From Arthur Torrey, Libertarian Party of Massachusetts Operations Facilitator:
As perhaps the only potential elector who has clearly and distinctly stated that he could not cast an electoral vote for Barr in the admittedly unlikely event that I was called on to serve, I’m finding that a certain amount of heat has been falling upon me, while others are responding positively to my comments about Barr’s unsuitability for the LP Presidential nomination.
This has caused me to get dragged into blog-land in an effort both to see what is being said, and in some cases in self defense.
One of the things that I find frustrating is that while many people are expressing upset over Barr’s nomination, I’m not seeing any clear signs of coordinated efforts to oppose Barr, or do anything else about the situation. Rumours abound, but I haven’t seen or heard much about any definite plans to DO anything… I have to say that I’m less than thrilled by the somewhat muted response of my own Mass. State Committee, but it seems we are doing more than most. Right now it looks like Mass. will put Barr / Root on the ballot, only because doing so is the only way we can get our US Senate candidate on, but will do little beyond that to aid the Presidential campaign. Instead we will urge our members to support Bob Underwoods Senate campaign, the Income Tax Repeal and Marijuana Decrim ballot initiatives, and so forth.
It seems that nearly half the delegates in Denver aren’t happy with the results, but how many are actively attempting to DO something other than just piss and moan about it? How many are working to get their State Party to do something, whether it is putting some other name (or Nobody) on the Presidential ballot? How many are urging a boycott of the Barr campaign? How many are protesting in some other way (if so what are you doing)?
It seems to me that this is an issue that is larger than just Barr / Root – The LP as it currently stands has the potential for multi-state ballot access, something of great potential value to political failures from other parties that have delusions of greatness – arguably we had two efforts in Denver to hijack the party, one from the D’s and one from the R’s – unfortuneately the R’s got away with it. IMHO if we are going to get the LP we want back, it needs to be made painfully clear to those attempting to hijack the party will end up with nothing useful if they succeed – minimal ballot access, no support, etc.
If you are like Mass. where we must put Barr on for other reasons than supporting him, what about passing state wide resolutions of non-support? AFAIK the LPUS bylaws may require a state to put the Pres. candidate on the ballot, but don’t have any provisions about a state refusing to endorse a candidate or even condemming him.
If you are organizing or participating such an act of revolt in your state, or have definite knowledge of others working on such actions, I’d like to hear from you – My email is arthur(underscore)torrey(at)comcast(dot)net (make the substitutions in parens – I don’t want to feed the spambots…)
I don’t want to hear complaints, I want to hear about ACTIONS – they speak louder than words!
32 responses so far ↓
1 inDglass // Jun 4, 2008 at 3:22 am
I like his commitment to action rather than talk, but there are a lot more important things we could get active about.
2 Lance Brown // Jun 4, 2008 at 3:40 am
Here is what I wrote to Arthur:
Dear Arthur,
There are plenty of purist, loyal Libertarians who are interested in doing our best to support the party’s nominee–who, despite his many faults, has a tremendous chance to spread the message of liberty and grow the party.
As one of those aforementioned Libertarians, and as a former devoted enemy of Bob Barr, and as a native son of Massachusetts, I resent your sour-grapes attitude, and your apparent desire to sabotage the presidential campaign that the LP chose to run.
You don’t want to support Barr? Fine..understandable even. You want to speak out and call him out on his anti-liberty past and/or current views? Fine, and also understandable. But you want to sabotage the LP – the very thing you are supposedly objecting to with your talk of “hijacking”. That may be understandable, but it’s not fine.
I think you should think a bit about where the right place to draw the line on this matter is. In my view, it should fall well short of actually trying to sabotage the party’s efforts to support its candidate. On a purely practical level, you’d do much better to go along with the existence of the campaign, as a dissident voice, then to discredit yourself and increase division in the party by trying to put up blockades. Division which will hurt the party in the long run, and blockades which will ultimately just cost Libertarians a lot of time and money that could be put to much more constructive use.
Speaking of constructive use of time and money…with the Barr nomination being a done deal, doesn’t it make a lot more sense to devote energy toward making sure there is an “acceptable” 2012 nominee who can stand up against such a supposed attack by political carpetbaggers? Seems like that would take the same energy and frustration which you (and many others) have and turn it toward positive, rather than destructive, ends.
Leaders, for the most part, should work to build up, rather than tear down. There is a revolution needed in this country, but the LP against itself is not it.
Thanks for your time.
Be well, be free,
Lance Brown
long-time Libertarian activist
Grass Valley, CA
(Originally from Berkshire County)
3 hogarth // Jun 4, 2008 at 4:41 am
Lance,
If you are not already a member of the Radical Caucus, you should consider it.
Website is a bit slow now, but the mailing list is very active:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpradicals
4 jdh // Jun 4, 2008 at 8:14 am
Mr. Torrey must be prepared to perjure himself. Massachusetts is one of 29 states that requires an elector to certify that he will not be faithless.
http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/53-8.htm
5 Jason_Gatties // Jun 4, 2008 at 8:36 am
My choice wasn’t Bob Barr.
My choice in 2004 wasn’t Badnarik.
I voted for Badnarik in 2004.
I’m voting for Bob Barr in 2008.
6 George Donnelly // Jun 4, 2008 at 8:44 am
Sir
You are shooting yourself in the foot. Please stop, it’s too ugly to bear.
I wanted Ruwart but I’m behind Barr and already donated.
We need positive action for a positive purpose. Self-destructive spitefulness will not get the LP or the cause of liberty anywhere.
7 Andy Craig // Jun 4, 2008 at 10:13 am
The enemy is not within the Libertarian Party.
Well, except maybe Wayne Allan Root.
/i keed, i keed
8 Steve Perkins // Jun 4, 2008 at 10:18 am
I don’t know if the state-level laws in Mass. require electoral voters to be selected early on… but if not, it’s silly to select your voters prior to the nominating convention. If your willingness to serve the position is conditional on the candidate selected, you simply have no business serving as an elector in the first place. Period.
It seems like the general trend for disappointed Libertarians (from Nolan on down) has been to begrudgingly tolerate things, even if not supporting it with open arms. There are a few standouts like this guy, but they are exactly that.
Of the couple of standouts that I’ve talked with, I honestly don’t get where they’re coming from. I’ve been an LP member long enough to have supported each and every LP ticket since Andre Marrou… even though I oftentimes had to hold my hand over my nose to do so. The shoe flips to the other foot one year, and others are unable to do the same. Preach about “purity” all day long, the bottom line is that you simply do not have the same level of respect for me that I have consistently shown for you.
I’m not one to talk trash about who is and isn’t a “real libertarian” in the small-L ideological sense. However, if you can’t hold your hand over your nose sometimes and pull the lever for the nominee of your Party, then you’re not a “real Libertarian” in the big-L sense. I’m sorry, but that sort of thing is simply what a political party IS. If you’re too good for that, then at least be honest enough to self-describe as a small-L independent who occasionally works with the LP.
9 Gene Trosper // Jun 4, 2008 at 10:23 am
Mr. Torrey,
Your expressed wish to sabotage the LP’s national discredits you as any sort of leader within our party and furthermore, should be grounds to remove you as an elector. I do not know the laws in Massachusetts, so I do not know if it is possible. However, if it *is* possible, I urge responsible Libertarians to seek your ouster as an elector.
10 richardwinger // Jun 4, 2008 at 10:58 am
The Massachusetts Libertarian Party is not ballot-qualified. Therefore, it is circulating a candidate petition. That petition lists the candidates for presidential elector. The petition may start circulating in February, and may show stand-ins for president and vice-president. Since it isn’t all that easy to get 10,000 valid signatures, it was rational for the party to start circulating the petition before the national convention. So the candidates for presidential elector were chosen months ago.
11 Steve Perkins // Jun 4, 2008 at 11:09 am
I assumed it had to be something along those lines. Still, no matter how early you start the ballot access process, you simply shouldn’t be using electors that aren’t prepared to cast ballots for the Party’s eventual nominee. Even if the national Party had selected someone like Milnes, Imperato, or Charles Manson for that matter… had a Georgia elector refused to discharge their duties based on the candidate selection, that person would be more or less blackballed in LP circles down here permanently.
12 G.E. // Jun 4, 2008 at 11:21 am
jdh – I would like to see a constitutional amendment barring states from making such laws. They’re absurd! What if the candidate dies? What if he/she’s found to be absolutely unfit for office between the time of the election and the electoral vote? Etc.
13 aynrkey // Jun 4, 2008 at 11:31 am
Nobody is actively doing anything because at this time there is nothing to do unless all the disaffected delegates have a counter-convention and nominate a counter-candidate. That would be a disaster, and the only winner from that scenerio would be Dondero. The only thing to do now is prepare for 2010’s platform convention and 2012’s nominating convention.
14 Robert Milnes // Jun 4, 2008 at 11:32 am
Steve Perkins, if the LP had nominated Milnes, I would have contacted the GP by now & prepared for a fusion ticket. Well on the way to double digit polling, the debates & winning in November. The gop/cia is having a good laugh at your expense. Why don’t you just lay back & enjoy it?
15 G.E. // Jun 4, 2008 at 11:34 am
Why don’t you just lay back & enjoy it?
Said Robert to the abducted newscaster, before the police *thankfully* busted into the room.
16 Steven R Linnabary // Jun 4, 2008 at 12:02 pm
I think Mr Torrey is a tad early with his announcement. Thus far, candidate Barr has shown a fair grasp of libertarianism. Maybe even the newest version of the LP Platform. His past however, *IS* cause for legitimate concern. Should candidatye Barr show recidivism to mere conservative republicanism, the campaign should be ready for many rebellious electors.
But by defecting early, Mr Torrey *might* be doing a good thing for the LP. It might draw libertarian leaning voters that cannot stomach somebody such as Barr…or Root!
Indeed, by defecting early, Mr Torrey is being more honest with the voters than a certain Mr McBride was in ‘72.
PEACE
Steve
17 G.E. // Jun 4, 2008 at 12:04 pm
I agree with Less Antman that the best thing to do is cautiously support Barr, which will hopefully “keep him in line.” Libertarian electors are a great means of doing this, as the media are more likely to listen to them.
18 Andy Craig // Jun 4, 2008 at 12:37 pm
A libertarian-socialist fusion ticket headed by a guy absolutely no one has heard of and a crazy ex-congressman.
Sounds like a winning plan to me!
19 Robert Milnes // Jun 4, 2008 at 12:47 pm
G.E., G.E., G.E., come on. Aren’t we beyond this? You apologized. I accepted…long ago. I was not charged with rape or stalking or violence. The “police” was the FBI, who if they didn’t get me for federal communications (mail & phone) violations, they would’ve got me for something else. Or done something else. Dirty tricks & botched murder attempts etc. Domestic surveillance & covert operations. So, get over it, ok? You have actually turned out not so bad. Now, you see what they no doubt had something to do with at TPW? IPR could be next, especially with me hanging out here. So never mind me; worry about that.
20 Robert Milnes // Jun 4, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Andy, Teddy Roosevelt & the progressives were not socialist. The greens are not hard line either. & maybe nobody ever heard of me but Miche thinks I’m cute!
21 Andy Craig // Jun 4, 2008 at 1:17 pm
The progressives were the ones who destroyed George Washington’s “chief magistrate” and replaced it with the Imperial Presidency. Yeah, that’s what we need now.
And the Greens may not be hardline socialists, but they are irreconcilably opposed to libertarian positions on most domestic issues.
22 G.E. // Jun 4, 2008 at 1:18 pm
The progressives were the ones who destroyed George Washington’s “chief magistrate†and replaced it with the Imperial Presidency. Yeah, that’s what we need now.
Actually, I think Lincoln did that.
23 Andy Craig // Jun 4, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Lincoln didn’t establish a precedent, though. There’s a reason no one can name most of the presidents between Johnson and McKinley- they were just plain “boring” chief magistrates willing to preside over peace and prosperity.
The progressives really established the moder imperial presidency, and it’s been with us ever since.
I suggest Gene Healy’s excellent book “The Cult of the Presidency”.
24 G.E. // Jun 4, 2008 at 1:44 pm
I will look into that book! You are correct. But one president between Johnson and McKinley is famous enough to libertarians — the best president we ever had, Grover Cleveland.
25 Andy Craig // Jun 4, 2008 at 1:47 pm
To Grover!
Though I’m partial to Jefferson, Cleveland actually probably governed closest to the ideal.
26 Lance Brown // Jun 4, 2008 at 2:45 pm
BTW, does anyone know if Mr. Torrey has written an explanation of his reasons why he “clearly and distinctly stated” he could not cast a vote for Barr?
27 John P Slevin // Jun 4, 2008 at 2:54 pm
There is some irony in Mr. Torrey’s position.
Following the 1972 general election, Nixon elector Roger McBride cast a vote for Libertarians Hospers/Nathan. McBride’s “unfaithful” action set him up to gain the Libertarian presidential nomination in 1976.
In other words, the LP rewarded McBride for doing to the Republicans what Mr. Torrey suggests doing to the LP.
Of course, the other irony is that Libertarians long have advocated that unreasonable and crooked ballot access barriers be eliminated. For a state affiliate to attempt to remove the Barr/Root ticket from their ballot hardly is in keeping with advocacy of ballot access for all.
Mr. Torrey has the right to vote his conscience. Mr. Torrey and any Libertarians who seek to prevent the LP’s nominee from appearing on the ballot are no more in the right than the crooked legislators who have erected these onerous barriers to ballot access.
Mr. Torrey needs to rethink his intent to remove Barr/Root from ballots around the country. Doing so means taking advantage of the corrupt law to hurt legitimate ballot access.
28 MattSwartz // Jun 4, 2008 at 2:58 pm
I think that Mr. Torrey is just doing what he thinks is right under the circumstances. I find it extreme and perhaps somewhat counterproductive, but his motivations resonate wtih me.
29 G.E. // Jun 4, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Again, I think radical libertarians should vie to be electors. This can help keep Barr on track and on message. However, if you automatically say “I will not vote for him” before he’s even done anything wrong (post-nomination), then you lose all of your power and leverage.
30 MattSwartz // Jun 4, 2008 at 3:18 pm
GE,
Your proposed power play presupposes that Barr is in it to win. I doubt that he has serious expectations of winning any electoral votes, much less in MA, where Ted Kennedy’s brain surgeon could beat the state’s most visible republican without campaigning .
31 G.E. // Jun 4, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Matt – Actually, my proposal has nothing to do with winning. If Barr goes far off course, Libertarian electors could speak out in the media, saying they would be faithless if he won. Of course he’s highly unlikely to win, but I think the media could pick up on this — particularity if electors coordinated their efforts. The knowledge that electors could do this could help keep Barr stay on the message of liberty. That is my point.
32 darolew // Jun 4, 2008 at 6:45 pm
I think any attempt to sabotage the LP ticket (especially if successful) will make the LP look far worse than the Barr/Root campaign. Whatever credibility the LP has will be shot…
Leave a Comment