libertarian that thinks education is a key component of our political action mission. However, if we have difficulty gaining a consensus without protracted debates on even simple political actions such as resolutions on Cuban Libertarian prisoners and medical cannabis and token support for activist candidates, how can we agree on education as part of our mission and what the education message should be? What to do?
Our diversity is a wonderful thing to be embraced. Let us celebrate that diversity that is loosely focused on MFLG and leverage it to empower ourselves as individuals who can go forth and deliver our own diverse individual educational messages of freedom. Point of fact, many or most of us are already delivering our own educational messages. We can have healthy open forum and institutional debates as to the merits of message content details and delivery techniques. However, attempts to muzzle the messages of individual Libertarians and outspoken elected officials beyond delegate elections is fraught with the dangers of statism. As long as I live and breathe, no political party will ever throttle my message short of the use of force.
I believe these recent incidents are fortuitous opportunities to rethink and repurpose our Libertarian institutions to focus on using our inspirational food-for-thought diversity to empower individuals. The flip side of our diversity is the difficulty in getting the consensus required for anything more that relatively trivial actions. However, that lack of consensus does not or should not prevent inspired and empowered individual Libertarians from accomplishing the bulk of Libertarian action as bottom-up volunteers, entrepreneurs and activists and even top-down elected officials. Let’s stop fooling ourselves on controlled unified message content and delivery technique. Through trial and error and healthy debate, we can build our army of empowered individual Libertarians armed with their arsenal of individual message content and delivery techniques who will get us where we want to go. Our Libertarian institution think-tank cauldrons of inspirational diversity have the potential to be a key part of the process of empowering individuals. Let us free ourselves from the bonds of the groupthink and groupspeak, repurpose our institutions and get on with the business of freedom beyond mere MFLG.
Our recent incidents are an opportunistic call to action. What must we do to repurpose our institutions to focus on empowering individual activists and messengers? Now is the time to get past our differences and leverage our diversity to think outside the box. Let the debates begin.
Thoughts?
~David
*Dec 28-Jan 1 Omaha Roads to Liberty Un-Convention*
~David Pratt Demarest
LNC Region 6 Representative (IA, IL, MN, MO, ND, NE, WI)
Secretary, LPNE State Central Committee
Cell: 402-981-6469 <(402)%20981-6469>
Home: 402-493-0873 <(402)%20493-0873>
*From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org] *On Behalf Of *Caryn Ann Harlos *Sent:* Thursday, May 18, 2017 5:01 AM *To:* lnc-business@hq.lp.org *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] I Do Not Agree With What You Say...
If we are talking "messaging problem" - with the exception of the lying word and a couple other turns of phrases I do not agree with, he is absolutely correct.
He is asking we boldly stand on our Platform and the SoP and educate newcomers to our actual positions.
Now THAT is a messaging problem we DO have. And it goes way beyond tone issues of an individual member on a personal way.
Part of our Bylaws mandated roles is to educate people about our core principles and whether in a platform or not they lead to no exchange that is not voluntary, no government interference that violates negative rights, no siezing of resources without consent.
We are not teaching people that thus is what our Statement of Principles says and the Platform is derived theherefrom. I have Libertarians shocked we oppose ALL eminent domain. Because we often deliver less than that in messaging.
Sieving upon the obviously rhetorical over the top flourishes of Arvin that I have avoided is the stuff of FB and should not be our tactic here to avoid the point of what he is saying.
We have always stood for eliminating all involuntary market transactions and asset sieving including taxation, public school, government healthcare etc. but we are not consistently telling people that while still accepting there may be steps from one point to another - we have made a certain step our position and failed to declare the goal. Over and over.
That is our messaging problem in education and outreach.
To anticipate Daniel's question to me- I will say - irrelevant to this discussion and if anyone insists to make it relevant, I will discuss when the special election is over next week and not sooner.
-Caryn Ann
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 3:25 AM Daniel Hayes <danielehayes@icloud.com> wrote:
Arvin,
So most of our candidates are now liars? Weak voices for Liberty?
What kind of steward of our donors money are you. You just voted to give $5000 to someone that doesn't match up on many areas of our platform. Which way is it? Where are your morals?
The REAL libertarian platform would be NONE. Leave our Statement of Principles. Maybe the Omissions plank. Danny Bedwell can tell you I have been advocating for this since at least my first convention in 2014. He kept turning around to me during platform saying, "Why are they telling me what I am supposed to think as a candidate?!" To that I replied, "I'm with ya Danny!"
I am constantly amazed at how authoritarian Libertarians are with regards to telling other people how they MUST think.
So what I am taking away from your email is that you want to cater to the growing segment of the populace that is more actively apathetic to voting than any other demographic. In turn you seem to want to turn off the segments of voters that vote more often than the average demographic.
Once again, your words don't match your recent actions. Why would you give money to a candidate you thought was weak? Is it because its mostly other people's money?
Are we to be a "pure" echo chamber or a party that works to be inclusive of many and that finds areas of common interest for people to work together on to protect and restore our Liberty?
Daniel Hayes
LNC At Large Member
Sent from my iPhone
On May 18, 2017, at 2:53 AM, Arvin Vohra <votevohra@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi All -
During the last months, I've traveled to many state conventions, interviewed many candidates, and kept track of the mood here in DC. In its current form, much of our messaging is largely opposed to our platform, and so anemic as to be politically irrelevant.
We have an education secretary that everyone thinks wants to end all government education. Whether this is true or not matters less than the fact that is what people think and say about her. Our platform is better than hers, as it involves complete elimination of government education and also tax funded education subsidies.
But despite what our platform specifically states, much of the messaging is far softer than the Republicans. Most of the educational messaging I hear and see is not even at the Republican lite level; it's just Republican Weak.
In discussions of healthcare and welfare, I'm seeing the same thing. Our platform is crystal clear on this: get government completely out of healthcare. Messaging? Nowhere near that.
It seems that this is motivated by an attempt to grow the party numerically by essentially tricking people into identifying with the word Libertarian, and then hope they magically develop Libertarian views. But the actual effect is to mislead, bring people in who do not know what Libertarianism is, then have them represent us with a further watered down message, etc. While many sign the NAP, it's not at all clear that they understand the specific policy implications.
In this process, we are losing our natural allies. Although the anarcho-capitalism movement is exploding through social media, most are Trump supporters. In other words, in our desperate attempt to get those who worship public schools and the military with a message of pro-status quo state worship, we are losing our most obvious base. There are those who actually agree with the big parts of our platform but are put off by the simple fact that we never talk about the big, anti-establishment issues, and fixate entirely on marijuana and occasionally alcohol.
I hear more Libertarians arguing in favor of universal welfare than I hear arguing in favor of ending all welfare. I hear many more discussions about eliminating minor alcohol restrictions than the big issues that comprise most of the money stolen from us: healthcare, education, military, and social security.
This has gone far past an issue of messaging. I bet that if today, we did a poll among Libertarian active donors, we'd see a minority that favored all of our positions on these critical issues, and I doubt we'd be even at 80 percent that favored our positions on even one of these issues.
This can be addressed through either education or outreach. If we go the education route, I recommend an automated email series to educate new people on our actual positions. If it's outreach, I'd recommend we stop lying about our position at the national, state, and especially candidate level. Phrase them nice, mean, calm, explosively, however. But for the love of god phrase them somehow.
Let's grow the Libertarian party, not the "I want to identify with a trendy word" party.
If we stop lying, will we lose some people? Maybe a few. But we'll also be welcoming the people who most strongly agree with our positions.
-Arvin
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 12:36 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos < carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:
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
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 3:12 PM, Joshua Katz < planning4liberty@gmail.com> wrote:
Colleagues:
Like the many members we have heard from lately, I disagree strongly with recent comments of one of our members. I feel they are politically backward, and I wish they would stop because of the embarrassment they can bring on this party, and because they lack an appreciation of nuance, in my opinion. Nor is it my position that, as I've seen some claiming, these comments are "true but embarrassing." I am not one who believes that we need to hold back some sacred truths of liberty from the unwashed masses. I often am embarrassed by statements precisely because I think they are wrong - either false or, perhaps more commonly, in that realm of failing to be either true or false.
I am primarily writing, though, to let you know that I would vote 'no' on any of the proposed measures, including censure and suspension. I would vote no because I do not agree that LNC members are never "off the clock." Yes, it is true, people know who we are, and we can never, really, take off our "hats" in public. That's one reason I strive for a low social media profile - that's my personal vision of the position. But when I speak about politics, and do not identify my speech as that of the LP, I do not expect this body to sit in judgment of its truth or its effectiveness.
I believe that censure and suspension are best reserved for unacceptable activities carried out within office. I do not believe it is appropriate to define anything we do which touches on politics as 'within office.' As I've discussed before, in my view we each have almost no power, with some exceptions, except as members of this body. Our power is to vote, not to direct things ourselves. This cuts both ways. We do not have the power to speak for the LP, as individuals, except when specifically given this power by the bylaws or by an appropriate resolution or motion. Lacking that power, we cannot do it wrong.
Furthermore, we do not choose our chair and vice-chair. They are elected by the delegates. I resent the implication that a few outspoken members should, through LNC action, undo the will of the convention. It is not our job, if we think that actions of the delegates have led to insensitive messaging, to try to reverse those actions.
It is our job, on a semi-related note, to control our own messaging. Complaining about FB posts from one of our members is easier than thinking carefully about what we do and how we do it, but it is not a solution. 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. If we believe that one person, speaking on a platform not provided by this party, can derail our message, then shame on us.
Further, that hasn't happened. It is primarily our own people who are angry. I myself am offended, in addition to disagreeing, but I do not see outrage outside Libertarian circles. It will be objected that this is because of our small size and relative lack of success, that if we were larger, we could not afford to be silent. That may very well be true. Yet the world is as it is, and we can afford to be silent, and, in my opinion, should. Furthermore, if we were in the position described, it is also true that our own messaging would be better. I say let's deal with the meme in our own eye before criticizing extra-party messaging. (As an individual, I feel free to criticize, I am speaking about this board's activities.)
Is there any allegation that a member of this board has violated a fiduciary responsibility, has double-dealt for personal gain or gain of others, or has in any way done anything wrong in their party capacity? As far as I am aware, there is not. We are speaking about a person who has, in my view, governed well. We do not always agree, but I always respect his opinions and decisions - and I appreciate that he treats mine the same. Our job is to govern the party - Mr. Vohra does that very well. The vice-chair has additional duties: no one has made any allegation that these were carried out badly or incorrectly. Until I see allegations about those (and I am confident there are none, Mr. Vohra fulfills those responsibilities just fine) I will vote no on any motion on this topic.
In other news, the President of the United States may have revealed classified information to the Russian Foreign Minister and compromised an Israeli source. The travel ban is still working its way through the courts. The Republicans in the House have done what we thought was impossible: found a way to make the ACA more freedom-destroying. Democrats and Republicans are working in lockstep to attack prosperity and the freedom of all, around the world, through nationalist-protectionist policies. I would like to see this party focused on electing Libertarians to office who are serious about, and effective in, addressing these and other issues. In addition to rolling back the size and scope of government, I'd like to see our elected officials simply managing the thing more competently than the corrupt members of the other parties have shown themselves capable of doing. After all, a more effective government will require, in my opinion, a smaller, less powerful government. The government cannot be competent in doing tasks far beyond its competence. So yes, I'd like to see us not insulting key groups of voters or making other political missteps. I'd like to see us prioritize policy over both personal attacks and abstractions - while remembering that we can inspire not just with pocketbook issues, but also with the power of what is right and with strong ideals.
Joshua A. Katz
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
--
*In Liberty,*
*Caryn Ann Harlos*
Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org>
Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org>
Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
*We defend your rights*
*And oppose the use of force*
*Taxation is theft*
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
--
Arvin Vohra
www.VoteVohra.com VoteVohra@gmail.com (301) 320-3634
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
--
*In Liberty,*
*Caryn Ann Harlos*
Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org>
Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org>
Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
*We defend your rights*
*And oppose the use of force*
*Taxation is theft*
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
A haiku to the Statement of Principles: *We defend your rights* *And oppose the use of force* *Taxation is theft*
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
A haiku to the Statement of Principles: *We defend your rights* *And oppose the use of force* *Taxation is theft*
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
Ken, we shall see what the long term consequences of this incident are and whether our increased awareness pays dividends. I am optimistic but regardless, I will support those who make every effort turn this call to action into a net-positive in the admirable manner that Libertarians are capable of. Thoughts? On May 18, 2017 11:48 AM, "Ken Moellman" <lpky@mu-net.org> wrote:
My way of waking people up is strategic in nature, and situational. When addressing a large audience, I generally scale back to a generally accepted message. When one-on-one, I am likely to speak much more specifically to particular issues of value to that other individual.
The interesting thing about repulsing people is that no matter what happens, you can pretty much never mend the bridge and never reach that person or those persons. When it switches from the policy to the personal, things like principles and goals get thrown out the window, in favor of "Eff that guy." In fact, repulsion can create (an) activist(s) specifically against you, or even your position, because of the emotional response.
In trying to come up with a good analogy, I remembered that once upon a time, in High School, I was involved in an RPG. In this RPG, the "good guys" turned into "bad guys", and upon discovering time travel decided to go back in time and convince their "good guys" selves to become "bad guys" sooner, so they would become richer in the future. The "good guys" version of the past were repulsed by this idea of turning bad, and became firm in their resolve to never become "bad guys" (and since time travel was involved this created a paradox, but that's not the point right now).
The point is that if you draw a hard line between yourself and someone else, it makes it far less likely that you'll convert them to your side of the line later.
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 12:30 PM, David Demarest <dprattdemarest@gmail.com
wrote:
Ken, I fully agree that we are all trapped in this huge scam government manipulation system. How did we get there? With the permission of the majority.
Due to the timerity of Arvin, are we now more aware of our role in this manipulation system? I certainly am.
How do we get ourselves out of this system? We start by becoming more aware of our role. Then we must answer Arvin's challenge by leveraging our increased awareness as an incentive to get on with our Libertarian responsibilities for thoughtful due diligence instead of acting out because Arvin abruptly nudged us out of our comfort zone.
Could this internal hubbub cost us in a few elections? Possibly in the very short term but likely the opposite in the long term. More important, those candidates and their supporters who hysterically run for damage control cover at the expense of long term clarity on our principles will set a dubious example with possible unintended consequences in our pursuit of freedom.
Ken, thank you for your astute observation that we are all trapped in in a pervasive manipulation system. What are your proposals for eliminating the manipulation system?
Thoughts?
On May 18, 2017 10:36 AM, "Ken Moellman" <lpky@mu-net.org> wrote:
My largest concern is that when we speak in public, our titles and roles do come with us. This is politics. When you speak, you are speaking on behalf of others. It is a burden of leadership. And sometimes, that even extends beyond our term in a leadership position.
There's no such thing as "Off Time". Should Donald Trump get a pass because "it's his personal Twitter"? Likewise, when we speak in public, we are speaking for others, whether we like it, or not. I personally hate it - the burden of trying to watch every word you speak - that's why I never want to be a chair ever again.
We should all be wary that HOW we say something can often be the core problem. Let's review the last 3 blow-ups.
Against oligarchy and political dynasties? Yes! Dragging in people with cross-over into our own group? Bad idea.
Satanic Temple post? Fine. Satanic Temple post on Easter week? Bad idea.
Being against the Military Industrial Complex and/or against lying recruiters? Yes! Taking it out on soldiers, most of whom signed up for honorable reasons? Bad idea.
It wasn't the core principle, but the delivery. How an argument is framed can be the difference between getting through and bringing someone to our point of view, and galvanizing existing sides by drawing a sharp line in the sand. In case no one has noticed, we can't afford to draw lines. We don't have the numbers to play the "Us vs Them" game that the Ds and Rs play to galvanize their political bases. We need to speak in ways that bring people to our perspective, not repulse them from us.
In this particular instance, I personally think it's very wrong to blame the people trapped in the system, rather than focusing on the system itself. I thought Larry's livestream on "blame politicians, or blame everyone" was on-point. The system is the problem. We're all trapped in it. People tend to do what's right for them, and in fact that's how the market is supposed to work. The problem is that we have a system that gerrymanders choices and manipulates results. The system of manipulation is the problem, not the people just trying to get by inside the system.
I live in the Cincinnati area, and specifically Northern Kentucky. The big IRS processing center is here -- the one that is tied up in the targeting scandal -- and we have members, past and present, that work at that facility. They don't work there because they love the IRS. They work there because they needed a job, it paid well, and they use the money to support themselves and their families. As they've been awakened, some chose to leave the IRS, with mixed results. Others stay because it feeds their family. I don't condemn those people - they have an obligation to their families. I blame the system that takes skillsets out of the private sector by creating a higher demand, thus increasing wages and making it impossible to reasonably find work outside of the IRS which maintains the standard of living their family currently has.
I don't want to censure anyone - though I'm being hit all over with requests to do so; email, facebook, and pretty much wherever anyone else can find me. I don't want to recall anyone, either. I'm a Region Alternate, and on this sort of matter, I'll follow the lead of the Region Chairs. I am encouraging those that feel strongly about this to take action in NOLA, not through the LNC.
I honestly hope that everyone thinks about ways to focus on attacking the system of manipulation, rather than the people trapped inside of it. We're all trapped inside of it. Every single one of us. Some of us are more aware of it than others. Smacking people in the face by claiming they are heinous criminals, or (perceptively) attacking their religion, or attacking their "favorite" elected official isn't going to turn them to us; instead, it's more likely to repulse people from ever considering us. And even if the goal of some members may be only to reach people to educate, pushing people away from ever considering us is a failure to that end.
My too-long $0.02. ken
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty@gmail.com> wrote:
I certainly agree with that last sentence. That's why I started this thread to push past all the emails we've been getting and state my position: that we do not and should not control what individuals say on their own, and that I will oppose any effort to do so. I went on to say how, in my view, that policy can be reconciled (in fact, is sort of automatically reconciled) with avoiding the dangers and consequences the members writing to us are concerned about.
Joshua A. Katz
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 8:47 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos < carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:
Joshua,
You are (not deliberately) miscasting my words. You initial post spoke about content and tone and my comments spoke to that. I then reiterated that I favour professional strategy consultants.
Through human nature and just like I saw (and still see in the campaign committee that turned into an unapproved messaging committee and is now being recast in propo as something that was a social media advisory solution when it was originally proposed and approved as a Gary Johnson campaign post mortem!) shows how these categories keep getting morphed and did once again.
Our content and ideology is fixed to an extent or certainly in a range. How we might present it is not and that has nothing to do with a personal post on a personal page.
-Caryn Ann
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 7:35 AM Joshua Katz <planning4liberty@gmail.com> wrote:
Agreeing with Mr. McKnight, I see simply another instance of us failing to differentiate the message from how it is expressed, although it so happens that I disagree with some of the content as well.
As for agreeing with Mr. Somes, I refuse, in May 2017, to desist from expressing agreement with an LNC policy position because someone has declared a candidacy for May 2018 and said it. Call that bad form if you want, but I am not going to have the range of what I say narrowed by a race a year away.
Finally, my position on our utter lack of a messaging strategy, which is only reinforced by most of the comments I've seen here which imply, to some extent, that a platform is a messaging strategy, is constant. It is a position I have taken, consistently, since I first joined this board in 2014. It is a position which is content-neutral - Mr. Vohra's comments on this very thread, for instance, also seem to point to need for a coherent and consistent messaging strategy - and, I might add, as much as I disagree with what he seems to be proposing, I would take that over the current situation. (In the past, Mr. Vohra advocated for another theme to our messaging, as it were. I'm not sure if he's abandoned that, or if it integrates with what he advocates here. I remain partially in agreement with "Libertarian Solutions" and partially in disagreement, and I tend to think that, while it is a messaging strategy, it might be too far in the direction of saying a single thing rather than speaking in a coherent voice.) I am not going to stop advocating for my position simply because there's a FB uproar, particularly considering that there is always a FB uproar. To call that reactionary is simply incorrect. I am not reacting to anything - you might recall that, when I brought this up in the past, I was criticized precisely because I was not reacting to anything in particular. If examples happen to crop up, I will point to them.
Finally, our inability to focus and project our voice has everything to do with this instance. If we had a stronger voice, no one would care about the current brush-up, and we wouldn't be hearing these complaints. Everyone would understand that Mr. Vohra can speak for himself (and, I might add, I can speak for myself) and that the LP can speak for itself. When we lack such a voice, it is easy not just for officers to appear to be speaking for us when they speak, but for loud enough members. Such a situation causes all of us, officers, board members, and members alike, to choose between the sort of reaction we've seen this week, or shutting up. A party with a stronger voice would allow us not to make that choice, and to be able to speak our minds without becoming, in the public eye, the voice of the party.
Joshua A. Katz
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 8:19 AM, Patrick McKnight < patrick.joseph.mcknight@gmail.com> wrote:
Our principles are immaculate. However we need to connect with people as human beings. It has nothing to do with our platform, it had to do with our mindset. Human beings make decisions based on emotion.
Thanks, Patrick McKnight Region 8 Rep
On May 18, 2017 9:07 AM, "Caryn Ann Harlos" <carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:
David-
Agree and disagree (which proves your point - we are individuals - but bravo! Well spoken!). Our Platform speaks on some things clearly. Let me name one that I disagree with- abortion. But it speaks clearly so I NEVER give the impression that the Party is not pro-choice. Yet on so many issues we are not messaging the clear Party position- such as no force-financed education or no state mandated healthcare (I could name others including anti-war in anything but strict defense). We shy away particularly here. In that instance I agree that we should be saying those core positions so loudly, so strongly, etc that no one will mistake the "Party" position which may or may not be our own (like me with abortion). But tone? Other people are going to use their tone. We are not Stepford Libertarians and the idea that national is going to the grand conductor of tone so that no one will ever mistake a candidate or other prominent person for us is pure unadulterated fantasy. Great for campaign sloganeering and propo but not in practice.
*I would suggest also that it's bad form to use someone's campaign materials aiming for a colleagues position as a point in a debate about policy and using this list to potentially indicate support for said candidacy.* or that is how it could be taken and we must not appear that way on this list.
Other things or even the path to the things above are not so cut and dried. And it is in those areas we should fear mightily any forcing of a unified voice indeed and embrace diversity - the way our SoP does with mini or no state. They both exist and are welcome in this Party despite the divisive attempts of some to expunge that inconvenient truth (not anyone here or any comment here)
Our messaging strategy should be clearly to state our actual platform - our actual SoP- and as this body in 2010 said are the two foundational pillars of Libertarianusm - *non aggression and self ownership* and expect there will be diversity in how that is done.
Professional advice would be foolish to dismiss and that should be explored again particularly in social media targeting.
But this undercurrent of using each thing as an opportunity to try to assert top down control is something I will call out and resist every time. It won't work and it's bad.
Control of our message is the Statement of Principles (not optional and fixed though enough attempts have been made to bury it over the years) and the Platform which is up to the delegates.
We should be so clear that it doesn't matter when our top ticket argues for gun control. We don't. It should be clear that is the Party position. We should not hesitate to show the Platform speaks to that.
We should not hesitate to show that consistent non-force speaks to others. But within that there are different paths and ideas. But we have NOT been as clear or bold as we should be on the twin pillars of non aggression and self ownership.
But using this issue of a personal page to this issue strikes me as a bit opportunistic to a preexisting agenda. Let's not be like the other parties in that.
Nothing in a messaging strategy would have had a thing to do with personal posts on a personal wall for which an apology happened.
-Caryn Ann
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 5:39 AM David Demarest < dpdemarest@centurylink.net> wrote:
> The problem is that we as a group of “like-minded” > politically-oriented people cannot agree on a core message beyond more > freedom and less government (MFLG). As I have often said, there are at > least as many Libertarian philosophies as there are Libertarians. Even > among loose alliances within the LNC, we do not agree on message content > details. Between alliances, we even disagree on core principles. The notion > of all of us agreeing to and promoting a detailed common core message > beyond MFLG is a flight of fancy and the stuff that statism and puppet > masters are made of. The fact remains that groups are not living breathing > entities. The notion that groups can have a freely agreed upon unified > voice and message is pure unadulterated philosophical nonsense. Groups are > conglomerates of individuals with individual voices. Without a police > state, it is not possible for groups to have a single voice. Frankly, a > group that could or would speak with a single voice would scare the hell > out of me. We cannot and should not attempt to speak with one voice. Beware > of those who would attempt to force us to speak with one voice. That is the > message of statism that we as Libertarians are or should be fighting tooth > and nail. > > > > I happen to be one Libertarian that thinks education is a key > component of our political action mission. However, if we have difficulty > gaining a consensus without protracted debates on even simple political > actions such as resolutions on Cuban Libertarian prisoners and medical > cannabis and token support for activist candidates, how can we agree on > education as part of our mission and what the education message should be? > What to do? > > > > Our diversity is a wonderful thing to be embraced. Let us celebrate > that diversity that is loosely focused on MFLG and leverage it to empower > ourselves as individuals who can go forth and deliver our own diverse > individual educational messages of freedom. Point of fact, many or most of > us are already delivering our own educational messages. We can have healthy > open forum and institutional debates as to the merits of message content > details and delivery techniques. However, attempts to muzzle the messages > of individual Libertarians and outspoken elected officials beyond delegate > elections is fraught with the dangers of statism. As long as I live and > breathe, no political party will ever throttle my message short of the use > of force. > > > > I believe these recent incidents are fortuitous opportunities to > rethink and repurpose our Libertarian institutions to focus on using our > inspirational food-for-thought diversity to empower individuals. The flip > side of our diversity is the difficulty in getting the consensus required > for anything more that relatively trivial actions. However, that lack of > consensus does not or should not prevent inspired and empowered individual > Libertarians from accomplishing the bulk of Libertarian action as bottom-up > volunteers, entrepreneurs and activists and even top-down elected > officials. Let’s stop fooling ourselves on controlled unified message > content and delivery technique. Through trial and error and healthy debate, > we can build our army of empowered individual Libertarians armed with their > arsenal of individual message content and delivery techniques who will get > us where we want to go. Our Libertarian institution think-tank cauldrons of > inspirational diversity have the potential to be a key part of the process > of empowering individuals. Let us free ourselves from the bonds of the > groupthink and groupspeak, repurpose our institutions and get on with the > business of freedom beyond mere MFLG. > > > > Our recent incidents are an opportunistic call to action. What must > we do to repurpose our institutions to focus on empowering individual > activists and messengers? Now is the time to get past our differences and > leverage our diversity to think outside the box. Let the debates begin. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > ~David > > > > *Dec 28-Jan 1 Omaha Roads to Liberty Un-Convention* > > > > ~David Pratt Demarest > > LNC Region 6 Representative (IA, IL, MN, MO, ND, NE, WI) > > Secretary, LPNE State Central Committee > > Cell: 402-981-6469 <(402)%20981-6469> > > Home: 402-493-0873 <(402)%20493-0873> > > > > *From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org] *On > Behalf Of *Caryn Ann Harlos > *Sent:* Thursday, May 18, 2017 5:01 AM > *To:* lnc-business@hq.lp.org > *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] I Do Not Agree With What You Say... > > > > If we are talking "messaging problem" - with the exception of the > lying word and a couple other turns of phrases I do not agree with, he is > absolutely correct. > > > > He is asking we boldly stand on our Platform and the SoP and educate > newcomers to our actual positions. > > > > Now THAT is a messaging problem we DO have. And it goes way beyond > tone issues of an individual member on a personal way. > > > > Part of our Bylaws mandated roles is to educate people about our > core principles and whether in a platform or not they lead to no exchange > that is not voluntary, no government interference that violates negative > rights, no siezing of resources without consent. > > > > We are not teaching people that thus is what our Statement of > Principles says and the Platform is derived theherefrom. I have > Libertarians shocked we oppose ALL eminent domain. Because we often > deliver less than that in messaging. > > > > Sieving upon the obviously rhetorical over the top flourishes of > Arvin that I have avoided is the stuff of FB and should not be our tactic > here to avoid the point of what he is saying. > > > > We have always stood for eliminating all involuntary market > transactions and asset sieving including taxation, public school, > government healthcare etc. but we are not consistently telling people that > while still accepting there may be steps from one point to another - we > have made a certain step our position and failed to declare the goal. Over > and over. > > > > That is our messaging problem in education and outreach. > > > > To anticipate Daniel's question to me- I will say - irrelevant to > this discussion and if anyone insists to make it relevant, I will discuss > when the special election is over next week and not sooner. > > > > -Caryn Ann > > > > > > On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 3:25 AM Daniel Hayes < > danielehayes@icloud.com> wrote: > > Arvin, > > > > So most of our candidates are now liars? Weak voices for Liberty? > > > > What kind of steward of our donors money are you. You just voted to > give $5000 to someone that doesn't match up on many areas of our platform. > Which way is it? Where are your morals? > > > > The REAL libertarian platform would be NONE. Leave our Statement of > Principles. Maybe the Omissions plank. Danny Bedwell can tell you I have > been advocating for this since at least my first convention in 2014. He > kept turning around to me during platform saying, "Why are they telling me > what I am supposed to think as a candidate?!" To that I replied, "I'm with > ya Danny!" > > > > I am constantly amazed at how authoritarian Libertarians are with > regards to telling other people how they MUST think. > > > > So what I am taking away from your email is that you want to cater > to the growing segment of the populace that is more actively apathetic to > voting than any other demographic. In turn you seem to want to turn off the > segments of voters that vote more often than the average demographic. > > > > Once again, your words don't match your recent actions. Why would > you give money to a candidate you thought was weak? Is it because its > mostly other people's money? > > > > Are we to be a "pure" echo chamber or a party that works to be > inclusive of many and that finds areas of common interest for people to > work together on to protect and restore our Liberty? > > > > > > Daniel Hayes > > LNC At Large Member > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On May 18, 2017, at 2:53 AM, Arvin Vohra <votevohra@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Hi All - > > > > During the last months, I've traveled to many state conventions, > interviewed many candidates, and kept track of the mood here in DC. In its > current form, much of our messaging is largely opposed to our platform, and > so anemic as to be politically irrelevant. > > > > We have an education secretary that everyone thinks wants to end all > government education. Whether this is true or not matters less than the > fact that is what people think and say about her. Our platform is better > than hers, as it involves complete elimination of government education and > also tax funded education subsidies. > > > > But despite what our platform specifically states, much of the > messaging is far softer than the Republicans. Most of the educational > messaging I hear and see is not even at the Republican lite level; it's > just Republican Weak. > > > > In discussions of healthcare and welfare, I'm seeing the same thing. > Our platform is crystal clear on this: get government completely out of > healthcare. Messaging? Nowhere near that. > > > > It seems that this is motivated by an attempt to grow the party > numerically by essentially tricking people into identifying with the word > Libertarian, and then hope they magically develop Libertarian views. But > the actual effect is to mislead, bring people in who do not know what > Libertarianism is, then have them represent us with a further watered down > message, etc. While many sign the NAP, it's not at all clear that they > understand the specific policy implications. > > > > In this process, we are losing our natural allies. Although the > anarcho-capitalism movement is exploding through social media, most are > Trump supporters. In other words, in our desperate attempt to get those who > worship public schools and the military with a message of pro-status quo > state worship, we are losing our most obvious base. There are those who > actually agree with the big parts of our platform but are put off by the > simple fact that we never talk about the big, anti-establishment issues, > and fixate entirely on marijuana and occasionally alcohol. > > > > I hear more Libertarians arguing in favor of universal welfare than > I hear arguing in favor of ending all welfare. I hear many more discussions > about eliminating minor alcohol restrictions than the big issues that > comprise most of the money stolen from us: healthcare, education, military, > and social security. > > > > This has gone far past an issue of messaging. I bet that if today, > we did a poll among Libertarian active donors, we'd see a minority that > favored all of our positions on these critical issues, and I doubt we'd be > even at 80 percent that favored our positions on even one of these issues. > > > > This can be addressed through either education or outreach. If we go > the education route, I recommend an automated email series to educate new > people on our actual positions. If it's outreach, I'd recommend we stop > lying about our position at the national, state, and especially candidate > level. Phrase them nice, mean, calm, explosively, however. But for the love > of god phrase them somehow. > > > > Let's grow the Libertarian party, not the "I want to identify with a > trendy word" party. > > > > If we stop lying, will we lose some people? Maybe a few. But we'll > also be welcoming the people who most strongly agree with our positions. > > > > -Arvin > > > > > > On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 12:36 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos < > carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 3:12 PM, Joshua Katz < > planning4liberty@gmail.com> wrote: > > Colleagues: > > > > Like the many members we have heard from lately, I disagree strongly > with recent comments of one of our members. I feel they are politically > backward, and I wish they would stop because of the embarrassment they can > bring on this party, and because they lack an appreciation of nuance, in my > opinion. Nor is it my position that, as I've seen some claiming, these > comments are "true but embarrassing." I am not one who believes that we > need to hold back some sacred truths of liberty from the unwashed masses. > I often am embarrassed by statements precisely because I think they are > wrong - either false or, perhaps more commonly, in that realm of failing to > be either true or false. > > > > I am primarily writing, though, to let you know that I would vote > 'no' on any of the proposed measures, including censure and suspension. I > would vote no because I do not agree that LNC members are never "off the > clock." Yes, it is true, people know who we are, and we can never, really, > take off our "hats" in public. That's one reason I strive for a low social > media profile - that's my personal vision of the position. But when I > speak about politics, and do not identify my speech as that of the LP, I do > not expect this body to sit in judgment of its truth or its effectiveness. > > > > I believe that censure and suspension are best reserved for > unacceptable activities carried out within office. I do not believe it is > appropriate to define anything we do which touches on politics as 'within > office.' As I've discussed before, in my view we each have almost no > power, with some exceptions, except as members of this body. Our power is > to vote, not to direct things ourselves. This cuts both ways. We do not > have the power to speak for the LP, as individuals, except when > specifically given this power by the bylaws or by an appropriate resolution > or motion. Lacking that power, we cannot do it wrong. > > > > Furthermore, we do not choose our chair and vice-chair. They are > elected by the delegates. I resent the implication that a few outspoken > members should, through LNC action, undo the will of the convention. It is > not our job, if we think that actions of the delegates have led to > insensitive messaging, to try to reverse those actions. > > > > It is our job, on a semi-related note, to control our own > messaging. Complaining about FB posts from one of our members is easier > than thinking carefully about what we do and how we do it, but it is not a > solution. 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. If we believe that one person, > speaking on a platform not provided by this party, can derail our message, > then shame on us. > > > > Further, that hasn't happened. It is primarily our own people who > are angry. I myself am offended, in addition to disagreeing, but I do not > see outrage outside Libertarian circles. It will be objected that this is > because of our small size and relative lack of success, that if we were > larger, we could not afford to be silent. That may very well be true. Yet > the world is as it is, and we can afford to be silent, and, in my opinion, > should. Furthermore, if we were in the position described, it is also true > that our own messaging would be better. I say let's deal with the meme in > our own eye before criticizing extra-party messaging. (As an individual, I > feel free to criticize, I am speaking about this board's activities.) > > > > Is there any allegation that a member of this board has violated a > fiduciary responsibility, has double-dealt for personal gain or gain of > others, or has in any way done anything wrong in their party capacity? As > far as I am aware, there is not. We are speaking about a person who has, > in my view, governed well. We do not always agree, but I always respect > his opinions and decisions - and I appreciate that he treats mine the > same. Our job is to govern the party - Mr. Vohra does that very well. The > vice-chair has additional duties: no one has made any allegation that these > were carried out badly or incorrectly. Until I see allegations about those > (and I am confident there are none, Mr. Vohra fulfills those > responsibilities just fine) I will vote no on any motion on this topic. > > > > In other news, the President of the United States may have revealed > classified information to the Russian Foreign Minister and compromised an > Israeli source. The travel ban is still working its way through the > courts. The Republicans in the House have done what we thought was > impossible: found a way to make the ACA more freedom-destroying. Democrats > and Republicans are working in lockstep to attack prosperity and the > freedom of all, around the world, through nationalist-protectionist > policies. I would like to see this party focused on electing Libertarians > to office who are serious about, and effective in, addressing these and > other issues. In addition to rolling back the size and scope of > government, I'd like to see our elected officials simply managing the thing > more competently than the corrupt members of the other parties have shown > themselves capable of doing. After all, a more effective government will > require, in my opinion, a smaller, less powerful government. The > government cannot be competent in doing tasks far beyond its competence. > So yes, I'd like to see us not insulting key groups of voters or making > other political missteps. I'd like to see us prioritize policy over both > personal attacks and abstractions - while remembering that we can inspire > not just with pocketbook issues, but also with the power of what is right > and with strong ideals. > > > Joshua A. Katz > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Lnc-business mailing list > Lnc-business@hq.lp.org > http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org > > > > > > -- > > *In Liberty,* > > *Caryn Ann Harlos* > > Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, > Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. > Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> > > Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado > <http://www.lpcolorado.org> > > Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus > <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org> > > Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee > > > > A haiku to the Statement of Principles: > > *We defend your rights* > > *And oppose the use of force* > > *Taxation is theft* > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Lnc-business mailing list > Lnc-business@hq.lp.org > http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org > > > > > > -- > > Arvin Vohra > > www.VoteVohra.com > VoteVohra@gmail.com > (301) 320-3634 > > _______________________________________________ > Lnc-business mailing list > Lnc-business@hq.lp.org > http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org > > _______________________________________________ > Lnc-business mailing list > Lnc-business@hq.lp.org > http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org > > -- > > *In Liberty,* > > *Caryn Ann Harlos* > > Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, > Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. > Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> > > Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado > <http://www.lpcolorado.org> > > Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus > <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org> > > Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee > > > > A haiku to the Statement of Principles: > > *We defend your rights* > > *And oppose the use of force* > > *Taxation is theft* > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Lnc-business mailing list > Lnc-business@hq.lp.org > http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org > -- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
A haiku to the Statement of Principles: *We defend your rights* *And oppose the use of force* *Taxation is theft*
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
A haiku to the Statement of Principles: *We defend your rights* *And oppose the use of force* *Taxation is theft*
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
Could bait and switch Libertarianism work? Sure. For example, we could tell everyone that Libertarians support government schools, get elected, and then immediately shut down government schools. Within days, parents and students would find better, free alternative sources for education, as homeschoolers and unschoolers have done. After a few more days, parents would find ways to provide babysitting for very young students. It wouldn't be long before people looked back and wondered why we ever tolerated government schools. But bait and switch Libertarianism only works if everyone on our side is in on the plan. If we tell someone that Libertarians support government schools, and he believes us, what happens when he soon runs for office? Now when he tells people he wants more funding for government schools, he's not trying to trick anyone. He's just actually trying to keep government schools going. In other words, by trying to fool others, we just end up fooling ourselves. We trade a short term gain for a long term loss. We went for the easy short term illusion of growth, and sacrificed the major long term growth that comes from spreading true and undiluted ideas. Some have argued that there are a lot of public school teachers, soldiers, DEA agents, IRS agents that won't like our real message. First, that's not true. Many of the staunchest opponents to public school have been public school teachers. They see the damage up close. John Taylor Gatto is a famous example, but not the only one. Many police officers oppose the drug war for the same reason: they see it up close. LEAP is a perfect example. The most anti-war and anti-military people are usually former soldiers. They've seen the pointlessness and immorality of corrupted missions up close. IRS agents see the abuses of our tax code more than anyone else. Instead of trying to manipulate people with disingenuous presentations of Libertarianism, speak to them frankly, honestly, directly, and bluntly. And we're also allowed to talk to other audiences. Most of our true allies aren't already holding big rallies. Those groups already have political representation. Some of our people are currently lost and unrepresented. They've turned away from politics because it doesn't represent them. They might not be in a teachers' union. They might not know much about how the government works, aside from having a gradual realization that it is not on their side. Are they harder to find than a teacher's union march? Probably. But I think it makes sense to speak to the casualties of government at least as often as we speak to those on its payroll. In Liberty, Arvin On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 1:39 PM, David Demarest <dprattdemarest@gmail.com> wrote:
Ken, we shall see what the long term consequences of this incident are and whether our increased awareness pays dividends. I am optimistic but regardless, I will support those who make every effort turn this call to action into a net-positive in the admirable manner that Libertarians are capable of.
Thoughts?
On May 18, 2017 11:48 AM, "Ken Moellman" <lpky@mu-net.org> wrote:
My way of waking people up is strategic in nature, and situational. When addressing a large audience, I generally scale back to a generally accepted message. When one-on-one, I am likely to speak much more specifically to particular issues of value to that other individual.
The interesting thing about repulsing people is that no matter what happens, you can pretty much never mend the bridge and never reach that person or those persons. When it switches from the policy to the personal, things like principles and goals get thrown out the window, in favor of "Eff that guy." In fact, repulsion can create (an) activist(s) specifically against you, or even your position, because of the emotional response.
In trying to come up with a good analogy, I remembered that once upon a time, in High School, I was involved in an RPG. In this RPG, the "good guys" turned into "bad guys", and upon discovering time travel decided to go back in time and convince their "good guys" selves to become "bad guys" sooner, so they would become richer in the future. The "good guys" version of the past were repulsed by this idea of turning bad, and became firm in their resolve to never become "bad guys" (and since time travel was involved this created a paradox, but that's not the point right now).
The point is that if you draw a hard line between yourself and someone else, it makes it far less likely that you'll convert them to your side of the line later.
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 12:30 PM, David Demarest < dprattdemarest@gmail.com> wrote:
Ken, I fully agree that we are all trapped in this huge scam government manipulation system. How did we get there? With the permission of the majority.
Due to the timerity of Arvin, are we now more aware of our role in this manipulation system? I certainly am.
How do we get ourselves out of this system? We start by becoming more aware of our role. Then we must answer Arvin's challenge by leveraging our increased awareness as an incentive to get on with our Libertarian responsibilities for thoughtful due diligence instead of acting out because Arvin abruptly nudged us out of our comfort zone.
Could this internal hubbub cost us in a few elections? Possibly in the very short term but likely the opposite in the long term. More important, those candidates and their supporters who hysterically run for damage control cover at the expense of long term clarity on our principles will set a dubious example with possible unintended consequences in our pursuit of freedom.
Ken, thank you for your astute observation that we are all trapped in in a pervasive manipulation system. What are your proposals for eliminating the manipulation system?
Thoughts?
On May 18, 2017 10:36 AM, "Ken Moellman" <lpky@mu-net.org> wrote:
My largest concern is that when we speak in public, our titles and roles do come with us. This is politics. When you speak, you are speaking on behalf of others. It is a burden of leadership. And sometimes, that even extends beyond our term in a leadership position.
There's no such thing as "Off Time". Should Donald Trump get a pass because "it's his personal Twitter"? Likewise, when we speak in public, we are speaking for others, whether we like it, or not. I personally hate it - the burden of trying to watch every word you speak - that's why I never want to be a chair ever again.
We should all be wary that HOW we say something can often be the core problem. Let's review the last 3 blow-ups.
Against oligarchy and political dynasties? Yes! Dragging in people with cross-over into our own group? Bad idea.
Satanic Temple post? Fine. Satanic Temple post on Easter week? Bad idea.
Being against the Military Industrial Complex and/or against lying recruiters? Yes! Taking it out on soldiers, most of whom signed up for honorable reasons? Bad idea.
It wasn't the core principle, but the delivery. How an argument is framed can be the difference between getting through and bringing someone to our point of view, and galvanizing existing sides by drawing a sharp line in the sand. In case no one has noticed, we can't afford to draw lines. We don't have the numbers to play the "Us vs Them" game that the Ds and Rs play to galvanize their political bases. We need to speak in ways that bring people to our perspective, not repulse them from us.
In this particular instance, I personally think it's very wrong to blame the people trapped in the system, rather than focusing on the system itself. I thought Larry's livestream on "blame politicians, or blame everyone" was on-point. The system is the problem. We're all trapped in it. People tend to do what's right for them, and in fact that's how the market is supposed to work. The problem is that we have a system that gerrymanders choices and manipulates results. The system of manipulation is the problem, not the people just trying to get by inside the system.
I live in the Cincinnati area, and specifically Northern Kentucky. The big IRS processing center is here -- the one that is tied up in the targeting scandal -- and we have members, past and present, that work at that facility. They don't work there because they love the IRS. They work there because they needed a job, it paid well, and they use the money to support themselves and their families. As they've been awakened, some chose to leave the IRS, with mixed results. Others stay because it feeds their family. I don't condemn those people - they have an obligation to their families. I blame the system that takes skillsets out of the private sector by creating a higher demand, thus increasing wages and making it impossible to reasonably find work outside of the IRS which maintains the standard of living their family currently has.
I don't want to censure anyone - though I'm being hit all over with requests to do so; email, facebook, and pretty much wherever anyone else can find me. I don't want to recall anyone, either. I'm a Region Alternate, and on this sort of matter, I'll follow the lead of the Region Chairs. I am encouraging those that feel strongly about this to take action in NOLA, not through the LNC.
I honestly hope that everyone thinks about ways to focus on attacking the system of manipulation, rather than the people trapped inside of it. We're all trapped inside of it. Every single one of us. Some of us are more aware of it than others. Smacking people in the face by claiming they are heinous criminals, or (perceptively) attacking their religion, or attacking their "favorite" elected official isn't going to turn them to us; instead, it's more likely to repulse people from ever considering us. And even if the goal of some members may be only to reach people to educate, pushing people away from ever considering us is a failure to that end.
My too-long $0.02. ken
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty@gmail.com
wrote:
I certainly agree with that last sentence. That's why I started this thread to push past all the emails we've been getting and state my position: that we do not and should not control what individuals say on their own, and that I will oppose any effort to do so. I went on to say how, in my view, that policy can be reconciled (in fact, is sort of automatically reconciled) with avoiding the dangers and consequences the members writing to us are concerned about.
Joshua A. Katz
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 8:47 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos < carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:
Joshua,
You are (not deliberately) miscasting my words. You initial post spoke about content and tone and my comments spoke to that. I then reiterated that I favour professional strategy consultants.
Through human nature and just like I saw (and still see in the campaign committee that turned into an unapproved messaging committee and is now being recast in propo as something that was a social media advisory solution when it was originally proposed and approved as a Gary Johnson campaign post mortem!) shows how these categories keep getting morphed and did once again.
Our content and ideology is fixed to an extent or certainly in a range. How we might present it is not and that has nothing to do with a personal post on a personal page.
-Caryn Ann
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 7:35 AM Joshua Katz < planning4liberty@gmail.com> wrote:
Agreeing with Mr. McKnight, I see simply another instance of us failing to differentiate the message from how it is expressed, although it so happens that I disagree with some of the content as well.
As for agreeing with Mr. Somes, I refuse, in May 2017, to desist from expressing agreement with an LNC policy position because someone has declared a candidacy for May 2018 and said it. Call that bad form if you want, but I am not going to have the range of what I say narrowed by a race a year away.
Finally, my position on our utter lack of a messaging strategy, which is only reinforced by most of the comments I've seen here which imply, to some extent, that a platform is a messaging strategy, is constant. It is a position I have taken, consistently, since I first joined this board in 2014. It is a position which is content-neutral - Mr. Vohra's comments on this very thread, for instance, also seem to point to need for a coherent and consistent messaging strategy - and, I might add, as much as I disagree with what he seems to be proposing, I would take that over the current situation. (In the past, Mr. Vohra advocated for another theme to our messaging, as it were. I'm not sure if he's abandoned that, or if it integrates with what he advocates here. I remain partially in agreement with "Libertarian Solutions" and partially in disagreement, and I tend to think that, while it is a messaging strategy, it might be too far in the direction of saying a single thing rather than speaking in a coherent voice.) I am not going to stop advocating for my position simply because there's a FB uproar, particularly considering that there is always a FB uproar. To call that reactionary is simply incorrect. I am not reacting to anything - you might recall that, when I brought this up in the past, I was criticized precisely because I was not reacting to anything in particular. If examples happen to crop up, I will point to them.
Finally, our inability to focus and project our voice has everything to do with this instance. If we had a stronger voice, no one would care about the current brush-up, and we wouldn't be hearing these complaints. Everyone would understand that Mr. Vohra can speak for himself (and, I might add, I can speak for myself) and that the LP can speak for itself. When we lack such a voice, it is easy not just for officers to appear to be speaking for us when they speak, but for loud enough members. Such a situation causes all of us, officers, board members, and members alike, to choose between the sort of reaction we've seen this week, or shutting up. A party with a stronger voice would allow us not to make that choice, and to be able to speak our minds without becoming, in the public eye, the voice of the party.
Joshua A. Katz
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 8:19 AM, Patrick McKnight < patrick.joseph.mcknight@gmail.com> wrote:
> Our principles are immaculate. However we need to connect with > people as human beings. It has nothing to do with our platform, it had to > do with our mindset. Human beings make decisions based on emotion. > > Thanks, > Patrick McKnight > Region 8 Rep > > On May 18, 2017 9:07 AM, "Caryn Ann Harlos" < > carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote: > > David- > > Agree and disagree (which proves your point - we are individuals - > but bravo! Well spoken!). Our Platform speaks on some things clearly. Let > me name one that I disagree with- abortion. But it speaks clearly so I > NEVER give the impression that the Party is not pro-choice. Yet on so many > issues we are not messaging the clear Party position- such as no > force-financed education or no state mandated healthcare (I could name > others including anti-war in anything but strict defense). We shy away > particularly here. In that instance I agree that we should be saying those > core positions so loudly, so strongly, etc that no one will mistake the > "Party" position which may or may not be our own (like me with abortion). > But tone? Other people are going to use their tone. We are not Stepford > Libertarians and the idea that national is going to the grand conductor of > tone so that no one will ever mistake a candidate or other prominent person > for us is pure unadulterated fantasy. Great for campaign sloganeering and > propo but not in practice. > > *I would suggest also that it's bad form to use someone's campaign > materials aiming for a colleagues position as a point in a debate about > policy and using this list to potentially indicate support for said > candidacy.* or that is how it could be taken and we must not appear that > way on this list. > > Other things or even the path to the things above are not so cut and > dried. And it is in those areas we should fear mightily any forcing of a > unified voice indeed and embrace diversity - the way our SoP does with mini > or no state. They both exist and are welcome in this Party despite the > divisive attempts of some to expunge that inconvenient truth (not anyone > here or any comment here) > > Our messaging strategy should be clearly to state our actual > platform - our actual SoP- and as this body in 2010 said are the two > foundational pillars of Libertarianusm - *non aggression and self > ownership* and expect there will be diversity in how that is done. > > Professional advice would be foolish to dismiss and that should be > explored again particularly in social media targeting. > > But this undercurrent of using each thing as an opportunity to try > to assert top down control is something I will call out and resist every > time. It won't work and it's bad. > > Control of our message is the Statement of Principles (not optional > and fixed though enough attempts have been made to bury it over the years) > and the Platform which is up to the delegates. > > We should be so clear that it doesn't matter when our top ticket > argues for gun control. We don't. It should be clear that is the Party > position. We should not hesitate to show the Platform speaks to that. > > We should not hesitate to show that consistent non-force speaks to > others. But within that there are different paths and ideas. But we have > NOT been as clear or bold as we should be on the twin pillars of non > aggression and self ownership. > > But using this issue of a personal page to this issue strikes me as > a bit opportunistic to a preexisting agenda. Let's not be like the other > parties in that. > > Nothing in a messaging strategy would have had a thing to do with > personal posts on a personal wall for which an apology happened. > > -Caryn Ann > > > On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 5:39 AM David Demarest < > dpdemarest@centurylink.net> wrote: > >> The problem is that we as a group of “like-minded” >> politically-oriented people cannot agree on a core message beyond more >> freedom and less government (MFLG). As I have often said, there are at >> least as many Libertarian philosophies as there are Libertarians. Even >> among loose alliances within the LNC, we do not agree on message content >> details. Between alliances, we even disagree on core principles. The notion >> of all of us agreeing to and promoting a detailed common core message >> beyond MFLG is a flight of fancy and the stuff that statism and puppet >> masters are made of. The fact remains that groups are not living breathing >> entities. The notion that groups can have a freely agreed upon unified >> voice and message is pure unadulterated philosophical nonsense. Groups are >> conglomerates of individuals with individual voices. Without a police >> state, it is not possible for groups to have a single voice. Frankly, a >> group that could or would speak with a single voice would scare the hell >> out of me. We cannot and should not attempt to speak with one voice. Beware >> of those who would attempt to force us to speak with one voice. That is the >> message of statism that we as Libertarians are or should be fighting tooth >> and nail. >> >> >> >> I happen to be one Libertarian that thinks education is a key >> component of our political action mission. However, if we have difficulty >> gaining a consensus without protracted debates on even simple political >> actions such as resolutions on Cuban Libertarian prisoners and medical >> cannabis and token support for activist candidates, how can we agree on >> education as part of our mission and what the education message should be? >> What to do? >> >> >> >> Our diversity is a wonderful thing to be embraced. Let us celebrate >> that diversity that is loosely focused on MFLG and leverage it to empower >> ourselves as individuals who can go forth and deliver our own diverse >> individual educational messages of freedom. Point of fact, many or most of >> us are already delivering our own educational messages. We can have healthy >> open forum and institutional debates as to the merits of message content >> details and delivery techniques. However, attempts to muzzle the messages >> of individual Libertarians and outspoken elected officials beyond delegate >> elections is fraught with the dangers of statism. As long as I live and >> breathe, no political party will ever throttle my message short of the use >> of force. >> >> >> >> I believe these recent incidents are fortuitous opportunities to >> rethink and repurpose our Libertarian institutions to focus on using our >> inspirational food-for-thought diversity to empower individuals. The flip >> side of our diversity is the difficulty in getting the consensus required >> for anything more that relatively trivial actions. However, that lack of >> consensus does not or should not prevent inspired and empowered individual >> Libertarians from accomplishing the bulk of Libertarian action as bottom-up >> volunteers, entrepreneurs and activists and even top-down elected >> officials. Let’s stop fooling ourselves on controlled unified message >> content and delivery technique. Through trial and error and healthy debate, >> we can build our army of empowered individual Libertarians armed with their >> arsenal of individual message content and delivery techniques who will get >> us where we want to go. Our Libertarian institution think-tank cauldrons of >> inspirational diversity have the potential to be a key part of the process >> of empowering individuals. Let us free ourselves from the bonds of the >> groupthink and groupspeak, repurpose our institutions and get on with the >> business of freedom beyond mere MFLG. >> >> >> >> Our recent incidents are an opportunistic call to action. What must >> we do to repurpose our institutions to focus on empowering individual >> activists and messengers? Now is the time to get past our differences and >> leverage our diversity to think outside the box. Let the debates begin. >> >> >> >> Thoughts? >> >> >> >> ~David >> >> >> >> *Dec 28-Jan 1 Omaha Roads to Liberty Un-Convention* >> >> >> >> ~David Pratt Demarest >> >> LNC Region 6 Representative (IA, IL, MN, MO, ND, NE, WI) >> >> Secretary, LPNE State Central Committee >> >> Cell: 402-981-6469 <(402)%20981-6469> >> >> Home: 402-493-0873 <(402)%20493-0873> >> >> >> >> *From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org] *On >> Behalf Of *Caryn Ann Harlos >> *Sent:* Thursday, May 18, 2017 5:01 AM >> *To:* lnc-business@hq.lp.org >> *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] I Do Not Agree With What You Say... >> >> >> >> If we are talking "messaging problem" - with the exception of the >> lying word and a couple other turns of phrases I do not agree with, he is >> absolutely correct. >> >> >> >> He is asking we boldly stand on our Platform and the SoP and >> educate newcomers to our actual positions. >> >> >> >> Now THAT is a messaging problem we DO have. And it goes way beyond >> tone issues of an individual member on a personal way. >> >> >> >> Part of our Bylaws mandated roles is to educate people about our >> core principles and whether in a platform or not they lead to no exchange >> that is not voluntary, no government interference that violates negative >> rights, no siezing of resources without consent. >> >> >> >> We are not teaching people that thus is what our Statement of >> Principles says and the Platform is derived theherefrom. I have >> Libertarians shocked we oppose ALL eminent domain. Because we often >> deliver less than that in messaging. >> >> >> >> Sieving upon the obviously rhetorical over the top flourishes of >> Arvin that I have avoided is the stuff of FB and should not be our tactic >> here to avoid the point of what he is saying. >> >> >> >> We have always stood for eliminating all involuntary market >> transactions and asset sieving including taxation, public school, >> government healthcare etc. but we are not consistently telling people that >> while still accepting there may be steps from one point to another - we >> have made a certain step our position and failed to declare the goal. Over >> and over. >> >> >> >> That is our messaging problem in education and outreach. >> >> >> >> To anticipate Daniel's question to me- I will say - irrelevant to >> this discussion and if anyone insists to make it relevant, I will discuss >> when the special election is over next week and not sooner. >> >> >> >> -Caryn Ann >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 3:25 AM Daniel Hayes < >> danielehayes@icloud.com> wrote: >> >> Arvin, >> >> >> >> So most of our candidates are now liars? Weak voices for Liberty? >> >> >> >> What kind of steward of our donors money are you. You just voted >> to give $5000 to someone that doesn't match up on many areas of our >> platform. Which way is it? Where are your morals? >> >> >> >> The REAL libertarian platform would be NONE. Leave our Statement >> of Principles. Maybe the Omissions plank. Danny Bedwell can tell you I >> have been advocating for this since at least my first convention in 2014. >> He kept turning around to me during platform saying, "Why are they telling >> me what I am supposed to think as a candidate?!" To that I replied, "I'm >> with ya Danny!" >> >> >> >> I am constantly amazed at how authoritarian Libertarians are with >> regards to telling other people how they MUST think. >> >> >> >> So what I am taking away from your email is that you want to cater >> to the growing segment of the populace that is more actively apathetic to >> voting than any other demographic. In turn you seem to want to turn off the >> segments of voters that vote more often than the average demographic. >> >> >> >> Once again, your words don't match your recent actions. Why would >> you give money to a candidate you thought was weak? Is it because its >> mostly other people's money? >> >> >> >> Are we to be a "pure" echo chamber or a party that works to be >> inclusive of many and that finds areas of common interest for people to >> work together on to protect and restore our Liberty? >> >> >> >> >> >> Daniel Hayes >> >> LNC At Large Member >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> >> On May 18, 2017, at 2:53 AM, Arvin Vohra <votevohra@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> Hi All - >> >> >> >> During the last months, I've traveled to many state conventions, >> interviewed many candidates, and kept track of the mood here in DC. In its >> current form, much of our messaging is largely opposed to our platform, and >> so anemic as to be politically irrelevant. >> >> >> >> We have an education secretary that everyone thinks wants to end >> all government education. Whether this is true or not matters less than the >> fact that is what people think and say about her. Our platform is better >> than hers, as it involves complete elimination of government education and >> also tax funded education subsidies. >> >> >> >> But despite what our platform specifically states, much of the >> messaging is far softer than the Republicans. Most of the educational >> messaging I hear and see is not even at the Republican lite level; it's >> just Republican Weak. >> >> >> >> In discussions of healthcare and welfare, I'm seeing the same >> thing. Our platform is crystal clear on this: get government completely out >> of healthcare. Messaging? Nowhere near that. >> >> >> >> It seems that this is motivated by an attempt to grow the party >> numerically by essentially tricking people into identifying with the word >> Libertarian, and then hope they magically develop Libertarian views. But >> the actual effect is to mislead, bring people in who do not know what >> Libertarianism is, then have them represent us with a further watered down >> message, etc. While many sign the NAP, it's not at all clear that they >> understand the specific policy implications. >> >> >> >> In this process, we are losing our natural allies. Although the >> anarcho-capitalism movement is exploding through social media, most are >> Trump supporters. In other words, in our desperate attempt to get those who >> worship public schools and the military with a message of pro-status quo >> state worship, we are losing our most obvious base. There are those who >> actually agree with the big parts of our platform but are put off by the >> simple fact that we never talk about the big, anti-establishment issues, >> and fixate entirely on marijuana and occasionally alcohol. >> >> >> >> I hear more Libertarians arguing in favor of universal welfare than >> I hear arguing in favor of ending all welfare. I hear many more discussions >> about eliminating minor alcohol restrictions than the big issues that >> comprise most of the money stolen from us: healthcare, education, military, >> and social security. >> >> >> >> This has gone far past an issue of messaging. I bet that if today, >> we did a poll among Libertarian active donors, we'd see a minority that >> favored all of our positions on these critical issues, and I doubt we'd be >> even at 80 percent that favored our positions on even one of these issues. >> >> >> >> This can be addressed through either education or outreach. If we >> go the education route, I recommend an automated email series to educate >> new people on our actual positions. If it's outreach, I'd recommend we stop >> lying about our position at the national, state, and especially candidate >> level. Phrase them nice, mean, calm, explosively, however. But for the love >> of god phrase them somehow. >> >> >> >> Let's grow the Libertarian party, not the "I want to identify with >> a trendy word" party. >> >> >> >> If we stop lying, will we lose some people? Maybe a few. But we'll >> also be welcoming the people who most strongly agree with our positions. >> >> >> >> -Arvin >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 12:36 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos < >> carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> 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 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 3:12 PM, Joshua Katz < >> planning4liberty@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Colleagues: >> >> >> >> Like the many members we have heard from lately, I disagree >> strongly with recent comments of one of our members. I feel they are >> politically backward, and I wish they would stop because of the >> embarrassment they can bring on this party, and because they lack an >> appreciation of nuance, in my opinion. Nor is it my position that, as I've >> seen some claiming, these comments are "true but embarrassing." I am not >> one who believes that we need to hold back some sacred truths of liberty >> from the unwashed masses. I often am embarrassed by statements precisely >> because I think they are wrong - either false or, perhaps more commonly, in >> that realm of failing to be either true or false. >> >> >> >> I am primarily writing, though, to let you know that I would vote >> 'no' on any of the proposed measures, including censure and suspension. I >> would vote no because I do not agree that LNC members are never "off the >> clock." Yes, it is true, people know who we are, and we can never, really, >> take off our "hats" in public. That's one reason I strive for a low social >> media profile - that's my personal vision of the position. But when I >> speak about politics, and do not identify my speech as that of the LP, I do >> not expect this body to sit in judgment of its truth or its effectiveness. >> >> >> >> I believe that censure and suspension are best reserved for >> unacceptable activities carried out within office. I do not believe it is >> appropriate to define anything we do which touches on politics as 'within >> office.' As I've discussed before, in my view we each have almost no >> power, with some exceptions, except as members of this body. Our power is >> to vote, not to direct things ourselves. This cuts both ways. We do not >> have the power to speak for the LP, as individuals, except when >> specifically given this power by the bylaws or by an appropriate resolution >> or motion. Lacking that power, we cannot do it wrong. >> >> >> >> Furthermore, we do not choose our chair and vice-chair. They are >> elected by the delegates. I resent the implication that a few outspoken >> members should, through LNC action, undo the will of the convention. It is >> not our job, if we think that actions of the delegates have led to >> insensitive messaging, to try to reverse those actions. >> >> >> >> It is our job, on a semi-related note, to control our own >> messaging. Complaining about FB posts from one of our members is easier >> than thinking carefully about what we do and how we do it, but it is not a >> solution. 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. If we believe that one person, >> speaking on a platform not provided by this party, can derail our message, >> then shame on us. >> >> >> >> Further, that hasn't happened. It is primarily our own people who >> are angry. I myself am offended, in addition to disagreeing, but I do not >> see outrage outside Libertarian circles. It will be objected that this is >> because of our small size and relative lack of success, that if we were >> larger, we could not afford to be silent. That may very well be true. Yet >> the world is as it is, and we can afford to be silent, and, in my opinion, >> should. Furthermore, if we were in the position described, it is also true >> that our own messaging would be better. I say let's deal with the meme in >> our own eye before criticizing extra-party messaging. (As an individual, I >> feel free to criticize, I am speaking about this board's activities.) >> >> >> >> Is there any allegation that a member of this board has violated a >> fiduciary responsibility, has double-dealt for personal gain or gain of >> others, or has in any way done anything wrong in their party capacity? As >> far as I am aware, there is not. We are speaking about a person who has, >> in my view, governed well. We do not always agree, but I always respect >> his opinions and decisions - and I appreciate that he treats mine the >> same. Our job is to govern the party - Mr. Vohra does that very well. The >> vice-chair has additional duties: no one has made any allegation that these >> were carried out badly or incorrectly. Until I see allegations about those >> (and I am confident there are none, Mr. Vohra fulfills those >> responsibilities just fine) I will vote no on any motion on this topic. >> >> >> >> In other news, the President of the United States may have revealed >> classified information to the Russian Foreign Minister and compromised an >> Israeli source. The travel ban is still working its way through the >> courts. The Republicans in the House have done what we thought was >> impossible: found a way to make the ACA more freedom-destroying. Democrats >> and Republicans are working in lockstep to attack prosperity and the >> freedom of all, around the world, through nationalist-protectionist >> policies. I would like to see this party focused on electing Libertarians >> to office who are serious about, and effective in, addressing these and >> other issues. In addition to rolling back the size and scope of >> government, I'd like to see our elected officials simply managing the thing >> more competently than the corrupt members of the other parties have shown >> themselves capable of doing. After all, a more effective government will >> require, in my opinion, a smaller, less powerful government. The >> government cannot be competent in doing tasks far beyond its competence. >> So yes, I'd like to see us not insulting key groups of voters or making >> other political missteps. I'd like to see us prioritize policy over both >> personal attacks and abstractions - while remembering that we can inspire >> not just with pocketbook issues, but also with the power of what is right >> and with strong ideals. >> >> >> Joshua A. Katz >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Lnc-business mailing list >> Lnc-business@hq.lp.org >> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> *In Liberty,* >> >> *Caryn Ann Harlos* >> >> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, >> Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. >> Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> >> >> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado >> <http://www.lpcolorado.org> >> >> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus >> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org> >> >> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee >> >> >> >> A haiku to the Statement of Principles: >> >> *We defend your rights* >> >> *And oppose the use of force* >> >> *Taxation is theft* >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Lnc-business mailing list >> Lnc-business@hq.lp.org >> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Arvin Vohra >> >> www.VoteVohra.com >> VoteVohra@gmail.com >> (301) 320-3634 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Lnc-business mailing list >> Lnc-business@hq.lp.org >> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Lnc-business mailing list >> Lnc-business@hq.lp.org >> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org >> >> -- >> >> *In Liberty,* >> >> *Caryn Ann Harlos* >> >> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, >> Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. >> Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> >> >> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado >> <http://www.lpcolorado.org> >> >> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus >> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org> >> >> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee >> >> >> >> A haiku to the Statement of Principles: >> >> *We defend your rights* >> >> *And oppose the use of force* >> >> *Taxation is theft* >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Lnc-business mailing list >> Lnc-business@hq.lp.org >> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org >> > -- > *In Liberty,* > *Caryn Ann Harlos* > Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, > Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. > Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> > Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado > <http://www.lpcolorado.org> > Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus > <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org> > Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee > > A haiku to the Statement of Principles: > *We defend your rights* > *And oppose the use of force* > *Taxation is theft* > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Lnc-business mailing list > Lnc-business@hq.lp.org > http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > Lnc-business mailing list > Lnc-business@hq.lp.org > http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org > > _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
A haiku to the Statement of Principles: *We defend your rights* *And oppose the use of force* *Taxation is theft*
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
-- Arvin Vohra www.VoteVohra.com VoteVohra@gmail.com (301) 320-3634
Arvin, Are you saying what I'm trying to promote is bait and switch? Because it's not. I'm for tailoring messages to the audience. We still stay on principle, it's just a matter of HOW it's being said, not the philosophy behind it. I'm a libertarian and a Libertarian. I want other people to be libertarian and Libertarian. I didn't get here overnight. It took 2 years of soul searching and rectifying my core beliefs, from 1996 to 1998, and then a friend prompting me to check out the LP, to get here. I was still a "wobbly" member in 1998, though. Harry Browne sealed the deal for me in 1999, and I voted for him in 2000. Even then, I wandered away from politics from early 2001 through 2005, when I came back because of the Kelo decision. If these types of statements - Satanic Temple (not so much), anti-Paul (maybe), anti-Military-personnel (I have lots of now-vet friends) - had been made while I was checking out the LP in 1998, or during the "wobbly" period, I might very well have walked away. Some might think it would have been better if I had, but that's another story. :) ken On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 2:02 AM, Arvin Vohra <votevohra@gmail.com> wrote:
Could bait and switch Libertarianism work? Sure. For example, we could tell everyone that Libertarians support government schools, get elected, and then immediately shut down government schools. Within days, parents and students would find better, free alternative sources for education, as homeschoolers and unschoolers have done. After a few more days, parents would find ways to provide babysitting for very young students. It wouldn't be long before people looked back and wondered why we ever tolerated government schools.
But bait and switch Libertarianism only works if everyone on our side is in on the plan. If we tell someone that Libertarians support government schools, and he believes us, what happens when he soon runs for office? Now when he tells people he wants more funding for government schools, he's not trying to trick anyone. He's just actually trying to keep government schools going.
In other words, by trying to fool others, we just end up fooling ourselves. We trade a short term gain for a long term loss. We went for the easy short term illusion of growth, and sacrificed the major long term growth that comes from spreading true and undiluted ideas.
Some have argued that there are a lot of public school teachers, soldiers, DEA agents, IRS agents that won't like our real message. First, that's not true. Many of the staunchest opponents to public school have been public school teachers. They see the damage up close. John Taylor Gatto is a famous example, but not the only one. Many police officers oppose the drug war for the same reason: they see it up close. LEAP is a perfect example. The most anti-war and anti-military people are usually former soldiers. They've seen the pointlessness and immorality of corrupted missions up close. IRS agents see the abuses of our tax code more than anyone else. Instead of trying to manipulate people with disingenuous presentations of Libertarianism, speak to them frankly, honestly, directly, and bluntly.
And we're also allowed to talk to other audiences. Most of our true allies aren't already holding big rallies. Those groups already have political representation. Some of our people are currently lost and unrepresented. They've turned away from politics because it doesn't represent them. They might not be in a teachers' union. They might not know much about how the government works, aside from having a gradual realization that it is not on their side.
Are they harder to find than a teacher's union march? Probably. But I think it makes sense to speak to the casualties of government at least as often as we speak to those on its payroll.
In Liberty,
Arvin
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 1:39 PM, David Demarest <dprattdemarest@gmail.com> wrote:
Ken, we shall see what the long term consequences of this incident are and whether our increased awareness pays dividends. I am optimistic but regardless, I will support those who make every effort turn this call to action into a net-positive in the admirable manner that Libertarians are capable of.
Thoughts?
On May 18, 2017 11:48 AM, "Ken Moellman" <lpky@mu-net.org> wrote:
My way of waking people up is strategic in nature, and situational. When addressing a large audience, I generally scale back to a generally accepted message. When one-on-one, I am likely to speak much more specifically to particular issues of value to that other individual.
The interesting thing about repulsing people is that no matter what happens, you can pretty much never mend the bridge and never reach that person or those persons. When it switches from the policy to the personal, things like principles and goals get thrown out the window, in favor of "Eff that guy." In fact, repulsion can create (an) activist(s) specifically against you, or even your position, because of the emotional response.
In trying to come up with a good analogy, I remembered that once upon a time, in High School, I was involved in an RPG. In this RPG, the "good guys" turned into "bad guys", and upon discovering time travel decided to go back in time and convince their "good guys" selves to become "bad guys" sooner, so they would become richer in the future. The "good guys" version of the past were repulsed by this idea of turning bad, and became firm in their resolve to never become "bad guys" (and since time travel was involved this created a paradox, but that's not the point right now).
The point is that if you draw a hard line between yourself and someone else, it makes it far less likely that you'll convert them to your side of the line later.
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 12:30 PM, David Demarest < dprattdemarest@gmail.com> wrote:
Ken, I fully agree that we are all trapped in this huge scam government manipulation system. How did we get there? With the permission of the majority.
Due to the timerity of Arvin, are we now more aware of our role in this manipulation system? I certainly am.
How do we get ourselves out of this system? We start by becoming more aware of our role. Then we must answer Arvin's challenge by leveraging our increased awareness as an incentive to get on with our Libertarian responsibilities for thoughtful due diligence instead of acting out because Arvin abruptly nudged us out of our comfort zone.
Could this internal hubbub cost us in a few elections? Possibly in the very short term but likely the opposite in the long term. More important, those candidates and their supporters who hysterically run for damage control cover at the expense of long term clarity on our principles will set a dubious example with possible unintended consequences in our pursuit of freedom.
Ken, thank you for your astute observation that we are all trapped in in a pervasive manipulation system. What are your proposals for eliminating the manipulation system?
Thoughts?
On May 18, 2017 10:36 AM, "Ken Moellman" <lpky@mu-net.org> wrote:
My largest concern is that when we speak in public, our titles and roles do come with us. This is politics. When you speak, you are speaking on behalf of others. It is a burden of leadership. And sometimes, that even extends beyond our term in a leadership position.
There's no such thing as "Off Time". Should Donald Trump get a pass because "it's his personal Twitter"? Likewise, when we speak in public, we are speaking for others, whether we like it, or not. I personally hate it - the burden of trying to watch every word you speak - that's why I never want to be a chair ever again.
We should all be wary that HOW we say something can often be the core problem. Let's review the last 3 blow-ups.
Against oligarchy and political dynasties? Yes! Dragging in people with cross-over into our own group? Bad idea.
Satanic Temple post? Fine. Satanic Temple post on Easter week? Bad idea.
Being against the Military Industrial Complex and/or against lying recruiters? Yes! Taking it out on soldiers, most of whom signed up for honorable reasons? Bad idea.
It wasn't the core principle, but the delivery. How an argument is framed can be the difference between getting through and bringing someone to our point of view, and galvanizing existing sides by drawing a sharp line in the sand. In case no one has noticed, we can't afford to draw lines. We don't have the numbers to play the "Us vs Them" game that the Ds and Rs play to galvanize their political bases. We need to speak in ways that bring people to our perspective, not repulse them from us.
In this particular instance, I personally think it's very wrong to blame the people trapped in the system, rather than focusing on the system itself. I thought Larry's livestream on "blame politicians, or blame everyone" was on-point. The system is the problem. We're all trapped in it. People tend to do what's right for them, and in fact that's how the market is supposed to work. The problem is that we have a system that gerrymanders choices and manipulates results. The system of manipulation is the problem, not the people just trying to get by inside the system.
I live in the Cincinnati area, and specifically Northern Kentucky. The big IRS processing center is here -- the one that is tied up in the targeting scandal -- and we have members, past and present, that work at that facility. They don't work there because they love the IRS. They work there because they needed a job, it paid well, and they use the money to support themselves and their families. As they've been awakened, some chose to leave the IRS, with mixed results. Others stay because it feeds their family. I don't condemn those people - they have an obligation to their families. I blame the system that takes skillsets out of the private sector by creating a higher demand, thus increasing wages and making it impossible to reasonably find work outside of the IRS which maintains the standard of living their family currently has.
I don't want to censure anyone - though I'm being hit all over with requests to do so; email, facebook, and pretty much wherever anyone else can find me. I don't want to recall anyone, either. I'm a Region Alternate, and on this sort of matter, I'll follow the lead of the Region Chairs. I am encouraging those that feel strongly about this to take action in NOLA, not through the LNC.
I honestly hope that everyone thinks about ways to focus on attacking the system of manipulation, rather than the people trapped inside of it. We're all trapped inside of it. Every single one of us. Some of us are more aware of it than others. Smacking people in the face by claiming they are heinous criminals, or (perceptively) attacking their religion, or attacking their "favorite" elected official isn't going to turn them to us; instead, it's more likely to repulse people from ever considering us. And even if the goal of some members may be only to reach people to educate, pushing people away from ever considering us is a failure to that end.
My too-long $0.02. ken
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Joshua Katz < planning4liberty@gmail.com> wrote:
I certainly agree with that last sentence. That's why I started this thread to push past all the emails we've been getting and state my position: that we do not and should not control what individuals say on their own, and that I will oppose any effort to do so. I went on to say how, in my view, that policy can be reconciled (in fact, is sort of automatically reconciled) with avoiding the dangers and consequences the members writing to us are concerned about.
Joshua A. Katz
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 8:47 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos < carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:
Joshua,
You are (not deliberately) miscasting my words. You initial post spoke about content and tone and my comments spoke to that. I then reiterated that I favour professional strategy consultants.
Through human nature and just like I saw (and still see in the campaign committee that turned into an unapproved messaging committee and is now being recast in propo as something that was a social media advisory solution when it was originally proposed and approved as a Gary Johnson campaign post mortem!) shows how these categories keep getting morphed and did once again.
Our content and ideology is fixed to an extent or certainly in a range. How we might present it is not and that has nothing to do with a personal post on a personal page.
-Caryn Ann
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 7:35 AM Joshua Katz < planning4liberty@gmail.com> wrote:
> Agreeing with Mr. McKnight, I see simply another instance of us > failing to differentiate the message from how it is expressed, although it > so happens that I disagree with some of the content as well. > > As for agreeing with Mr. Somes, I refuse, in May 2017, to desist > from expressing agreement with an LNC policy position because someone has > declared a candidacy for May 2018 and said it. Call that bad form if you > want, but I am not going to have the range of what I say narrowed by a race > a year away. > > Finally, my position on our utter lack of a messaging strategy, > which is only reinforced by most of the comments I've seen here which > imply, to some extent, that a platform is a messaging strategy, is > constant. It is a position I have taken, consistently, since I first > joined this board in 2014. It is a position which is content-neutral - Mr. > Vohra's comments on this very thread, for instance, also seem to point to > need for a coherent and consistent messaging strategy - and, I might add, > as much as I disagree with what he seems to be proposing, I would take that > over the current situation. (In the past, Mr. Vohra advocated for another > theme to our messaging, as it were. I'm not sure if he's abandoned that, > or if it integrates with what he advocates here. I remain partially in > agreement with "Libertarian Solutions" and partially in disagreement, and I > tend to think that, while it is a messaging strategy, it might be too far > in the direction of saying a single thing rather than speaking in a > coherent voice.) I am not going to stop advocating for my position simply > because there's a FB uproar, particularly considering that there is always > a FB uproar. To call that reactionary is simply incorrect. I am not > reacting to anything - you might recall that, when I brought this up in the > past, I was criticized precisely because I was not reacting to anything in > particular. If examples happen to crop up, I will point to them. > > Finally, our inability to focus and project our voice has everything > to do with this instance. If we had a stronger voice, no one would care > about the current brush-up, and we wouldn't be hearing these complaints. > Everyone would understand that Mr. Vohra can speak for himself (and, I > might add, I can speak for myself) and that the LP can speak for itself. > When we lack such a voice, it is easy not just for officers to appear to be > speaking for us when they speak, but for loud enough members. Such a > situation causes all of us, officers, board members, and members alike, to > choose between the sort of reaction we've seen this week, or shutting up. > A party with a stronger voice would allow us not to make that choice, and > to be able to speak our minds without becoming, in the public eye, the > voice of the party. > > > > Joshua A. Katz > > > On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 8:19 AM, Patrick McKnight < > patrick.joseph.mcknight@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Our principles are immaculate. However we need to connect with >> people as human beings. It has nothing to do with our platform, it had to >> do with our mindset. Human beings make decisions based on emotion. >> >> Thanks, >> Patrick McKnight >> Region 8 Rep >> >> On May 18, 2017 9:07 AM, "Caryn Ann Harlos" < >> carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> David- >> >> Agree and disagree (which proves your point - we are individuals - >> but bravo! Well spoken!). Our Platform speaks on some things clearly. Let >> me name one that I disagree with- abortion. But it speaks clearly so I >> NEVER give the impression that the Party is not pro-choice. Yet on so many >> issues we are not messaging the clear Party position- such as no >> force-financed education or no state mandated healthcare (I could name >> others including anti-war in anything but strict defense). We shy away >> particularly here. In that instance I agree that we should be saying those >> core positions so loudly, so strongly, etc that no one will mistake the >> "Party" position which may or may not be our own (like me with abortion). >> But tone? Other people are going to use their tone. We are not Stepford >> Libertarians and the idea that national is going to the grand conductor of >> tone so that no one will ever mistake a candidate or other prominent person >> for us is pure unadulterated fantasy. Great for campaign sloganeering and >> propo but not in practice. >> >> *I would suggest also that it's bad form to use someone's campaign >> materials aiming for a colleagues position as a point in a debate about >> policy and using this list to potentially indicate support for said >> candidacy.* or that is how it could be taken and we must not appear that >> way on this list. >> >> Other things or even the path to the things above are not so cut >> and dried. And it is in those areas we should fear mightily any forcing of >> a unified voice indeed and embrace diversity - the way our SoP does with >> mini or no state. They both exist and are welcome in this Party despite >> the divisive attempts of some to expunge that inconvenient truth (not >> anyone here or any comment here) >> >> Our messaging strategy should be clearly to state our actual >> platform - our actual SoP- and as this body in 2010 said are the two >> foundational pillars of Libertarianusm - *non aggression and self >> ownership* and expect there will be diversity in how that is done. >> >> Professional advice would be foolish to dismiss and that should be >> explored again particularly in social media targeting. >> >> But this undercurrent of using each thing as an opportunity to try >> to assert top down control is something I will call out and resist every >> time. It won't work and it's bad. >> >> Control of our message is the Statement of Principles (not optional >> and fixed though enough attempts have been made to bury it over the years) >> and the Platform which is up to the delegates. >> >> We should be so clear that it doesn't matter when our top ticket >> argues for gun control. We don't. It should be clear that is the Party >> position. We should not hesitate to show the Platform speaks to that. >> >> We should not hesitate to show that consistent non-force speaks to >> others. But within that there are different paths and ideas. But we have >> NOT been as clear or bold as we should be on the twin pillars of non >> aggression and self ownership. >> >> But using this issue of a personal page to this issue strikes me as >> a bit opportunistic to a preexisting agenda. Let's not be like the other >> parties in that. >> >> Nothing in a messaging strategy would have had a thing to do with >> personal posts on a personal wall for which an apology happened. >> >> -Caryn Ann >> >> >> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 5:39 AM David Demarest < >> dpdemarest@centurylink.net> wrote: >> >>> The problem is that we as a group of “like-minded” >>> politically-oriented people cannot agree on a core message beyond more >>> freedom and less government (MFLG). As I have often said, there are at >>> least as many Libertarian philosophies as there are Libertarians. Even >>> among loose alliances within the LNC, we do not agree on message content >>> details. Between alliances, we even disagree on core principles. The notion >>> of all of us agreeing to and promoting a detailed common core message >>> beyond MFLG is a flight of fancy and the stuff that statism and puppet >>> masters are made of. The fact remains that groups are not living breathing >>> entities. The notion that groups can have a freely agreed upon unified >>> voice and message is pure unadulterated philosophical nonsense. Groups are >>> conglomerates of individuals with individual voices. Without a police >>> state, it is not possible for groups to have a single voice. Frankly, a >>> group that could or would speak with a single voice would scare the hell >>> out of me. We cannot and should not attempt to speak with one voice. Beware >>> of those who would attempt to force us to speak with one voice. That is the >>> message of statism that we as Libertarians are or should be fighting tooth >>> and nail. >>> >>> >>> >>> I happen to be one Libertarian that thinks education is a key >>> component of our political action mission. However, if we have difficulty >>> gaining a consensus without protracted debates on even simple political >>> actions such as resolutions on Cuban Libertarian prisoners and medical >>> cannabis and token support for activist candidates, how can we agree on >>> education as part of our mission and what the education message should be? >>> What to do? >>> >>> >>> >>> Our diversity is a wonderful thing to be embraced. Let us >>> celebrate that diversity that is loosely focused on MFLG and leverage it to >>> empower ourselves as individuals who can go forth and deliver our own >>> diverse individual educational messages of freedom. Point of fact, many or >>> most of us are already delivering our own educational messages. We can have >>> healthy open forum and institutional debates as to the merits of message >>> content details and delivery techniques. However, attempts to muzzle the >>> messages of individual Libertarians and outspoken elected officials beyond >>> delegate elections is fraught with the dangers of statism. As long as I >>> live and breathe, no political party will ever throttle my message short of >>> the use of force. >>> >>> >>> >>> I believe these recent incidents are fortuitous opportunities to >>> rethink and repurpose our Libertarian institutions to focus on using our >>> inspirational food-for-thought diversity to empower individuals. The flip >>> side of our diversity is the difficulty in getting the consensus required >>> for anything more that relatively trivial actions. However, that lack of >>> consensus does not or should not prevent inspired and empowered individual >>> Libertarians from accomplishing the bulk of Libertarian action as bottom-up >>> volunteers, entrepreneurs and activists and even top-down elected >>> officials. Let’s stop fooling ourselves on controlled unified message >>> content and delivery technique. Through trial and error and healthy debate, >>> we can build our army of empowered individual Libertarians armed with their >>> arsenal of individual message content and delivery techniques who will get >>> us where we want to go. Our Libertarian institution think-tank cauldrons of >>> inspirational diversity have the potential to be a key part of the process >>> of empowering individuals. Let us free ourselves from the bonds of the >>> groupthink and groupspeak, repurpose our institutions and get on with the >>> business of freedom beyond mere MFLG. >>> >>> >>> >>> Our recent incidents are an opportunistic call to action. What >>> must we do to repurpose our institutions to focus on empowering individual >>> activists and messengers? Now is the time to get past our differences and >>> leverage our diversity to think outside the box. Let the debates begin. >>> >>> >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> >>> >>> >>> ~David >>> >>> >>> >>> *Dec 28-Jan 1 Omaha Roads to Liberty Un-Convention* >>> >>> >>> >>> ~David Pratt Demarest >>> >>> LNC Region 6 Representative (IA, IL, MN, MO, ND, NE, WI) >>> >>> Secretary, LPNE State Central Committee >>> >>> Cell: 402-981-6469 <(402)%20981-6469> >>> >>> Home: 402-493-0873 <(402)%20493-0873> >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org] *On >>> Behalf Of *Caryn Ann Harlos >>> *Sent:* Thursday, May 18, 2017 5:01 AM >>> *To:* lnc-business@hq.lp.org >>> *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] I Do Not Agree With What You Say... >>> >>> >>> >>> If we are talking "messaging problem" - with the exception of the >>> lying word and a couple other turns of phrases I do not agree with, he is >>> absolutely correct. >>> >>> >>> >>> He is asking we boldly stand on our Platform and the SoP and >>> educate newcomers to our actual positions. >>> >>> >>> >>> Now THAT is a messaging problem we DO have. And it goes way >>> beyond tone issues of an individual member on a personal way. >>> >>> >>> >>> Part of our Bylaws mandated roles is to educate people about our >>> core principles and whether in a platform or not they lead to no exchange >>> that is not voluntary, no government interference that violates negative >>> rights, no siezing of resources without consent. >>> >>> >>> >>> We are not teaching people that thus is what our Statement of >>> Principles says and the Platform is derived theherefrom. I have >>> Libertarians shocked we oppose ALL eminent domain. Because we often >>> deliver less than that in messaging. >>> >>> >>> >>> Sieving upon the obviously rhetorical over the top flourishes of >>> Arvin that I have avoided is the stuff of FB and should not be our tactic >>> here to avoid the point of what he is saying. >>> >>> >>> >>> We have always stood for eliminating all involuntary market >>> transactions and asset sieving including taxation, public school, >>> government healthcare etc. but we are not consistently telling people that >>> while still accepting there may be steps from one point to another - we >>> have made a certain step our position and failed to declare the goal. Over >>> and over. >>> >>> >>> >>> That is our messaging problem in education and outreach. >>> >>> >>> >>> To anticipate Daniel's question to me- I will say - irrelevant to >>> this discussion and if anyone insists to make it relevant, I will discuss >>> when the special election is over next week and not sooner. >>> >>> >>> >>> -Caryn Ann >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 3:25 AM Daniel Hayes < >>> danielehayes@icloud.com> wrote: >>> >>> Arvin, >>> >>> >>> >>> So most of our candidates are now liars? Weak voices for Liberty? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> What kind of steward of our donors money are you. You just voted >>> to give $5000 to someone that doesn't match up on many areas of our >>> platform. Which way is it? Where are your morals? >>> >>> >>> >>> The REAL libertarian platform would be NONE. Leave our Statement >>> of Principles. Maybe the Omissions plank. Danny Bedwell can tell you I >>> have been advocating for this since at least my first convention in 2014. >>> He kept turning around to me during platform saying, "Why are they telling >>> me what I am supposed to think as a candidate?!" To that I replied, "I'm >>> with ya Danny!" >>> >>> >>> >>> I am constantly amazed at how authoritarian Libertarians are with >>> regards to telling other people how they MUST think. >>> >>> >>> >>> So what I am taking away from your email is that you want to cater >>> to the growing segment of the populace that is more actively apathetic to >>> voting than any other demographic. In turn you seem to want to turn off the >>> segments of voters that vote more often than the average demographic. >>> >>> >>> >>> Once again, your words don't match your recent actions. Why would >>> you give money to a candidate you thought was weak? Is it because its >>> mostly other people's money? >>> >>> >>> >>> Are we to be a "pure" echo chamber or a party that works to be >>> inclusive of many and that finds areas of common interest for people to >>> work together on to protect and restore our Liberty? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Daniel Hayes >>> >>> LNC At Large Member >>> >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> >>> On May 18, 2017, at 2:53 AM, Arvin Vohra <votevohra@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi All - >>> >>> >>> >>> During the last months, I've traveled to many state conventions, >>> interviewed many candidates, and kept track of the mood here in DC. In its >>> current form, much of our messaging is largely opposed to our platform, and >>> so anemic as to be politically irrelevant. >>> >>> >>> >>> We have an education secretary that everyone thinks wants to end >>> all government education. Whether this is true or not matters less than the >>> fact that is what people think and say about her. Our platform is better >>> than hers, as it involves complete elimination of government education and >>> also tax funded education subsidies. >>> >>> >>> >>> But despite what our platform specifically states, much of the >>> messaging is far softer than the Republicans. Most of the educational >>> messaging I hear and see is not even at the Republican lite level; it's >>> just Republican Weak. >>> >>> >>> >>> In discussions of healthcare and welfare, I'm seeing the same >>> thing. Our platform is crystal clear on this: get government completely out >>> of healthcare. Messaging? Nowhere near that. >>> >>> >>> >>> It seems that this is motivated by an attempt to grow the party >>> numerically by essentially tricking people into identifying with the word >>> Libertarian, and then hope they magically develop Libertarian views. But >>> the actual effect is to mislead, bring people in who do not know what >>> Libertarianism is, then have them represent us with a further watered down >>> message, etc. While many sign the NAP, it's not at all clear that they >>> understand the specific policy implications. >>> >>> >>> >>> In this process, we are losing our natural allies. Although the >>> anarcho-capitalism movement is exploding through social media, most are >>> Trump supporters. In other words, in our desperate attempt to get those who >>> worship public schools and the military with a message of pro-status quo >>> state worship, we are losing our most obvious base. There are those who >>> actually agree with the big parts of our platform but are put off by the >>> simple fact that we never talk about the big, anti-establishment issues, >>> and fixate entirely on marijuana and occasionally alcohol. >>> >>> >>> >>> I hear more Libertarians arguing in favor of universal welfare >>> than I hear arguing in favor of ending all welfare. I hear many more >>> discussions about eliminating minor alcohol restrictions than the big >>> issues that comprise most of the money stolen from us: healthcare, >>> education, military, and social security. >>> >>> >>> >>> This has gone far past an issue of messaging. I bet that if today, >>> we did a poll among Libertarian active donors, we'd see a minority that >>> favored all of our positions on these critical issues, and I doubt we'd be >>> even at 80 percent that favored our positions on even one of these issues. >>> >>> >>> >>> This can be addressed through either education or outreach. If we >>> go the education route, I recommend an automated email series to educate >>> new people on our actual positions. If it's outreach, I'd recommend we stop >>> lying about our position at the national, state, and especially candidate >>> level. Phrase them nice, mean, calm, explosively, however. But for the love >>> of god phrase them somehow. >>> >>> >>> >>> Let's grow the Libertarian party, not the "I want to identify with >>> a trendy word" party. >>> >>> >>> >>> If we stop lying, will we lose some people? Maybe a few. But we'll >>> also be welcoming the people who most strongly agree with our positions. >>> >>> >>> >>> -Arvin >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 12:36 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos < >>> carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 3:12 PM, Joshua Katz < >>> planning4liberty@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Colleagues: >>> >>> >>> >>> Like the many members we have heard from lately, I disagree >>> strongly with recent comments of one of our members. I feel they are >>> politically backward, and I wish they would stop because of the >>> embarrassment they can bring on this party, and because they lack an >>> appreciation of nuance, in my opinion. Nor is it my position that, as I've >>> seen some claiming, these comments are "true but embarrassing." I am not >>> one who believes that we need to hold back some sacred truths of liberty >>> from the unwashed masses. I often am embarrassed by statements precisely >>> because I think they are wrong - either false or, perhaps more commonly, in >>> that realm of failing to be either true or false. >>> >>> >>> >>> I am primarily writing, though, to let you know that I would vote >>> 'no' on any of the proposed measures, including censure and suspension. I >>> would vote no because I do not agree that LNC members are never "off the >>> clock." Yes, it is true, people know who we are, and we can never, really, >>> take off our "hats" in public. That's one reason I strive for a low social >>> media profile - that's my personal vision of the position. But when I >>> speak about politics, and do not identify my speech as that of the LP, I do >>> not expect this body to sit in judgment of its truth or its effectiveness. >>> >>> >>> >>> I believe that censure and suspension are best reserved for >>> unacceptable activities carried out within office. I do not believe it is >>> appropriate to define anything we do which touches on politics as 'within >>> office.' As I've discussed before, in my view we each have almost no >>> power, with some exceptions, except as members of this body. Our power is >>> to vote, not to direct things ourselves. This cuts both ways. We do not >>> have the power to speak for the LP, as individuals, except when >>> specifically given this power by the bylaws or by an appropriate resolution >>> or motion. Lacking that power, we cannot do it wrong. >>> >>> >>> >>> Furthermore, we do not choose our chair and vice-chair. They are >>> elected by the delegates. I resent the implication that a few outspoken >>> members should, through LNC action, undo the will of the convention. It is >>> not our job, if we think that actions of the delegates have led to >>> insensitive messaging, to try to reverse those actions. >>> >>> >>> >>> It is our job, on a semi-related note, to control our own >>> messaging. Complaining about FB posts from one of our members is easier >>> than thinking carefully about what we do and how we do it, but it is not a >>> solution. 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. If we believe that one person, >>> speaking on a platform not provided by this party, can derail our message, >>> then shame on us. >>> >>> >>> >>> Further, that hasn't happened. It is primarily our own people who >>> are angry. I myself am offended, in addition to disagreeing, but I do not >>> see outrage outside Libertarian circles. It will be objected that this is >>> because of our small size and relative lack of success, that if we were >>> larger, we could not afford to be silent. That may very well be true. Yet >>> the world is as it is, and we can afford to be silent, and, in my opinion, >>> should. Furthermore, if we were in the position described, it is also true >>> that our own messaging would be better. I say let's deal with the meme in >>> our own eye before criticizing extra-party messaging. (As an individual, I >>> feel free to criticize, I am speaking about this board's activities.) >>> >>> >>> >>> Is there any allegation that a member of this board has violated a >>> fiduciary responsibility, has double-dealt for personal gain or gain of >>> others, or has in any way done anything wrong in their party capacity? As >>> far as I am aware, there is not. We are speaking about a person who has, >>> in my view, governed well. We do not always agree, but I always respect >>> his opinions and decisions - and I appreciate that he treats mine the >>> same. Our job is to govern the party - Mr. Vohra does that very well. The >>> vice-chair has additional duties: no one has made any allegation that these >>> were carried out badly or incorrectly. Until I see allegations about those >>> (and I am confident there are none, Mr. Vohra fulfills those >>> responsibilities just fine) I will vote no on any motion on this topic. >>> >>> >>> >>> In other news, the President of the United States may have >>> revealed classified information to the Russian Foreign Minister and >>> compromised an Israeli source. The travel ban is still working its way >>> through the courts. The Republicans in the House have done what we thought >>> was impossible: found a way to make the ACA more freedom-destroying. >>> Democrats and Republicans are working in lockstep to attack prosperity and >>> the freedom of all, around the world, through nationalist-protectionist >>> policies. I would like to see this party focused on electing Libertarians >>> to office who are serious about, and effective in, addressing these and >>> other issues. In addition to rolling back the size and scope of >>> government, I'd like to see our elected officials simply managing the thing >>> more competently than the corrupt members of the other parties have shown >>> themselves capable of doing. After all, a more effective government will >>> require, in my opinion, a smaller, less powerful government. The >>> government cannot be competent in doing tasks far beyond its competence. >>> So yes, I'd like to see us not insulting key groups of voters or making >>> other political missteps. I'd like to see us prioritize policy over both >>> personal attacks and abstractions - while remembering that we can inspire >>> not just with pocketbook issues, but also with the power of what is right >>> and with strong ideals. >>> >>> >>> Joshua A. Katz >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Lnc-business mailing list >>> Lnc-business@hq.lp.org >>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> *In Liberty,* >>> >>> *Caryn Ann Harlos* >>> >>> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, >>> Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. >>> Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> >>> >>> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado >>> <http://www.lpcolorado.org> >>> >>> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus >>> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org> >>> >>> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee >>> >>> >>> >>> A haiku to the Statement of Principles: >>> >>> *We defend your rights* >>> >>> *And oppose the use of force* >>> >>> *Taxation is theft* >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Lnc-business mailing list >>> Lnc-business@hq.lp.org >>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Arvin Vohra >>> >>> www.VoteVohra.com >>> VoteVohra@gmail.com >>> (301) 320-3634 >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Lnc-business mailing list >>> Lnc-business@hq.lp.org >>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Lnc-business mailing list >>> Lnc-business@hq.lp.org >>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org >>> >>> -- >>> >>> *In Liberty,* >>> >>> *Caryn Ann Harlos* >>> >>> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, >>> Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. >>> Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> >>> >>> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado >>> <http://www.lpcolorado.org> >>> >>> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus >>> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org> >>> >>> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee >>> >>> >>> >>> A haiku to the Statement of Principles: >>> >>> *We defend your rights* >>> >>> *And oppose the use of force* >>> >>> *Taxation is theft* >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Lnc-business mailing list >>> Lnc-business@hq.lp.org >>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org >>> >> -- >> *In Liberty,* >> *Caryn Ann Harlos* >> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, >> Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. >> Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> >> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado >> <http://www.lpcolorado.org> >> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus >> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org> >> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee >> >> A haiku to the Statement of Principles: >> *We defend your rights* >> *And oppose the use of force* >> *Taxation is theft* >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Lnc-business mailing list >> Lnc-business@hq.lp.org >> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Lnc-business mailing list >> Lnc-business@hq.lp.org >> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Lnc-business mailing list > Lnc-business@hq.lp.org > http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org > -- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
A haiku to the Statement of Principles: *We defend your rights* *And oppose the use of force* *Taxation is theft*
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
-- Arvin Vohra
www.VoteVohra.com VoteVohra@gmail.com (301) 320-3634
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
I loved your .02 cents Ken. Very well stated though we disagree on whether anyone is ever off the clock. On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 9:35 AM, Ken Moellman <lpky@mu-net.org> wrote:
My largest concern is that when we speak in public, our titles and roles do come with us. This is politics. When you speak, you are speaking on behalf of others. It is a burden of leadership. And sometimes, that even extends beyond our term in a leadership position.
There's no such thing as "Off Time". Should Donald Trump get a pass because "it's his personal Twitter"? Likewise, when we speak in public, we are speaking for others, whether we like it, or not. I personally hate it - the burden of trying to watch every word you speak - that's why I never want to be a chair ever again.
We should all be wary that HOW we say something can often be the core problem. Let's review the last 3 blow-ups.
Against oligarchy and political dynasties? Yes! Dragging in people with cross-over into our own group? Bad idea.
Satanic Temple post? Fine. Satanic Temple post on Easter week? Bad idea.
Being against the Military Industrial Complex and/or against lying recruiters? Yes! Taking it out on soldiers, most of whom signed up for honorable reasons? Bad idea.
It wasn't the core principle, but the delivery. How an argument is framed can be the difference between getting through and bringing someone to our point of view, and galvanizing existing sides by drawing a sharp line in the sand. In case no one has noticed, we can't afford to draw lines. We don't have the numbers to play the "Us vs Them" game that the Ds and Rs play to galvanize their political bases. We need to speak in ways that bring people to our perspective, not repulse them from us.
In this particular instance, I personally think it's very wrong to blame the people trapped in the system, rather than focusing on the system itself. I thought Larry's livestream on "blame politicians, or blame everyone" was on-point. The system is the problem. We're all trapped in it. People tend to do what's right for them, and in fact that's how the market is supposed to work. The problem is that we have a system that gerrymanders choices and manipulates results. The system of manipulation is the problem, not the people just trying to get by inside the system.
I live in the Cincinnati area, and specifically Northern Kentucky. The big IRS processing center is here -- the one that is tied up in the targeting scandal -- and we have members, past and present, that work at that facility. They don't work there because they love the IRS. They work there because they needed a job, it paid well, and they use the money to support themselves and their families. As they've been awakened, some chose to leave the IRS, with mixed results. Others stay because it feeds their family. I don't condemn those people - they have an obligation to their families. I blame the system that takes skillsets out of the private sector by creating a higher demand, thus increasing wages and making it impossible to reasonably find work outside of the IRS which maintains the standard of living their family currently has.
I don't want to censure anyone - though I'm being hit all over with requests to do so; email, facebook, and pretty much wherever anyone else can find me. I don't want to recall anyone, either. I'm a Region Alternate, and on this sort of matter, I'll follow the lead of the Region Chairs. I am encouraging those that feel strongly about this to take action in NOLA, not through the LNC.
I honestly hope that everyone thinks about ways to focus on attacking the system of manipulation, rather than the people trapped inside of it. We're all trapped inside of it. Every single one of us. Some of us are more aware of it than others. Smacking people in the face by claiming they are heinous criminals, or (perceptively) attacking their religion, or attacking their "favorite" elected official isn't going to turn them to us; instead, it's more likely to repulse people from ever considering us. And even if the goal of some members may be only to reach people to educate, pushing people away from ever considering us is a failure to that end.
My too-long $0.02. ken
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty@gmail.com> wrote:
I certainly agree with that last sentence. That's why I started this thread to push past all the emails we've been getting and state my position: that we do not and should not control what individuals say on their own, and that I will oppose any effort to do so. I went on to say how, in my view, that policy can be reconciled (in fact, is sort of automatically reconciled) with avoiding the dangers and consequences the members writing to us are concerned about.
Joshua A. Katz
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 8:47 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos < carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:
Joshua,
You are (not deliberately) miscasting my words. You initial post spoke about content and tone and my comments spoke to that. I then reiterated that I favour professional strategy consultants.
Through human nature and just like I saw (and still see in the campaign committee that turned into an unapproved messaging committee and is now being recast in propo as something that was a social media advisory solution when it was originally proposed and approved as a Gary Johnson campaign post mortem!) shows how these categories keep getting morphed and did once again.
Our content and ideology is fixed to an extent or certainly in a range. How we might present it is not and that has nothing to do with a personal post on a personal page.
-Caryn Ann
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 7:35 AM Joshua Katz <planning4liberty@gmail.com> wrote:
Agreeing with Mr. McKnight, I see simply another instance of us failing to differentiate the message from how it is expressed, although it so happens that I disagree with some of the content as well.
As for agreeing with Mr. Somes, I refuse, in May 2017, to desist from expressing agreement with an LNC policy position because someone has declared a candidacy for May 2018 and said it. Call that bad form if you want, but I am not going to have the range of what I say narrowed by a race a year away.
Finally, my position on our utter lack of a messaging strategy, which is only reinforced by most of the comments I've seen here which imply, to some extent, that a platform is a messaging strategy, is constant. It is a position I have taken, consistently, since I first joined this board in 2014. It is a position which is content-neutral - Mr. Vohra's comments on this very thread, for instance, also seem to point to need for a coherent and consistent messaging strategy - and, I might add, as much as I disagree with what he seems to be proposing, I would take that over the current situation. (In the past, Mr. Vohra advocated for another theme to our messaging, as it were. I'm not sure if he's abandoned that, or if it integrates with what he advocates here. I remain partially in agreement with "Libertarian Solutions" and partially in disagreement, and I tend to think that, while it is a messaging strategy, it might be too far in the direction of saying a single thing rather than speaking in a coherent voice.) I am not going to stop advocating for my position simply because there's a FB uproar, particularly considering that there is always a FB uproar. To call that reactionary is simply incorrect. I am not reacting to anything - you might recall that, when I brought this up in the past, I was criticized precisely because I was not reacting to anything in particular. If examples happen to crop up, I will point to them.
Finally, our inability to focus and project our voice has everything to do with this instance. If we had a stronger voice, no one would care about the current brush-up, and we wouldn't be hearing these complaints. Everyone would understand that Mr. Vohra can speak for himself (and, I might add, I can speak for myself) and that the LP can speak for itself. When we lack such a voice, it is easy not just for officers to appear to be speaking for us when they speak, but for loud enough members. Such a situation causes all of us, officers, board members, and members alike, to choose between the sort of reaction we've seen this week, or shutting up. A party with a stronger voice would allow us not to make that choice, and to be able to speak our minds without becoming, in the public eye, the voice of the party.
Joshua A. Katz
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 8:19 AM, Patrick McKnight < patrick.joseph.mcknight@gmail.com> wrote:
Our principles are immaculate. However we need to connect with people as human beings. It has nothing to do with our platform, it had to do with our mindset. Human beings make decisions based on emotion.
Thanks, Patrick McKnight Region 8 Rep
On May 18, 2017 9:07 AM, "Caryn Ann Harlos" <carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:
David-
Agree and disagree (which proves your point - we are individuals - but bravo! Well spoken!). Our Platform speaks on some things clearly. Let me name one that I disagree with- abortion. But it speaks clearly so I NEVER give the impression that the Party is not pro-choice. Yet on so many issues we are not messaging the clear Party position- such as no force-financed education or no state mandated healthcare (I could name others including anti-war in anything but strict defense). We shy away particularly here. In that instance I agree that we should be saying those core positions so loudly, so strongly, etc that no one will mistake the "Party" position which may or may not be our own (like me with abortion). But tone? Other people are going to use their tone. We are not Stepford Libertarians and the idea that national is going to the grand conductor of tone so that no one will ever mistake a candidate or other prominent person for us is pure unadulterated fantasy. Great for campaign sloganeering and propo but not in practice.
*I would suggest also that it's bad form to use someone's campaign materials aiming for a colleagues position as a point in a debate about policy and using this list to potentially indicate support for said candidacy.* or that is how it could be taken and we must not appear that way on this list.
Other things or even the path to the things above are not so cut and dried. And it is in those areas we should fear mightily any forcing of a unified voice indeed and embrace diversity - the way our SoP does with mini or no state. They both exist and are welcome in this Party despite the divisive attempts of some to expunge that inconvenient truth (not anyone here or any comment here)
Our messaging strategy should be clearly to state our actual platform - our actual SoP- and as this body in 2010 said are the two foundational pillars of Libertarianusm - *non aggression and self ownership* and expect there will be diversity in how that is done.
Professional advice would be foolish to dismiss and that should be explored again particularly in social media targeting.
But this undercurrent of using each thing as an opportunity to try to assert top down control is something I will call out and resist every time. It won't work and it's bad.
Control of our message is the Statement of Principles (not optional and fixed though enough attempts have been made to bury it over the years) and the Platform which is up to the delegates.
We should be so clear that it doesn't matter when our top ticket argues for gun control. We don't. It should be clear that is the Party position. We should not hesitate to show the Platform speaks to that.
We should not hesitate to show that consistent non-force speaks to others. But within that there are different paths and ideas. But we have NOT been as clear or bold as we should be on the twin pillars of non aggression and self ownership.
But using this issue of a personal page to this issue strikes me as a bit opportunistic to a preexisting agenda. Let's not be like the other parties in that.
Nothing in a messaging strategy would have had a thing to do with personal posts on a personal wall for which an apology happened.
-Caryn Ann
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 5:39 AM David Demarest < dpdemarest@centurylink.net> wrote:
The problem is that we as a group of “like-minded” politically-oriented people cannot agree on a core message beyond more freedom and less government (MFLG). As I have often said, there are at least as many Libertarian philosophies as there are Libertarians. Even among loose alliances within the LNC, we do not agree on message content details. Between alliances, we even disagree on core principles. The notion of all of us agreeing to and promoting a detailed common core message beyond MFLG is a flight of fancy and the stuff that statism and puppet masters are made of. The fact remains that groups are not living breathing entities. The notion that groups can have a freely agreed upon unified voice and message is pure unadulterated philosophical nonsense. Groups are conglomerates of individuals with individual voices. Without a police state, it is not possible for groups to have a single voice. Frankly, a group that could or would speak with a single voice would scare the hell out of me. We cannot and should not attempt to speak with one voice. Beware of those who would attempt to force us to speak with one voice. That is the message of statism that we as Libertarians are or should be fighting tooth and nail.
I happen to be one Libertarian that thinks education is a key component of our political action mission. However, if we have difficulty gaining a consensus without protracted debates on even simple political actions such as resolutions on Cuban Libertarian prisoners and medical cannabis and token support for activist candidates, how can we agree on education as part of our mission and what the education message should be? What to do?
Our diversity is a wonderful thing to be embraced. Let us celebrate that diversity that is loosely focused on MFLG and leverage it to empower ourselves as individuals who can go forth and deliver our own diverse individual educational messages of freedom. Point of fact, many or most of us are already delivering our own educational messages. We can have healthy open forum and institutional debates as to the merits of message content details and delivery techniques. However, attempts to muzzle the messages of individual Libertarians and outspoken elected officials beyond delegate elections is fraught with the dangers of statism. As long as I live and breathe, no political party will ever throttle my message short of the use of force.
I believe these recent incidents are fortuitous opportunities to rethink and repurpose our Libertarian institutions to focus on using our inspirational food-for-thought diversity to empower individuals. The flip side of our diversity is the difficulty in getting the consensus required for anything more that relatively trivial actions. However, that lack of consensus does not or should not prevent inspired and empowered individual Libertarians from accomplishing the bulk of Libertarian action as bottom-up volunteers, entrepreneurs and activists and even top-down elected officials. Let’s stop fooling ourselves on controlled unified message content and delivery technique. Through trial and error and healthy debate, we can build our army of empowered individual Libertarians armed with their arsenal of individual message content and delivery techniques who will get us where we want to go. Our Libertarian institution think-tank cauldrons of inspirational diversity have the potential to be a key part of the process of empowering individuals. Let us free ourselves from the bonds of the groupthink and groupspeak, repurpose our institutions and get on with the business of freedom beyond mere MFLG.
Our recent incidents are an opportunistic call to action. What must we do to repurpose our institutions to focus on empowering individual activists and messengers? Now is the time to get past our differences and leverage our diversity to think outside the box. Let the debates begin.
Thoughts?
~David
*Dec 28-Jan 1 Omaha Roads to Liberty Un-Convention*
~David Pratt Demarest
LNC Region 6 Representative (IA, IL, MN, MO, ND, NE, WI)
Secretary, LPNE State Central Committee
Cell: 402-981-6469 <(402)%20981-6469>
Home: 402-493-0873 <(402)%20493-0873>
*From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org] *On Behalf Of *Caryn Ann Harlos *Sent:* Thursday, May 18, 2017 5:01 AM *To:* lnc-business@hq.lp.org *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] I Do Not Agree With What You Say...
If we are talking "messaging problem" - with the exception of the lying word and a couple other turns of phrases I do not agree with, he is absolutely correct.
He is asking we boldly stand on our Platform and the SoP and educate newcomers to our actual positions.
Now THAT is a messaging problem we DO have. And it goes way beyond tone issues of an individual member on a personal way.
Part of our Bylaws mandated roles is to educate people about our core principles and whether in a platform or not they lead to no exchange that is not voluntary, no government interference that violates negative rights, no siezing of resources without consent.
We are not teaching people that thus is what our Statement of Principles says and the Platform is derived theherefrom. I have Libertarians shocked we oppose ALL eminent domain. Because we often deliver less than that in messaging.
Sieving upon the obviously rhetorical over the top flourishes of Arvin that I have avoided is the stuff of FB and should not be our tactic here to avoid the point of what he is saying.
We have always stood for eliminating all involuntary market transactions and asset sieving including taxation, public school, government healthcare etc. but we are not consistently telling people that while still accepting there may be steps from one point to another - we have made a certain step our position and failed to declare the goal. Over and over.
That is our messaging problem in education and outreach.
To anticipate Daniel's question to me- I will say - irrelevant to this discussion and if anyone insists to make it relevant, I will discuss when the special election is over next week and not sooner.
-Caryn Ann
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 3:25 AM Daniel Hayes <danielehayes@icloud.com> wrote:
Arvin,
So most of our candidates are now liars? Weak voices for Liberty?
What kind of steward of our donors money are you. You just voted to give $5000 to someone that doesn't match up on many areas of our platform. Which way is it? Where are your morals?
The REAL libertarian platform would be NONE. Leave our Statement of Principles. Maybe the Omissions plank. Danny Bedwell can tell you I have been advocating for this since at least my first convention in 2014. He kept turning around to me during platform saying, "Why are they telling me what I am supposed to think as a candidate?!" To that I replied, "I'm with ya Danny!"
I am constantly amazed at how authoritarian Libertarians are with regards to telling other people how they MUST think.
So what I am taking away from your email is that you want to cater to the growing segment of the populace that is more actively apathetic to voting than any other demographic. In turn you seem to want to turn off the segments of voters that vote more often than the average demographic.
Once again, your words don't match your recent actions. Why would you give money to a candidate you thought was weak? Is it because its mostly other people's money?
Are we to be a "pure" echo chamber or a party that works to be inclusive of many and that finds areas of common interest for people to work together on to protect and restore our Liberty?
Daniel Hayes
LNC At Large Member
Sent from my iPhone
On May 18, 2017, at 2:53 AM, Arvin Vohra <votevohra@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi All -
During the last months, I've traveled to many state conventions, interviewed many candidates, and kept track of the mood here in DC. In its current form, much of our messaging is largely opposed to our platform, and so anemic as to be politically irrelevant.
We have an education secretary that everyone thinks wants to end all government education. Whether this is true or not matters less than the fact that is what people think and say about her. Our platform is better than hers, as it involves complete elimination of government education and also tax funded education subsidies.
But despite what our platform specifically states, much of the messaging is far softer than the Republicans. Most of the educational messaging I hear and see is not even at the Republican lite level; it's just Republican Weak.
In discussions of healthcare and welfare, I'm seeing the same thing. Our platform is crystal clear on this: get government completely out of healthcare. Messaging? Nowhere near that.
It seems that this is motivated by an attempt to grow the party numerically by essentially tricking people into identifying with the word Libertarian, and then hope they magically develop Libertarian views. But the actual effect is to mislead, bring people in who do not know what Libertarianism is, then have them represent us with a further watered down message, etc. While many sign the NAP, it's not at all clear that they understand the specific policy implications.
In this process, we are losing our natural allies. Although the anarcho-capitalism movement is exploding through social media, most are Trump supporters. In other words, in our desperate attempt to get those who worship public schools and the military with a message of pro-status quo state worship, we are losing our most obvious base. There are those who actually agree with the big parts of our platform but are put off by the simple fact that we never talk about the big, anti-establishment issues, and fixate entirely on marijuana and occasionally alcohol.
I hear more Libertarians arguing in favor of universal welfare than I hear arguing in favor of ending all welfare. I hear many more discussions about eliminating minor alcohol restrictions than the big issues that comprise most of the money stolen from us: healthcare, education, military, and social security.
This has gone far past an issue of messaging. I bet that if today, we did a poll among Libertarian active donors, we'd see a minority that favored all of our positions on these critical issues, and I doubt we'd be even at 80 percent that favored our positions on even one of these issues.
This can be addressed through either education or outreach. If we go the education route, I recommend an automated email series to educate new people on our actual positions. If it's outreach, I'd recommend we stop lying about our position at the national, state, and especially candidate level. Phrase them nice, mean, calm, explosively, however. But for the love of god phrase them somehow.
Let's grow the Libertarian party, not the "I want to identify with a trendy word" party.
If we stop lying, will we lose some people? Maybe a few. But we'll also be welcoming the people who most strongly agree with our positions.
-Arvin
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 12:36 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos < carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:
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
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 3:12 PM, Joshua Katz < planning4liberty@gmail.com> wrote:
Colleagues:
Like the many members we have heard from lately, I disagree strongly with recent comments of one of our members. I feel they are politically backward, and I wish they would stop because of the embarrassment they can bring on this party, and because they lack an appreciation of nuance, in my opinion. Nor is it my position that, as I've seen some claiming, these comments are "true but embarrassing." I am not one who believes that we need to hold back some sacred truths of liberty from the unwashed masses. I often am embarrassed by statements precisely because I think they are wrong - either false or, perhaps more commonly, in that realm of failing to be either true or false.
I am primarily writing, though, to let you know that I would vote 'no' on any of the proposed measures, including censure and suspension. I would vote no because I do not agree that LNC members are never "off the clock." Yes, it is true, people know who we are, and we can never, really, take off our "hats" in public. That's one reason I strive for a low social media profile - that's my personal vision of the position. But when I speak about politics, and do not identify my speech as that of the LP, I do not expect this body to sit in judgment of its truth or its effectiveness.
I believe that censure and suspension are best reserved for unacceptable activities carried out within office. I do not believe it is appropriate to define anything we do which touches on politics as 'within office.' As I've discussed before, in my view we each have almost no power, with some exceptions, except as members of this body. Our power is to vote, not to direct things ourselves. This cuts both ways. We do not have the power to speak for the LP, as individuals, except when specifically given this power by the bylaws or by an appropriate resolution or motion. Lacking that power, we cannot do it wrong.
Furthermore, we do not choose our chair and vice-chair. They are elected by the delegates. I resent the implication that a few outspoken members should, through LNC action, undo the will of the convention. It is not our job, if we think that actions of the delegates have led to insensitive messaging, to try to reverse those actions.
It is our job, on a semi-related note, to control our own messaging. Complaining about FB posts from one of our members is easier than thinking carefully about what we do and how we do it, but it is not a solution. 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. If we believe that one person, speaking on a platform not provided by this party, can derail our message, then shame on us.
Further, that hasn't happened. It is primarily our own people who are angry. I myself am offended, in addition to disagreeing, but I do not see outrage outside Libertarian circles. It will be objected that this is because of our small size and relative lack of success, that if we were larger, we could not afford to be silent. That may very well be true. Yet the world is as it is, and we can afford to be silent, and, in my opinion, should. Furthermore, if we were in the position described, it is also true that our own messaging would be better. I say let's deal with the meme in our own eye before criticizing extra-party messaging. (As an individual, I feel free to criticize, I am speaking about this board's activities.)
Is there any allegation that a member of this board has violated a fiduciary responsibility, has double-dealt for personal gain or gain of others, or has in any way done anything wrong in their party capacity? As far as I am aware, there is not. We are speaking about a person who has, in my view, governed well. We do not always agree, but I always respect his opinions and decisions - and I appreciate that he treats mine the same. Our job is to govern the party - Mr. Vohra does that very well. The vice-chair has additional duties: no one has made any allegation that these were carried out badly or incorrectly. Until I see allegations about those (and I am confident there are none, Mr. Vohra fulfills those responsibilities just fine) I will vote no on any motion on this topic.
In other news, the President of the United States may have revealed classified information to the Russian Foreign Minister and compromised an Israeli source. The travel ban is still working its way through the courts. The Republicans in the House have done what we thought was impossible: found a way to make the ACA more freedom-destroying. Democrats and Republicans are working in lockstep to attack prosperity and the freedom of all, around the world, through nationalist-protectionist policies. I would like to see this party focused on electing Libertarians to office who are serious about, and effective in, addressing these and other issues. In addition to rolling back the size and scope of government, I'd like to see our elected officials simply managing the thing more competently than the corrupt members of the other parties have shown themselves capable of doing. After all, a more effective government will require, in my opinion, a smaller, less powerful government. The government cannot be competent in doing tasks far beyond its competence. So yes, I'd like to see us not insulting key groups of voters or making other political missteps. I'd like to see us prioritize policy over both personal attacks and abstractions - while remembering that we can inspire not just with pocketbook issues, but also with the power of what is right and with strong ideals.
Joshua A. Katz
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
--
*In Liberty,*
*Caryn Ann Harlos*
Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org>
Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org>
Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
*We defend your rights*
*And oppose the use of force*
*Taxation is theft*
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
--
Arvin Vohra
www.VoteVohra.com VoteVohra@gmail.com (301) 320-3634
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
--
*In Liberty,*
*Caryn Ann Harlos*
Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org>
Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org>
Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
*We defend your rights*
*And oppose the use of force*
*Taxation is theft*
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
A haiku to the Statement of Principles: *We defend your rights* *And oppose the use of force* *Taxation is theft*
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
A haiku to the Statement of Principles: *We defend your rights* *And oppose the use of force* *Taxation is theft*
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee A haiku to the Statement of Principles: *We defend your rights* *And oppose the use of force* *Taxation is theft*
participants (7)
-
Arvin Vohra -
Caryn Ann Harlos -
David Demarest -
Edward Marsh -
Joshua Katz -
Ken Moellman -
Patrick McKnight