40 responses so far ↓

• 1 Ross Levin // Mar 16, 2009 at 4:24 pm

  Nice to see yet another new name in the byline, Susan! I’ve liked a lot of your comments here, and I’m glad to see you’ve joined us.

  We’ll have to update the “about” page now…

• 2 paulie // Mar 16, 2009 at 4:25 pm

  Speaking of which, we should get bios on there.

  I think we talked about it once, but never did.

• 3 Susan Hogarth // Mar 16, 2009 at 6:56 pm

  Thank you, Ross, and thanks to Paulie for stalking me so relentlessly and to Trent for letting me post here.

• 4 Michael H. Wilson // Mar 16, 2009 at 8:47 pm

  In her comments on Mr. Ferguson’s piece Susan writes: “If this is the case, Ferguson will surely support changing the LP’s website tagline from the insipid “Smaller government. Lower taxes. More freedom.” to something more aligned with the ‘core tenets’ of libertarianism’ (and incidentally a bit more stirring) such as “Individual Freedom. Personal Responsibility. It can be Yours!”

  Since when is it the LP the party of personal responsibility? Do people not have the right to be irresponsible?

  MW

• 5 libertariangirl // Mar 16, 2009 at 8:51 pm

  they can be irresponsible so long as it doesnt become someone elses unsolicited responsibilty

• 6 Michael H. Wilson // Mar 16, 2009 at 9:16 pm

  LG I have always understood that to be the case, but it seems there are people who insist that we are the party of personal responsibility. Is there are nanny lurking in the background somewhere that I missed some years ago?

• 7 Thomas M. Sipos // Mar 16, 2009 at 9:29 pm

  Actually, I once wrote a piece on statism and personal responsibility: http://www.hollywoodinvestigator.com/pork/boyer.htm

  When I saw Donny’s email, my first thought was that “winning elections” is also “the most important principle” for Demopublicans. All other principles are secondary, hence, negotiable.

  Whether they realize it or not, the LNC is saying that, on the most important matter, the LP and Demopublicans are identical.

  Nice going, Sonny!

• 8 G.E. // Mar 16, 2009 at 9:32 pm

  Susan – Doesn’t meticulously pointing out how wrong the leadership of the LP is get old? I mean, what good does it do? You’re entirely right, they’re entirely wrong, and yet, they have no shame. Do you have some light masochistic tendencies?

• 9 Thomas M. Sipos // Mar 16, 2009 at 9:32 pm

  I posted a response, but it doesn’t show. Then when I try to re-post it, the site says it’s a duplicate post.

  A bug in the system?

• 10 Thomas M. Sipos // Mar 16, 2009 at 9:33 pm

  I’ll try it again:

  I once wrote an article on statism and personal responsibility: http://www.hollywoodinvestigator.com/pork/boyer.htm

  When I saw Donny’s email, my first thought was that “winning elections” is also “the most important principle” for Demopublicans. All other principles are secondary, hence, negotiable.

  Whether they realize it or not, the LNC is saying that, on the most important matter, the LP and Demopublicans are identical.

• 11 Thomas M. Sipos // Mar 16, 2009 at 9:34 pm

  Nope, I reworded it and tried again.

  That post won’t do through. Will this one?

• 12 Thomas M. Sipos // Mar 16, 2009 at 9:35 pm

  Yes. It seems I can post anything, except what I want. I can’t post my response to Susan’s article.

• 13 G.E. // Mar 16, 2009 at 9:45 pm

  You have multiple links in your post, I bet. It’s getting held for approval.

• 14 Thomas M. Sipos // Mar 16, 2009 at 10:01 pm

  Posts 7 and 10 didn’t appear for a while. Now they’re both up, inserting themselves between other posts.

  I put a link in the post and in the website box. That’s not allowed? I didn’t know.

• 15 Susan Hogarth // Mar 17, 2009 at 6:31 am

  Doesn’t meticulously pointing out how wrong the leadership of the LP is get old? I mean, what good does it do?

  My time horizon may be a bit wider than yours. I intend to see the LP led by an excellent team of dedicated libertarian activists who will embrace, rather than shy away from, libertarian messages.

• 16 Susan Hogarth // Mar 17, 2009 at 6:37 am

  Since when is it the LP the party of personal responsibility? Do people not have the right to be irresponsible?

  I see your point. But we could say “Peace, prosperity, liberty” and people would have the same issue: don’t folks have the right to be poor? Are we anti-ascetic?

  My suggestion was very much off-the-cuff and not carefully crafted/considered.

• 17 George Phillies // Mar 17, 2009 at 7:39 am

  The logical outcome of the advice from LNC Inc is reported at TheDailyLiberty.com

  “LP of Rhode Island Goes Over to Republicans”.

  Mind you, joining the Republicans in Rhode Island is like swimming toward the ocean bottom in pursuit of the Titanic, not a winning move.

• 18 Robert Capozzi // Mar 17, 2009 at 8:06 am

  There’s no problem with being “responsible” for “irresponsible” behavior. The point of “responsibility” is one “owns” what one does.

• 19 Melty // Mar 17, 2009 at 9:23 am

  Good work, Susan!
  Just to be positive, I wanna say I agree with ya that Donny’s better than the guy he replaced and that I liked what he said in the latest letter, about education.
  If peace, sex and drugs would appear in these monday messages, for a change, I’d probably even wanna send a contribution.

• 20 Susan Hogarth // Mar 17, 2009 at 9:38 am

  Just to be positive, I wanna say I agree with ya that Donny’s better than the guy he replaced and that I liked what he said in the latest letter, about education.

  Agreed on both counts.

  If peace, sex and drugs would appear in these monday messages, for a change, I’d probably even wanna send a contribution.

  Whoops – all three counts.

  Thanks!

• 21 Melty // Mar 17, 2009 at 9:53 am

  seems like the TAGS section never changes

• 22 Geoffrey // Mar 17, 2009 at 10:22 am

  Dear Mrs. Hogarth,

  I read your posting with interest and rather funny how you failed to underline the following purpose (which I believe is also your USLP’s mission statement):

  “moving public policy in a libertarian direction by building a political party that elects Libertarians to public office”

  You not only chosen to ignore this, but appear to actually speak out against your very own bylaws and mission. Funny, yet it isn’t.

  We at the LPUK and many other LP’s throughout the world share this interest. There are literally hundreds of educational associations touting our viewpoints, yet only a few dozen LP’s exist world wide. Education only goes so far, but to really change the system, you must be in the system. We at the UKLP are working towards this goal, please join us.

  Good day,

  Geoffrey

• 23 Erik Geib // Mar 17, 2009 at 11:05 am

  From what I’m gathering, some/most critics of the national office are insisting that LP National be the guide of for grassroots libertarian involvement, no?

  This would be a fine goal if the LP were better funded, but I think given the size of our party it’s probably better to let the party focus first and foremost on essential political party activities, which generally include a focus on elections. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be the Libertarian *Party*… it would be something else. Now, yes, I accept the Republicans and Democrats do a little bit better with grassroots organization, but they also have the funding in place to devote time to this. Cut back on their funding, and they’d probably have to dampen their focus on grassroots work a little.

  Also, it’s worth noting that LP National does do a great deal of grassroots work for the resources it has, it’s just not always picked up by those seeking to criticize every message put out. Austin Petersen, the LNC’s Volunteer Coordinator regularly works with activists, volunteers, and interns to get them motivated and working for libertarian causes in different communities across the country, but this is rarely mentioned. Instead, we’re left reading attacks on the Communications Director that assume because something isn’t always said that it isn’t being done.

  By the way, this internet obsession with rhetoric and semantics seems childish. Must we really always pick apart every word of what is said to try and discern the intentions of others to fit our view of them?

• 24 Robert Capozzi // Mar 17, 2009 at 1:11 pm

  Erik, some history. Since 1980, followers of Murray N. Rothbard have been banging the drum for what he called “inreach.” Rothbard made a BIG deal about an off-hand comment that the 1980 LP standardbearer Ed Clark said on national TV, when he characterized Ls as “low tax liberals.” This was unacceptable to Rothbard, who advocated “holding high the banner” of his peculiar views. An advocate for what he called “Leninist” tactics, Rothbard’s vision was to build a “cadre” of highly dedicated anarcho-capitalists, who would then infiltrate all aspects of American society to bring about a radical shift in the politics and culture toward his ideal of no government, accepting only “transition plans” to “smash the State.”

  People who called themselves Ls needed to be educated (inreached) by Rothbardian cadre to fully understand his unified theory of politics, ethics, and social change. Those who refused to accept virtually all of Rothbardianism were to be castigated as “opportunists.”

  We’ve been seeing this bizarre drama play out for nearly 30 years now. It DOES get tiresome, I agree.

• 25 Erik Geib // Mar 17, 2009 at 2:18 pm

  Robert, I understand the divide (thanks largely to Brian Doherty’s wonderful Radicals for Capitalism)… I’m merely saying this immature game of rhetoric dissection for exploration of intention is ridiculous.

  People can disagree on things all they want – that’s fine, as discussion and debate often enlightens us all (though pride may prevent us from admitting so on occasion). I’m merely saying we should quit attacking the perceived intentions of others, as in the end it doesn’t really help anyone.

• 26 Susan Hogarth // Mar 17, 2009 at 2:33 pm

  I read your posting with interest

  Thank you for taking the time to read and offer your thoughts.

  and rather funny how you failed to underline the following purpose (which I believe is also your USLP’s mission statement):

  I quoted the entire “Purposes” article of the Bylaws. The statement began with a positive statement of what we seek to accomplish (“The Party is organized to implement and give voice to the principles embodied in the Statement of Principles”) followed by a list of the means which we intend to employ to accomplish this end. I thought it unnecessary to belabor the point that a statement like “The Party is organized TO …. BY…” is in the form of “End -> Means”. Perhaps I overestimated my audience.

  “moving public policy in a libertarian direction by building a political party that elects Libertarians to public office”

  Yes, this is indeed one of the means we aim to use to accomplish the ends we have chosen. I certainly did not mean to downplay, any more than I meant to downplay any of the other in the list of means, by not underlining them. The underling was simply to help the ‘end’ stand out from the list of ‘means’.

  I am frankly rather astonished that I need to point this out in such painstaking detail to a (presumably) native speaker of English.

  You not only chosen to ignore this, but appear to actually speak out against your very own bylaws and mission. Funny, yet it isn’t.

  Do you have some quote to explain what you mean by me ‘appear[ing] to speak out against [my] very own bylaws and mission’? Because in fact it was my intention to speak in *favor* of the LP’s Bylaws (I say nothing of mission, because our Party documents do not use that terminology).

  Perhaps you are confused – it was our communications Director, Donny Ferguson (whose writing I was responding to) who took one of an entire list of ‘means’ listed in our “Purposes” statement and *defined that as the Purpose of the Party*. It was that – his willingness to do an end-run around the membership – to which i was reacting.

• 27 Susan Hogarth // Mar 17, 2009 at 3:18 pm

  I’m merely saying we should quit attacking the perceived intentions of others, as in the end it doesn’t really help anyone.

  Erik,

  This was absolutely not my intent. My purpose was to draw attention to what I conceive to be poor strategy on the part of many of the folks leading the Party right now. I’m not particularly interested in ‘attacking their intentions’, or even in trying to guess what those intentions might be (except insofar as I need to in order to understand their strategies).

• 28 G.E. // Mar 17, 2009 at 3:41 pm

  My time horizon may be a bit wider than yours. I intend to see the LP led by an excellent team of dedicated libertarian activists who will embrace, rather than shy away from, libertarian messages.

  Awesome. But what good does it do to, line by line, point out how the bastards who run the party now are wrong? In their perverse eyes, what they do is right by virtue of the fact that they’re doing it. They create their own reality and have no shame.

• 29 Robert Capozzi // Mar 18, 2009 at 3:40 am

  ge: In their perverse eyes, what they do is right by virtue of the fact that they’re doing it. They create their own reality and have no shame.

  bc: how do you KNOW this? what’s the basis for your speculation? and have you read up on the concept of psychological projection?

  consider trying this: assume EVERYONE’S motive is virtuous. sometimes, we all are misguided, reaching false conclusions leading to dysfunctional actions. even me! and maybe even you!

• 30 Susan Hogarth // Mar 18, 2009 at 6:54 am

  But what good does it do to, line by line, point out how the bastards who run the party now are wrong?

  I am not pointing it out for -their- benefit. I am pointing it out so that others will choose a different course in the near future. After this particular Monday Message, for instance, there was a lot of surprise, disgust, and anger – but little focused explication of what exactly was so wrong with the message and what the alternative(s) is (are). *That* is what I wanted to provide.

  I wish you’d choose to help – we could use you.

• 31 Susan Hogarth // Mar 18, 2009 at 6:58 am

  Erik Geib – can you clarify whether Robert Kraus’ prohibition of staff posting to outside blogs applies to interns with the LP as well?

• 32 Erik Geib // Mar 18, 2009 at 9:16 am

  I wasn’t aware of such a prohibition, but if someone told me I couldn’t do so I’d likely stop interning. Though I could understand the fear of misrepresenting the office or picking unnecessary fights, I’d rather deal with an issue when it arose than have such a blanket policy. I’ll certainly look into this.

• 33 paulie // Mar 18, 2009 at 6:53 pm

  I posted a response, but it doesn’t show. Then when I try to re-post it, the site says it’s a duplicate post.

  A bug in the system?

  Some posts get caught in the spam filter for no apparent reason. This time I was able to catch it. It would help if other IPR writers also looked through spam to pull out legitimate comments as well.

• 34 paulie // Mar 18, 2009 at 6:54 pm

  I put a link in the post and in the website box. That’s not allowed? I didn’t know.

  No such rule.

  In this case it appeared to be random.

• 35 paulie // Mar 18, 2009 at 7:44 pm

  seems like the TAGS section never changes

  It changes depending on which topics get covered most over the whole history of the site, so it doesn’t change often.

• 36 paulie // Mar 18, 2009 at 7:46 pm

  “LP of Rhode Island Goes Over to Republicans”.

  Mind you, joining the Republicans in Rhode Island is like swimming toward the ocean bottom in pursuit of the Titanic, not a winning move.

  Was this recent? There hasn’t been a working RI LP page linked at national in a very long time.

• 37 Michael H. Wilson // Mar 18, 2009 at 8:43 pm

  Hi Erik @ 23 you write; “From what I’m gathering, some/most critics of the national office are insisting that LP National be the guide of for grassroots libertarian involvement, no?”

  From what I read the answer would be no. Most of the criticism I see is related to the watering down of the LP’s message and in doing so adopting a message that is more conservative.

  Seems that every new person who takes the reins of power in the party is convniced that what happened before they arrived on the scene was a failure and that they, the new king of the hill, will make a big improvement just by their mere presence. Then they start fiddling with the message so that today we have little or nothing left.

  Years ago we had a book title “Libertarian Solution for Local Problems”. Then we had a Libertarian Program, and we had Viewpoint and a bunch of literature. We have very little of that any more and even the issues section of the website is not kept up to date.

  And somewhere along the way one of the inhabitants of the LPHQ office decided that we had to elect people first then we’d tell the populace what we were all about. Some of us felt that was a bit deceptive to say the least.

  There are a lot of things we need to do and one is get back on message. Susan criticized the “Smaller government..Less taxes..” motto. I couldn’t agree more with her point. I’m a “Civil Liberties, Economic Freedom” kinda guy. The LP used to use “Peace, Prosperity, & Freedom”. but that nice one got changed. And then some people wet the pants when 9/11 happened and everything went to hell.

  But frankly as someone who has spent considerable time in sales and worked for a couple of companies who have been known for their dedication to customer service I can tell you that the first thing we need to do is get back on message. Second is to develop the support material for the local groups to help develop our candidates, use as source material for letters to the editor, press releases, etc.

  BTW literature is going to be developed outside of the office. I’m not sure of the details, but it is going to happen come hell or high water.

  However it would help greatly if we in the peanut gallery had some idea what was going on in the office.

  Sending out a Monday memo to us doesn’t do much if that time could have been better spent on meeting with someone from the AP, or the WAPO, or NY Times.

  Some of us and I am one who sees the LP as trying to be the Republican party’s little school yard buddy. We have 500,000 troops stationed abroad and little or no critical comments on that particular welfare program. For the record I once saw a report that we had spent some $16 trillion on the foreign deployment of U.S. troops and that was before 9/11. How many students could we have sent to Harvard for that kind of money? That is what we are not addressing in my not so humble opinion.

  And for what it is worth I was once fairly conservative, in the Goldwater model. I heard Rothbard speak and read most of his works and have read Rand, but I consider myself more in line with the thinking of Karl Popper, especially from his book, or Isabel Paterson’s works.

  And much of the criticism is left over from frustrations built up by the previous LPUS ExDir. As for Andrew who was there before Donny Ferguson, I think he was in over his head, but was learning the ropes, but from what scuttlebutt I hear he got on someone’s wrong side.

  We need to telling the world what this is all about otherwise we just have a hobby.

  MW

• 38 Michael H. Wilson // Mar 18, 2009 at 8:58 pm

  Erik and for the record I am editor of the state party news letter, put in a few hours each years at outdoor booths, been an officer and run for office.

  I and I am sure other are ready to help the LP, but no one is telling us what projects need our efforts.

  Thanks for reading this far if you have;)

  MW

• 39 Erik Geib // Mar 24, 2009 at 9:34 am

  @ Susan & Michael:

  There is no restriction on volunteers or interns posting to outside blogs and, as I assumed, the restriction on office employees is to ensure that someone doesn’t assert their opinion in a manner that could be construed as the official party line.

  As for what the office could/couldn’t be doing, I still stick by the argument that it’s much smaller than people think, and that if we want it to do more we all have to continue working to expand the party. Yes, I’m sure there’s a lot of internal party politicking, and everyone has a different idea for the best office strategy, but to place failures within the movement at the feet of national so often feels counter-productive. As lp.org can attest to, there are 6 professional staffers working in the office and a handful of interns (of whom only myself and one other have degrees – the others are college kids from local universities).

  As for not wanting to be the RNC’s “little school yard buddy,” I couldn’t agree more. I don’t perceive the intentions of those in the office as being such, and think you would find such people more likely working to ‘change’ the RNC than work here. I know there are plenty of personal battles within the movement, particularly pertaining to national, and I certainly haven’t agreed with everything the office has always done, but I think it’s a little harsh to accuse six people of not fulfilling everyone else’s vision for the party. I hate sounding like an apologist (as I know that’s what this sounds like), but I’d rather see more supportive criticism in place of the harsher-sounding rhetoric I generally read online.

• 40 Marc Montoni // Mar 29, 2009 at 3:48 pm

  Erik,

  Having worked in the office from 1989-1993, and temping ocassionally (as in a day or two per month to help clear backlogs of work) from 1998 to 2002, I know exactly how small the place is both in terms of square footage as well as staff strength. My full-time employment at LPHQ was when we were housed in a run-down row house at 1528 Pennsylvania Ave SE in DC — a bad section of town (although not the worst).

  Back then we had three employees and an outside contractor doing LPNews monthly, as opposed to six employees, and there were 10,000 to 12,000 members (not much difference between what we have now, in other words).

  One thing is crystal clear. Staff members of LPHQ can steer clear of most controversies by avoiding making statements that they know well in advance are going to anger half of the LP’s membership.

  I like Donny personally. He and I went bar hopping with Steve Gordon, Susan Hogarth and others, one night at the convention. That said, Donny is a smart and mature individual. I believe he is smart enough to have known exactly what he was saying in the Monday Message critiqued above, and likewise that his words would raise the hackles of many in the LP.

  I don’t think that sort of thing is really necessary. It’s like taking a stick and whacking a hornet’s nest and then whining & crying about why the hornets began stinging.

  It would be better for all concerned if staff statements concentrated on criticizing Democrats and Republicans and offering Libertarian solutions — and I mean real ones that we’ve agreed upon in convention — to current issues of the day. And, by the way, those current issues aren’t limited to taxes, gun control, eminent domain, and regulation and other issues on the right — but include the repeal of the various prohibitions against drugs, sex, gambling, blue laws, etc; along with supporting the right of people to travel without restriction, putting an end to warrantless searches, and other issues on the left.

  Donny says he eschews “educational” activities. Ironically, however, his Monday Messages of the type critiqued above are themselves intended as “educational campaigns”. Think about it. He’s trying to “educate” those he thinks need it that the LP is only about winning elections. However, I think he is mistaken to believe acting in an internally partisan manner is helping make the LP stronger.

  The LP is in serious trouble right now, and it’s not because not enough LP members “want to win elections”.

  Long before the current “we’re now serious about doing real politics and actually winning elections” mantra parroted constantly by Seehusen and company came along in 2003, previous LPHQ staff documented almost 600 elected or appointed LP officeholders. They were once listed on LP.org for all to see.

  That number has been fading ever since, yet the message is still being fed that the LP is “no longer a debating society and is all about actually winning elections”. Last time I heard a number cited, sitting officeholders were down to around 200 or so.

  If anything, Monday Messages that lecture radicals suggest that this party is now more of a debating society than ever.

  Let’s look at the facts.

  1) Fundraising has faded. 2) We’ve gone from an impressive, extremely well-designed monthly LP newspaper (prior to 2003) to one that comes out haphazardly and in late 2006 didn’t look all that good aesthetically (although it has been cleaned up somewhat since then). 3) Membership has tanked. As I explained in another article on this site, membership was falling just before the November elections and has been falling since December.

  Again: the LP is in serious trouble. Sowing the seeds of discontent by issuing official statements that [essentially] blame, and thus anger, portions of the membership isn’t going to help address those troubles; if anything, it will only make them worse.

  The Party desperately needs to concentrate on rebuilding the fundamentals: Fundraising, membership growth, returning to a monthly, getting back to a monthly, dependable, professional-looking LP News, and emphasizing candidate recruitment, and other basics. None of that necessarily must be done in a manner that will anger various swaths of the membership. Perhaps officers and staffers who issue “official” statements in the name of the national, state, and local LP’s should read Carnegie’s “How To Win Friends And Influence People” before pressing the send key.

  A good organizational leader listens carefully to his constituents, tries to avoid scolding them, leads by example, and offers praise more than criticism.

Leave a Comment