I’m announcing my candidacy for Chair of the Libertarian Party of Alabama, as part of a slate whose overall program is summarised as follows:
A slate of candidates will be presented for election at the upcoming state party convention on June 27th 2009.
Chair: Dr. Roderick Long
Professor of Philosophy at Auburn University
http://praxeology.netVice Chair: Matthew Givens
Former LPA Vice Chair and candidate for PSC
http://politicsalabama.blogspot.comSecretary: Steve Dow
Former LPA Chair and current At-large EC memberTreasurer: Jim Albea
Current At-large EC memberThe individuals on this slate share a common vision and operating model for the LPA as follows:
1) Lean internal expenses. Dispense with maintaining an office in Birmingham and decentralize the administration of the party.
2) Focus on building and activating the membership base with less of an emphasis on fundraising.
3) Achievable 2010 electoral strategy. While not cast in stone, given the present barriers to statewide ballot access, the strategy would be to target a few local races where we have the best chance of having an impact.
The plan is to have this group of individuals and this agenda considered as a whole.
(See also this thread for some of the background issues.)
An additional part of the proposed vision is for the Chair to be concerned primarily with the formulation of policy statements and speaking to the press, rather than combining the roles of chief spokesperson and chief administrator as has been done in the past.
So, given my view that electoral politics should not be the primary focus of libertarian activism, why am I interested in this position?
Well, I’ve never bought the argument that electoral politics should play no role in political activism; quite the contrary. And in any case I don’t see the LP as being solely about electoral politics; it’s at least as much about political education and nonelectoral activism, or anyway it should be. The objection that activism via a political party will mistakenly encourage people to focus on political campaigns rather than on building alternative institutions is, I think, well-taken; but that danger has to be balanced against the party’s usefulness as a tool of education. And given that my prospective role would be centrally in the educational and vision-shaping side of the deal, I find the weights coming down in its favour; moreover, this would be a chance for me to promote libertarian ideals to an audience I don’t ordinarily reach, and to pitch them in the way I think they need to be pitched.
I’m also a longtime member of the Grassroots Libertarian Caucus, whose vision statement runs as follows:
We are a group of activists within the Libertarian Party of the United States, part of the global libertarian movement. Our caucus, founded in September 2005, exists to promote the following five key values for our party:
(I) BOTTOM-UP, NOT TOP-DOWN. We see a party that too often takes after the establishment parties and corporations rather than manifesting itself as a grassroots organization with revolutionary goals. We seek a decentralized Libertarian Party run by its members and activists rather than by a centralized clique of corporate-oriented professionals.
(II) POLITICALLY BALANCED. We see a party which has become too conservative in both style and substance. We seek to restore a balanced approach to Libertarian Party policy-making and outreach that strives to appeal to the political left as much as to the political right and emphasizes personal liberty no less than economic liberty.
(III) FUN, BOLD, AND FREE-SPIRITED. We see a party that has become too staid, timid, boring, and unimaginative. We seek a culture within the Libertarian Party that is bolder, more irreverent, more free-spirited, more creative, and more fun-loving.
(IV) RADICAL AND PROUD. We see a party that has become too ashamed of its own ideals, a place where “idealist” is too often treated as a dirty word. We seek a party in which Libertarians proudly share a sense of solidarity as radical freedom fighters in a larger movement committed to the vision of worldwide individual liberty expressed in the Preamble and Statement of Principles of the Libertarian Party’s national platform.
(V) YOUTH-FOCUSED. We see a party that is largely failing to connect with young people. We seek a Libertarian Party whose style, structure, culture, and materials speak first and foremost to the younger generations who hold the future in their hands.
Now I’m part of a slate that’s calling for a more decentralised and transparent party structure, which fits in nicely with point (I) above; and my position as Chair, as that role is envisioned in the proposed program, would allow me to promote the values outlined in points (II), (III), and (IV). The game is afoot!
Agorist Demerit Count: scale broken
Tags: Democracy, Left and Right, Left-Libertarian, Personal
-
HELL YES!
-
Recently I’d come around to the view that we should all but eschew electoral politics entirely, and the LP in particular after its recent capture by “conservatarian” stooges. Your own writings played no small part in my radicalization.
So I can’t say I’m optimistic, either that the LPA will realize the wisdom of your views or that it would do much good in the world at large if they did. But I suppose as long as such institutions exist, I’d rather someone like you be in charge, as it were. Good luck!
-
Congratulations.
I gave up on the ‘L’P years ago, but I applaud anything which promotes Roderick Long to a position of greater visibility and influence. I hope you’ll wear an ALL patch or badge on your coat… um, as soon as we get around to making ALL patches and badges.
(guys, that has to be done stateside, or I’d gladly start a second business. Black Bloke already sells political gear.)
I never knew you were active in the Grassroots Caucus. Please give my regards to the serene Starchild of San Francisco, who started the thing himself in his Castro apartment.
P.S. Please do not take on the attributes of your personal saviour by becoming too drunk with the possibilities of the power nearly within your grasp…
‘I will sing of Zeus, chiefest among the gods and greatest, all-seeing, the lord of all, the fulfiller who whispers words of wisdom to Themis as she sits leaning towards him. Be gracious, all-seeing son of Kronos, most excellent and great!’
/respectful mock
-
Thanks!
Well, I’m “active” in Grassroots in the sense that I’m on the listserv ….
Praxthym sells ALL gear.
-
I would sell ALL gear if Café Press would lighten up on the restrictions they’ve built into the free stores.
-
What are the restrictions?
-
Perhaps we could find other venues… Nothing would be better for the movement right now than for more left-libertarians to know the confidence of doing well. Skill sharing is our friend. So are capital networks among people who can trust each other and want each other to do well.
I used to run an online book business. Internet sales ain’t easy but they can work. I know a good person to contact for practical advice (email me personally), if you can be interesting and promising enough to be worth a few hours’ talking to.
-
The amount of particular things you can have in the store. If it were up to me I’d offer black and white t-shirts for every design I’ve got, but I’m forced to choose options that I don’t really care for.
I’d have to take something out of the store and offer something specially requested in its place, if I wanted to add another shirt.
-
-
-
-
Good luck, sir!
-
One Satanic curse comin’ right up.
Dude, set aside your general arguments in favor of electoral politics. This is the party that ran Bob Barr. It’s over, man. There’s no way to salvage it. Angela Keaton and Mary Ruwart worked their assess off from within its highest echelons, and they still got thrown under the bus.
Might as well go Republican.
-
Republican? Are they still considered a national party?
-
How can Roderick be thrown under the bus when he’s driving it?
-
The same question was asked of Julius Caesar ….
-
But he was betrayed because he centralized power. Your first aim is to decentralize power.
-
-
They threw Angela Keaton under the bus after giving her a token seat which she used, without thanks, to try to drive the entire machine, in a hopeless attempt to keep the terks who run things from driving it into the mud and running over her friends along the way. Totally Dagny Taggart.
I agree with Soviet that the ‘L’P is doomed. I think the entire pre-Rockwell libertarian movement is a dismembered corpse, with only paleolibertarianism still animated by the unholy and illibertarian sources from which it draws its power.
This is a disaster. A crisis. But, in interesting times, when the legitimate authorities are stupid and failing and losing legitimacy, there is amidst the strife at least a chance for genuine natural greatness to achieve influence, and thereby both influence the world for the better and fully experience its own efficacy. Left-libertarianism could be that natural greatness.
When the canopy is rotting, there are chances for cedars that ought to be oaks.
~~~
Alas, Angela Keaton of L.A. does not give her blessings:‘Terribly sorry to hear that Professor Long has decided to run for chair of LP Alabama. This is the equivalent of Robert Duvall doing a reality show’.
She’s a brilliant and deeply wise woman, but she doesn’t have to be right, unless Roderick uses his position primarily for their world’s ends. The usefulness of elected position is legitimacy, access, information, and education.
Other than that, it sounds like unrewarding (yech) work
-
Those are, um, maples, not cedars, in that song. I’m not confident that coniferous cedars are the under story trees you are looking for in this analogy. Aren’t they a climax forest species? Heh.
Angela was on the Libertarian National Committee for two terms. The first of which she was a top fundraiser, the second of which she turned to actually accomplishing libertarian goals. Naturally, the neocons turned on her when she tried to use her position for anything but feathering their nests.
Angela is exactly correct about the error Rod is making.
-
But Jim, in this case, Roderick is not going to feather anyone’s nest. In fact, that’s part of his platform. It’s pretty clear to me that the only capital in which Roderick plans on trading is ideas. How can neocons turn on someone who–from the outset–is not claiming the desire to do the party’s bidding, but instead, to clarify what needs to be done?
-
With all respects, of course, I know precisely what I said.
-
If all he wants to do is talk about his ideas, can’t he just buy some air space on local TV and say stuff directly? I guarantee you’ll reach more non-libertarians preaching on a street corner than as part of an “L”P campaign they aren’t paying any attention to.
Why go through this awkward, roundabout charade with petitions and registration and all sorts of other bullshit hoop-jumping? You know how much a soapbox really costs? The price of a soapbox.
-
Soviet, you and I know that. But in this world, a lot of people will only listen if you have authority or titles. Until that changes, Roderick’s strategy is pretty sensible.
-
MBH,
You’re missing my point.
60% of the population is already so damn apathetic they can’t be bothered to get off their asses once every four years and spend 15 minutes waiting in line to vote for a president. These people are already convinced that government is a distraction at best and a thieving, murderous liability at best. They’re not going to see Roderick’s campaign at all.
Meanwhile, “Libertarians” (the folks trying to convince people that government is a distraction at best and a thieving, murderous liability at best) are too busy trying to play the game, jump through whatever hoops are necessary and dilute their message because they think that will appeal to the other 40% that BELIEVE in the government.
What would do you honestly think would have more success? A political movement that ran campaigns and tried to compete for that measely 40% in an already crowded market?
Or a social movement that reached out to the marginalized and disaffected people who can plainly see what a farce the whole thing is, did things to help them, wrote for them, built and ran alternative institutions to help them and give them the tools and encouragement to do the same on their own (counter-economics)? What do you think would have a better practical appeal, and make the ideas more accessible to people’s daily experience?
If you presented the “L”P’s strategy to a company as a marketing campaign, you’d be fired immediately. They’re puttin’ on a suit and tie to go talk to people when everybody that matters hangs out at that bar around the corner.
-
Soviet, that’s fair. But I think you’re assuming Roderick is prioritizing politics over counter-economics. What if he’s merging them?
-
Soviet-
I hope your inner cowboy can forgive my advocacy of peace.
I agree in substance with all the particular criticisms which you, Angela, and Jim Davidson have offered here. I think the ‘L’P is spiritually dead, practically powerless, and just plain boring. I doubt Roderick will reach many people with his campaign. To be honest, given the state of American culture and politics, I don’t know if there are that many people there to be reached.
If my response to Roderick’s candidacy was primarily about the ‘Libertarian’ Party or his managerial platform, my response would be somewhere between yours and a bored shrug. To be honest, the thought of Roderick attending all those meetings and doing all this pointless bookwork seems unenviable.
But professor Long is a smart guy. He’s not blind to strategy and rhetoric, either. I have trouble believing he would do this if he didn’t have good reasons to believe it’s a good idea. What that good idea is, I have no idea. Maybe active members of the ‘L’P-AL begged him to make the run, and he couldn’t say ‘no’ due to personal debts of friendship or because there’s a left and right faction of the ‘L’P-AL and this would do some local political good. Maybe he has a cute girlfriend who is running for veep and they would love to go on the campaign trail together. Maybe the ‘L’P-Alabama’s constitution has a provision according to which its president is entitled to tax-free meals at spiffy Thai restaurants, the money first having been cleverly siphoned off from Alabama’s law enforcement budget, which would otherwise go for more tasers.
I have no idea why Roderick chose to run. But he did, committed himself to a lot of work by doing so, and can step back only with embarassment and difficulty. In which case, I’d just prefer to just congratulate. To see Roderick Long taking a more active role in libertarian politics is a welcome sight, even if I don’t get the point of the particular form. Personally, I think he could do more good by writing some more high level theory like that wonderful Libertarian Feminism: can this Marriage be Saved. My main concern about his decision here would simply be that it wouldn’t go anywhere. I’ve been in activist burnout before, and it bites.
But I don’t know enough about the ground situation to say much here. I just know: Roderick came out in good spirits and announced a personal project doubtlessly chosen with the intent of furthering the same ideals I believe in. And that’s kewl. I know that the last time I came to a friends to announce a personal triumph, one (whose experience and authority I admired) dismissed my achievement as if I couldn’t do anything right, and it hurt terribly. Even tho’ I knew he had different aspirations and ideas than I do, I felt betrayed. And people who are discouraged stop being effective.
I’d rather those on my side be encouraged. When chosen projects pursued with confidence, intelligence, and ambition don’t work, one learns a new approach. If one isn’t allowed to try, one will never find the evidence to be convinced that that way wasn’t best. I never learned how to do my business right until I got a reasonable environment to test my approaches and find out what did and didn’t work.
‘Help friends and harm enemies’ is a good strategy. I’ll gladly argue for agorism as a policy in preference to electoralism (altho’ I’ve no objections to participation in electoral politics per se), but I’d rather just cheer Roderick on here or deciding to do something. It’s good to watch.
Besides, titles are spiffy. Does the supreme leader of the Onion of Soviet Socialist Republics prefer ‘Premier’ or just ‘Communist Dictator?
-
**MBH**,
I’m not saying that it’s impossible to run for office and advocate direct action at the same time. I’m saying that if you consider campaigns valuable primarily for their ability to communicate to a large audience, then there are cheaper and more efficient ways to do that that don’t also carry the moral hazards and incentives to sell out down the line.
A libertarian infoshop on the model of “Laissez-Faire Books” in downtown Birmingham, or an alternative currency with a simple written message on it will probably reach more Alabamans than a third-party campaign in an election that most of them aren’t paying attention to anyway.
*Aster**,
Fine, but he’s still getting cursed. For the lulz.
**Roderick**,
If you somehow make into power, you know what to do
-
MBG again,
Most of Paulie’s suggested outreach strategies sound excellent, and none of them necessarily have to be tied to a party or electoral campaign. Why would you need a political party for a network of student activist groups?
-
You wouldn’t. But why would a political party necessarily hurt?
-
To be honest, the thought of Roderick attending all those meetings and doing all this pointless bookwork seems unenviable.
Well, it’s worth noting that part of the vision of the slate I’m running with is to separate the roles of Chair and chief administrator, making the Chair primarily an ideological spokesperson rather than a party manager — and also to substitute online meetings for in-person meetings in most cases. So the trade-off is not quite what you may have been assuming.
-
-
-
Barr, Root, Keaton, Ruwart, etc. were all national LP, or LNC, folks. I wish that the state LP groups would just secede from the national LP and radicalize, if they are to exist at all.
Then again, I’m still quite partial to Konkin’s “Death to the Party” stance.
-
My ideal scenario: Rod pretends to be evil so that he can work his way to the highest echelons of “L”P and bump ‘em off all at once, like in the series finale of Angel
-
Maybe I should make Montesquieu’s definition of liberty my campaign slogan.
-
I second Soviet’s suggestion:
-
-
Knapp tried to organise a path for the state LPs to disaffiliate and form up around a new national party. I did my best to help him. Bostontea.us and shadowcabinet.us are two of his efforts in this direction, as is CLiPR.
I think it is inescapable that electoral politics is pointless and a drag on useful radical agorist activities.
-
-
-
Terrific news: it will be a great form of outreach to the many members of the LP who would benefit from learning about libertarianism.
-
Agorism demerits scale broken. Very droll.
Best wishes for a speedy resolution. These are not to be regarded as wishes for a long drawn out fight, nor for a quick victory and a long, tedious diversion into electoral politics. Make whatever you are able out of the LP in Alabama, and move on.
Perhaps you’ll be able to gather together a significant network which can be put to use in furthering the cause of agorism. But, if that were your goal, why not approach it more directly?
-
Well, it doesn’t conflict with anything else I’m doing. The job would primarily involve promoting libertarian ideas, which I do anyway.
-
I’ll vote for you and fund your organization, but only if you agree that once elected, you’ll help write a bunch of bogus “laws” that protect me from competition and help me rob my customers in the name of “free enterprise”.
-
Okay! It’s a deal.
-
Hey, look! You are a Republican!
-
No… but he risks becoming a republic.
-
No risk; no return.
-
-
How is seizing the reins of the state a libertarian idea?
-
How is what Steven Colbert does considered culture jamming (anti-corporatism performance) if he works through a corporation?
-
-
-
-
1) Lean internal expenses. Dispense with maintaining an office in Birmingham and decentralize the administration of the party.
p) I’ll quote Mark Bodenhausen on this one:
“We spend less than $5K per year TOTAL on EVERYTHING…office, phone, postage, supplies, etc. Where else do you want to cut? Dream on if you think you can cut office expenses to zero. Where will the volunteers meet? We currently average 300 hours per month at the office…is everyone expected to drive to Huntsville on a weekly basis, when there’s NOTHING happening there? Where will we meet? How much room will we have to work and set up a campaign? Where will we store everything…PA system, tents, booths, tables, chairs, brochures, paper joggers and two laser printers, one color and one mono, desks, autodialers, t-shirt machine and phone banks? Or store thousands of signs and wire, when the print shop is here? Lock them away in a storage shed or someone’s basement a hundred miles away where they will never be used again? The Washington LP faced a similar problem, they closed their Seattle office and tried to run out of Olympia, an hour away. What happened is not surprising…those that wanted the office closed didn’t do any work anyway, and the rest of the volunteers simply stopped coming because it was too far away. It was a disaster that I don’t want to repeat.
Let’s start to focus on increasing membership and donations to cover basic expenses, NOT cutting costs. We have an election in just over a year…what is this “slate” going to do about a campaign office? Not have one? Run everything out of a P.O. Box? Ridiculous. We’ve tried that AND IT DIDN’T WORK!!!
HOW ABOUT BEING PRODUCTIVE INSTEAD? Show me what activities this “slate” has done in the last year…or two or three…that deserves them having ALL our assets and resources. How many volunteer hours have been logged? How many events? Interviews? Show me anything.
Let’s use what we have to our advantage and make a go of it…we have a live, active and thriving volunteer force in Birmingham. I don’t want to lose the thousands of hours a year we get from our base here or make them drive three or four hours on a weekly basis without some sort of justification. We deserve better!!!”
2) Focus on building and activating the membership base with less of an emphasis on fundraising.
P) Certainly we should build and activate the membership base, but in what way does this conflict with fundraising? What kind of political organization thrives without raising money? If Steve Dow and Jim Albea want more volunteers, they should recruit some, instead of wrecking our fundraising.
3) Achievable 2010 electoral strategy. While not cast in stone, given the present barriers to statewide ballot access, the strategy would be to target a few local races where we have the best chance of having an impact.
P) As an alternative, I’ve suggested an extensive plan to raise the money (and as many volunteer signatures as possible!) for 2010 and 2012 ballot access statewide, and use it as a jumping-off point for many other types of party activity. “Achievable” is what we make it!
RL) An additional part of the proposed vision is for the Chair to be concerned primarily with the formulation of policy statements and speaking to the press, rather than combining the roles of chief spokesperson and chief administrator as has been done in the past.
p) I would be thrilled to have you as our party spokesman to the press. Is there a way we can do that without electing this slate and its plan to wreck the LPA?
RL) I’m also a longtime member of the Grassroots Libertarian Caucus,
p) Me too. However, I don’t think decentralization means we have to abandon our HQ. I’m in favor of starting active chapters in every county and starting precinct organizing.
I also agree with the other goals of the Grassroots Caucus.
My goals for LPA
1) Keep the office in Birmingham
2) Greater emphasis on fundraising (make that much greater) while also building and activating the membership base far more than ever before
3) Aggressive 2010/2012 electoral strategy, using ballot access as a jumping-off point to organize active LP branches in every county and campus in the state, collect 120,000 signatures combined or get the requirements reduced, organize at the precinct level, work to build effective alliances with single issue groups, build a small business support base, conduct voter registration drives, increase our presence in all media, lobby for and against legislative actions, hand out materials to hundreds of thousands of people, and put together slates of candidates for each – yes, each – county.
4) No more defeatism. “Achievable” is what you make it.
Paulie
415-690-6352-
Paulie,
I don’t speak for Roderick, but I am pretty sure that you’re over-looking the point. We need a totally brand spankin’ new business-model. Libertarianism hasn’t had much success, not because there isn’t enough money, or because there isn’t a big enough office, but because the message has never been communicated–on a mass scale–clearly.
All of your work is admirable. But sometimes hard work is not enough. Sometimes the strategy has to shift. And if the objective is mass communication, ground troops and physical space in general isn’t going to cut it.
-
I don’t see it is a conflict of only one or the other. Roderick is one of my favorite writers, and as I said I would be thrilled to have him formulate statements and speak to the press.
But what does that have to do with dismantling fundraising, closing the office, or scaling back our ballot access plans?
I also like the idea of having more volunteer activities. No conflict there. I like the positive parts of the slate’s plan, just not the negative ones.
We don’t have to dampen existing or planned activities to improve our media or position papers, nor to get additional volunteers.
-
Paulie,
I understand your position and I think it’s fair. But Roderick has said nothing of dismantling fundraising. He’s just proposing less emphasis on it. He’s not saying do away with an office. He’s just saying we ought to re-evaluate what an office is. He’s not saying scale back ballot access plans. He’s just saying we ought to focus in particular areas in order to ensure a good showing.
As for volunteer activities: I don’t see anything he’s said which would rule that out.
-
-
I’m sorry to say that the flaw of libertarianism may not be in its communication, but rather in its practice.
I’ll totally repeat the agorist “party” line, here, and say that the most important thing isn’t necessarily communicating, or (eck) trying to redirect the state, but actually doing the things we wish we were free to do as best we can.
I think a consciously libertarian drug dealer does more for the cause of practical anarchy than the party fund-raiser or electoral candidate.
That isn’t to say that getting the word out isn’t important, but rather that if we attempt to divorce the active aspect from the theoretical, we’ve set ourselves up to fail. We’ve got to be outlaws, otherwise we’re hypocritically decrying and opposing laws that we haven’t the fortitude to avoid or break. People can (and will) ask, “If it’s so important to you, why aren’t you doing it?” and the best rationalizations won’t sway them.
-
John,
I totally agree that to divorce action from theory would be fatal. But communicating is acting. Communicating libertarianism is practicing libertarianism.
-
One doesn’t preclude the other. I disobey bad laws to some extent. I get bored sitting in jail, and most of the conversations there are tiresome (with some exceptions), so not as much as I’d like. I also communicate and, yes, try to practice harm reduction against the state. Why set these up as exclusive choices?
“I think a consciously libertarian drug dealer does more for the cause of practical anarchy than the party fund-raiser or electoral candidate.”
I wasn’t a libertarian back when I dealt drugs for a living. If I had been, I don’t know what I would have done differently. If I was to do it again, I’d likely end up in prison.
I’d rather work on changing those laws.
But, hey, if it works for you, more power to you.
-
“I wasn’t a libertarian back when I dealt drugs for a living.”
Paulie-
That took social courage. Thank you.
-
-
-
I would be thrilled to have you as our party spokesman to the press. Is there a way we can do that without electing this slate and its plan to wreck the LPA?
Though I don’t agree with you about the slate, I would be happy to take that role with or without the slate if people wanted it.
-
-
MBH: But Roderick has said nothing of dismantling fundraising. He’s just proposing less emphasis on it.
p: I’ve proposed we need more of it: see
and
LPA does not do much fundraising now, so why do we need less? And how does that help us improve our educational activities, media, etc?
MBH) He’s not saying do away with an office. He’s just saying we ought to re-evaluate what an office is.
p) Direct quote from plank 1: “Dispense with maintaining an office in Birmingham” – this does not mean it will be moved to Auburn, or anywhere else, either.
MBH) He’s not saying scale back ballot access plans. He’s just saying we ought to focus in particular areas in order to ensure a good showing.
p) Here, you would have to know the plan we currently have. Links above for details. Running a small number of local candidates is definitely scaling back that plan.
MBH) As for volunteer activities: I don’t see anything he’s said which would rule that out.
p) No, the slate is in favor of increasing volunteer activities. Good! And increasing educational activities. Also good!
My only point is that we do not have to dispense with the office, do less fundraising, or do less ballot access than we had planned in order to have more volunteering or more educational activities.
We need more of ALL those things.
-
Somehow this got out of the reply hierarchy. Hope that does not make it too confusing.
-
No worries. I’m enjoying the dialogue immensely.
-
-
Consider this as the blueprint for a 21st century office. How much money did that save/raise you right there?
-
I’m all for using technology to whatever extent possible. But there are certain advantages to a physical office that are not replaceable with communication technology; see the quote from Mark Bodenhausen in my original comment for extensive details.
-
Paulie, I don’t know that you’ve seen enough of the Google Wave product. That (or something like it) is where we meet. That would cut office expenses to zero. And it allows 100% participation. No one would have scheduling conflicts because it’s synchronous and asynchronous communication. Spend some time with the Wave concept, and I think you’ll understand.
(Again, I need to stress that I don’t speak for Roderick. But this does seem like a sensible direction.)
-
-
-
-
“Paulie, I don’t know that you’ve seen enough of the Google Wave product. That (or something like it) is where we meet. That would cut office expenses to zero. And it allows 100% participation. No one would have scheduling conflicts because it’s synchronous and asynchronous communication. Spend some time with the Wave concept, and I think you’ll understand.”
p] I’ll quote Bodenhausen again,.
————————————————-
“We spend less than $5K per year TOTAL on EVERYTHING…office, phone, postage, supplies, etc. Where else do you want to cut? Dream on if you think you can cut office expenses to zero. Where will the volunteers meet? We currently average 300 hours per month at the office…is everyone expected to drive to Huntsville on a weekly basis, when there’s NOTHING happening there? Where will we meet? How much room will we have to work and set up a campaign? Where will we store everything…PA system, tents, booths, tables, chairs, brochures, paper joggers and two laser printers, one color and one mono, desks, autodialers, t-shirt machine and phone banks? Or store thousands of signs and wire, when the print shop is here? Lock them away in a storage shed or someone’s basement a hundred miles away where they will never be used again? The Washington LP faced a similar problem, they closed their Seattle office and tried to run out of Olympia, an hour away. What happened is not surprising…those that wanted the office closed didn’t do any work anyway, and the rest of the volunteers simply stopped coming because it was too far away. It was a disaster that I don’t want to repeat.
——————————–
How does Google Wave address the physical storage issues, for example? And how does it extend to volunteers who don’t have access to that level of technology? We still have folks with land line dialup, and even (gasp!) some with no computers at all.
-
However, thanks for introducing me to the Google Wave concept. I look forward to trying it. I found this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_wave
Easier to digest than an hour and twenty minute video..
-
Haha! I’ll use that link next time I pitch it.
-
-
Google Wave doesn’t address physical storage, but I don’t see why physical storage has to be an issue? Do you think libertarianism isn’t doing well because we don’t have enough yard signs? Why not encourage people to make their own banners–be creative. We could even have local meetings where kids make banners together and talk about libertarianism–invite all their friends and have a good time. Those local decentralized meetings could be where those without internet access could link-up; and where those with internet access reaffirm the bond.
-
Again – see above, Bodenhausen already listed all the physical stuff we have. “Where will we store everything…PA system, tents, booths, tables, chairs, brochures, paper joggers and two laser printers, one color and one mono, desks, autodialers, t-shirt machine and phone banks? Or store thousands of signs and wire, when the print shop is here?”
It’s nice to “encourage” folks to replicate all that at home. I don’t think we’d be too successful, though. Lots of things can be done online – but not everything.
Our office has also served as the meeting space for single issue coalitions on a variety of issues, making us the nexus of their activity.
-
I’m not talking about people “replicating” the physical things at home. I’m talking about organizing group meetings throughout the state. Have the volunteers host these meetings in their homes: like a potluck, but instead of food, everyone brings banners and paints. And instead of having a formal lecture, everyone engages in a dialogue.
Forget the PA system, the tent, etc. Those things are too impersonal anyway. We need to bring people into each others living rooms. That’s where the real work is done.
-
-
-
-
I’m talking about organizing group meetings throughout the state. Have the volunteers host these meetings in their homes: like a potluck, but instead of food, everyone brings banners and paints. And instead of having a formal lecture, everyone engages in a dialogue.
That’s all good, too. But so are the other things – the physical stuff at the office, and all that goes with it. No, I don’t want to just forget it.
-
Yeah, that’s fair. But is it worth paying rent for an office just to store stuff?
-
-
The rent is fairly low – 325 a month.The office is a workspace, conference center, and much more than just storage. Mark estimates 300 volunteer hours per month there, some of it using the various equipment at the office, most of which folks are unlikely to have at o home.
If we go with the plan I propose, office and all other overhead would be just 10% of what we raise, with 90% going to field organizers. Although the pay would only be for ballot access signatures, we would throw in a lot of other party-building activities on a volunteer basis.
I don’t see my plan, or even the status quo, being fully replaced by an unheadquartered, equipmentless, all-volunteer party which is not on the ballot and not making much effort to be on the ballot.
-
Well, to be consistently libertarian, I think we have to be an all-volunteer party. There is no doubt in contemporary business or organizational dynamics literature (or the real world) that the headquartered heirarchical business-model is dead. If the foundation isn’t flat, lateral, decentralized, and networked, then no matter how wonderful the structure is built on-top: it will not hold.
Roderick isn’t saying, “don’t push to be on ballots.” He’s saying, “only push where we have a shot.”
-
-
Well, to be consistently libertarian, I think we have to be an all-volunteer party.
What model of libertarian consistency precludes raising money from voluntary donations to pay willing employees? The division of labor is a hallmark of a market econonomy, and applies equally well to the it non-profit sector
headquartered heirarchical business-model is dead.
We are not hierarchical. We just happen to have a workshop.
Roderick isn’t saying, “don’t push to be on ballots.” He’s saying, “only push where we have a shot.”
We have a shot throughout the state. See
and
for details
-
What model of libertarian consistency precludes raising money from voluntary donations to pay willing employees?
None. But that’s not how I take Roderick’s outline. I take him to be saying that raising money shouldn’t be a focal point. He’s not saying, “don’t raise money.” I think he’s saying, “raising money is not central to our vision.”
We have a shot throughout the state.
Um. I can only speak for my hometown of Mobile. I’m not very familiar with the libertarian candidate: Mr. McDermott. But I get the sense that he’s Right-Libertarian. Good luck distinguishing him from the Republican incumbent Jo Bonner. How much effort are you planning on exerting into that one?
Nothing against Mr. McDermott, but should we really be running Right-Libertarians in the bible-belt?
-
-
“raising money is not central to our vision.”
LPA has not even made what I would consider a real effort to raise money. The closest we ever came was in early 2000, and that was only once, rather than all the time, as we should be doing. Yes, raising money is a major part of what any serious effort in politics does. So is volunteer work; but I venture that we’ll have a lot more volunteers following my plan (have you read it?)
He’s not saying, “don’t raise money.”
Slate member Stephen Dow has done everything possible to keep us for raising money for many years. He believes fundraising calls are “intrusive”. He opposed having a party phoneline for years because it cost too much. His allies in Montgomery let a printing press rust in their back yard because they didn’t put a tarp over it, and in the late 90s argued we should not have a website. Dow voted against even allowing my party growth plan to be considered.
Dow wanted to get rid of the credit card pledge program when it was small; later, it was bringing in close to $1,000 a month at one point. There are countless other examples.I can only speak for my hometown of Mobile. I’m not very familiar with the libertarian candidate: Mr. McDermott.
For starters, he’s not THE Libertarian candidate. He has not been nominated. We could very well have another candidate. Additionally, I want candidates up and down the ballot. There are numerous local offices up for election in the next two cycles in each county. We should be running full slates for county commission in every single one of them, along with all countywide offices.
Mobile has several colleges; we should be working to build a chapter at every one. The same goes for all other counties.
Mobile has thousands of people with past felonies who don’t know they have the right to vote. We should be registering them.
Mobile has numerous people who could support single issue organizations such as Alabamians for Caring Use (medical marijuana) or Alabamians for Tax Free Food, among others. We should be reaching out to them.
Mobile has many people who would be willing to watch DVDs like Freedom to Fascism and the Obama Deception if we were handing out mass quantities of them, like the folks in Arizona are doing.
Mobile has numerous small businesses who might support a party which stands against big business-government collusion on the one hand, and the government employees unions tax/regulation racket on the other, if we took the time to talk to them.
So, yes, there are lots of things to do in Mobile.
I would love to see some left-libertarian candidates down there. Maybe you could be one of them. I could probably find a few more, if we raise enough money for me to be down there for a while.
So yes, there are tons of things to do in Mobile, and I would love to help out down there.
But then we want to deemphasize fundraising from its already pathetic level instead.
And I’m not independently wealthy.
Of course, it’s always possible you all can do all that as volunteers; I certainly encourage it. But I wouldn’t rely on that alone.
-
I would love to see some left-libertarian candidates down there. Maybe you could be one of them.
I plan on going to law school before considering a run. Ask me again in four years…
He believes fundraising calls are “intrusive”.
They are.
The libertarian party has some serious problems. Most people do not understand the difference between corporatism and libertarianism. I don’t think the party understands that! Yet.
-
Mobile has several colleges; we should be working to build a chapter at every one. The same goes for all other counties.
Mobile has thousands of people with past felonies who don’t know they have the right to vote. We should be registering them.
Mobile has numerous people who could support single issue organizations such as Alabamians for Caring Use (medical marijuana) or Alabamians for Tax Free Food, among others. We should be reaching out to them.
I certainly agree with all of the above.
-
I’m glad we agree.
If you can find enough volunteers to do that at no pay, I’ll be impressed, surprised and delighted.
I would love it if I had the resources to do it as a volunteer, but I don’t.
But, I can help with all of the above as an unpaid extra if I am getting paid for ballot access signatures at the same time.
Of course that would require us to do more, not less, fundraising.
-
The point is not to raise less money, but to recognise that revenue is something that follows from action, not something that precedes it. See my post here.
-
-
-
-
They are. </i
A fundamental part of what we need to do a lot more of to be successful. This has nothing to do with corporatism. We need way more fundraising calls – it should be a full time, ongoing part of our operations.
I plan on going to law school before considering a run.
Your choice, of course, but paper candidacies help in their own way when active candidates can’t be found. In fact, our biggest political success – full statewide ballot access in 2002 – was only thanks to a paper candidate in 2000 who got just over 20% of the vote in a state supreme court two way race.
Given that I want a full slate of candidates for EVERY office in the state, including a full slate in each county, even I am not optimistic enough to expect an active candidate for every slot.
The libertarian party has some serious problems.
That, I agree with.
Most people do not understand the difference between corporatism and libertarianism.
Certainly true when it comes to knowledge of our economic policies. And we don’t become more effective at reaching people by having less money to reach them with; just the opposite.
-
“Paulie, I don’t know that you’ve seen enough of the Google Wave product. That (or something like it) is where we meet. That would cut office expenses to zero. And it allows 100% participation. No one would have scheduling conflicts because it’s synchronous and asynchronous communication. Spend some time with the Wave concept, and I think you’ll understand.”
Hey, guys – I’m the State Chair in Washington. You all are going to have to work this out on your own, but I have a couple of questions/comments for you -
1. If you get rid of your office, can I have that Tshirt machine? Maybe the printers? Definitely the PA system! Because within a few months, you won’t have access to them, either – when we didn’t have an office, it was damned near impossible to get with whoever had the stuff stored in their garage, or the guy moved, or the stuff got stolen.
2. If I didn’t have this messy li’l ol’ office, I wouldn’t get newsletters out, nor signs made for protests, etc. *I* could go spend my days in coffee shops, but all the other stuff falls away . . . the printing, painting, hugging, debating, drinking (COFFEE! and sodas!), mutual ‘net surfing for ideas, eating, collaboration on letter writing campaigns and stuff . . . and the storage is no small thing – the literature, books, tshirts, mugs, supplies . . .
I’d really like a Tshirt machine. ;o)
-
Rachel,
Exactly!
Thanks.
-
-
The point is not to raise less money, but to recognise that revenue is something that follows from action, not something that precedes it.
I think they go hand in hand – kind of like how the best defense is a good offense and the best offense is a good defense
-
To continue the football metaphor: the game doesn’t start on offense or defense. It starts with special teams.
-
Just to clarify for non-football enthusiasts: A football game starts when one team kicks the ball off to the other team. The players on the field–when this happens–aren’t offensive players or defensive players. They are special teams players.
It doesn’t matter how good your offense or your defense is, if you have no special teams. The game won’t even start without your special teams unit. The whole reason Roderick’s plan could work is because the entire libertarian party can be part of the special teams unit.
Pushing action and fundraising to go hand-in-hand is a non-starter.
-
-
-
Pushing action and fundraising to go hand-in-hand is a non-starter.
NOT doing so is a non-starter. Look at any successful political organization, including relatively successful LP orgs.
-
It appears that the reply-to-reply only works on some comments (some number of nesting levels?) and not others. Aster thanked me, I think for being a peddler of contraband when I was younger, somewhere far up in this thread (but relatively recently in comment time). As it would be impolite not to acknowledge – you’re welcome.
-
Not having a log-in there, a response to the pingback:
Brad Spangler writes,
“Very simply, such objections are just Bastiat’s broken window fallacy all over again. One must, as Bastiat would, examine what is seen and what is not seen. The role of the Libertarian Party in the discovery of libertarianism for many people does not mean it’s well suited for the purpose of promoting libertarianism (rightly understood). Rather, that simply means it has been the most common choice among the prior existing base of libertarian activists. It is as if one were to contend that a dentist’s pick is a useful tool for plowing a field, because you’ve been plowing this field with a dentists pick for 30 years and most of the dirt that’s been moved so far has been moved with your dentist’s pick. That’s simply reflective of your own choices. Pointing to the overhead involved in partisan politics is what indicates those choices were poor choices.”
This may be true, or not. Please demonstrate an alternative tool that is bringing more people to libertarianism and channeling their newfound insight into some form of effective action. If one or several exist(s), then they should certainly beat the dentist’s pick in the market for farm implements.
While I’d love to see ALL recruiting tens of thousands of people, reaching millions with our message, etc., it hasn’t happened yet.
Lew Rockwell’s brand of socially reactionary radical libertarianism does reach a lot of readers, but gives most of them little or no recourse for action of any sort – that is, when it doesn’t switch tracks to support a libertarian-constitutionalist movement tied to a major party.
I could be wrong, but I think that the period in which Rockwell, Paul et al. jumped into the LP gave them many of the contacts that they used later to build such framework as they have.
For all we know, it could work for ALLies as well.
-
@Paulie — Give me as many ALLies as there are LP members and we’ll see, comrade.
-
ComradAe Spangler,
I’d be happy to give you as many ALLies as there are LP members. I’d be even happier to give you far more ALLies than there are LP members. How do I do that? If your argument is that ALL is a superior tool for recruitment, it should be attracting more people than the LP, should it not?
If I recall my reading correctly, what caused the LP to develop to the stage it did was Roger McBride’s electoral vote for Hospers in 1972. Perhaps ALL can come up with something else to be propelled to national or world attention, but I don’t know off hand what that would be. If you know, I’m interested.
I would suggest funding professional field organizers as one thing that could make a small organization grow, but only if its members have the money and are willing to part with it.
More to the point: if ALL is a superior tool for recruitment (and I’m not saying it isn’t), shouldn’t its existence in the marketplace for such recruitment tools mean that those who try it will so dazzle everyone else in said market with their performance that its growth would be unstoppable, and would naturally outpace the LP in short order?
If so, why has it not happened yet?
If you have practical thoughts on why it hasn’t, or what could change that, I’m interested.
Comments are now closed.
About Roderick T. Long
The Empirical Me
I’m Roderick T. Long, Professor of Philosophy at Auburn University. I’m an Aristotelean/Wittgensteinian in philosophy and a left-libertarian market anarchist in social theory. (More about me here.) This blog, Austro-Athenian Empire, is a continuation of my earlier blog, archived here.
Upcoming Events
92 comments