Amongst the third parties or third-party personalities making appearances at CPAC were the Libertarian Party and the New York Conservative Party–both of whom had booths at the event. The Libertarian Party’s booth recieved heavy traffic and always had at least three people sitting behind it. The New York Conservative Party’s booth, on the otherhand, never once had a volunteer behind it when I walked over, and I did so often. They did, however, have a signup sheet for joining the party’s mailing list. Most interestingly, there was a group called the American Taxpayer’s Party which was circulating flyers and business cards. They had no web address, no phone number, and no name connected to the handouts–just a P.O. Box address and a small statement about opposing bailouts. I’ll post pictures of all three groups when I get the chance.
Third Parties at CPAC
March 2nd, 2009 · 92 Comments
Filed Under: Right-wing minor parties
92 responses so far ↓
1 Trent Hill // Mar 2, 2009 at 3:48 pm
More on CPAC to come, including pictures, interesting personalities, etc.
2 Chris Cole // Mar 2, 2009 at 6:16 pm
They have a website at http://www.taxpayersparty.com, with issues statements that seem to mimic the Constitution Party. It looks like a vehicle for the presidential campaign of one Anthony Jay Christopher.
3 Chris Cole // Mar 2, 2009 at 6:29 pm
Sorry for the typo. That should be http://www.taxpayerparty.com (no “s”).
4 Susan Hogarth // Mar 2, 2009 at 6:47 pm
Good: LP tabling at CPAC
Better: LP tabling at CPAC *and* “America’s Future Now”
http://www.ourfuture.org/now
There are probably other significant national/regional ‘left/liberal’ or ‘right/conservative’ events for us to table at as a national party. Concentrating on one or the other does two very bad things for the LP:
1) It gives us an (I hope undeserved) image as “republican lite” or “democrat lite”.
2) It wastes valuable outreach opportunities.
Please, LP activists, suggest to the LP’s staff and LNC reps that the LP make efforts to table at “America’s Future Now” as well as at CPAC.
You can reach your rep and staff through the LP website. If you can make a donation, pledge a donation to this specific effort, or offer to help at the table, it will make the decision to attend that much easier for our cash-strapped national organization.
5 Ross Levin // Mar 2, 2009 at 6:48 pm
You could turn yourselves into a really fun Party if you have tables at the conservative events talking about free market economics and the progressive events talking about the drug war and civil liberties. If you get a good amount of people from each to join the party, that would be hilarious.
6 Trent Hill // Mar 2, 2009 at 6:49 pm
Not the same group Chris, but a good find. The only reason I know it is a different group is because these people specifically told me they had no website, nor did they want one.
7 Brian Miller // Mar 2, 2009 at 7:48 pm
I think it’s great that the LP is showing such devotion to CPAC.
Clearly, its top speakers and leaders like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Bobby Jindal and Tucker Carlson represent the future of the libertarian movement.
So much so, that Tucker’s now a CATO employee.
Silly magazines insisted “we’re all socialists now.” They were wrong. If you’re a Libertarian, apparently, the new theme is “we’re all Republicans now.”
8 Gene Trosper // Mar 2, 2009 at 7:56 pm
Any opportunity for outreach is a good idea. I consider it planting seeds. You never know who will decide to investigate further.
9 Brian Miller // Mar 2, 2009 at 8:08 pm
Any opportunity for outreach is a good idea. I consider it planting seeds. You never know who will decide to investigate further.
Not necessarily true. Most people judge groups by the company they keep.
When the LP has endless cash for Conservative Leadership Conferences featuring Mitt Romney and Alan Keyes; endless cash for attendance at CPAC; and no meaningful outreach to the left or center, the immediate reaction is “oh, this is a right wing party.”
Mix in a Bob Barr candidacy, the incessant efforts to de-gay and de-choice the platform, and some of the wacky fringe-right candidates who have embarrassed the LP to no end (Kevin Craig, Sonny Landham), and it looks pretty bleak.
Most hilarious is that reaching out to the big losers in the last election makes no sense.
Oh well.
10 Trent Hill // Mar 2, 2009 at 8:31 pm
“So much so, that Tucker’s now a CATO employee.”
Tucker actually IS pretty darned libertarian. I got to sit down and talk with him at CPAC–and he IS very libertarian.
11 Ross Levin // Mar 2, 2009 at 8:31 pm
Ann Coulter, Bobby Jindal, and Rush Limbaugh are the future of the libertarian movement? I feel kind of sorry for you guys.
12 Trent Hill // Mar 2, 2009 at 8:41 pm
He was being sarcastic Ross.
13 Ross Levin // Mar 2, 2009 at 8:43 pm
OK, good. I’m a bit tired…
14 Gene Berkman // Mar 2, 2009 at 9:17 pm
Actually, reaching out to the losers in an election makes more sense than reaching out to the winners. Winners always exude triumphalism.
When Republicans were in control – during the Nixon administration, and during both Bush I and Bush II, I went to many left-liberal or even new left groups, including antiwar groups and Howard Dean meetups. We can always agree on some things to oppose.
Now that the Democrats are in power, they are not interested in hearing about libertarians and our calls for less governments. Conservatives on the other hand are trying to figure out why they lost, and some have figured out that people rejected their version of big government.
15 Leymann Feldenstein // Mar 2, 2009 at 9:43 pm
“Most hilarious is that reaching out to the big losers in the last election makes no sense.”
Very well put. Unfortunately the LP has been doing this for a very long time, and the Barr/Root campaign is a perfect example. All the LP has to offer is GOP-Lite.
The “Socialism is coming” chicken-little routine doesn’t fly anymore. With markets collapsing and millions losing their jobs and their homes only a handful of die-hard wingnuts care anymore about laissez-faire capitalism or tax cuts, especially since most people pay little or no income tax anyway.
Most people today are interested in “Peace, Bread & Land” which Obama offers. They want to keep their jobs, their homes, educate their kids and pay their bills.
The LP has become the embodiment of Marie Antoinette’s “Let them eat ideology” policy prescription. Fancy slogans won’t put food on the table and obscure academic theories won’t pay the mortgage.
16 Robert Capozzi // Mar 2, 2009 at 10:16 pm
I dunno…it sure seems to me that outreach is a numbers game, and I find some sorts of conservatives more open to L ideas than liberals are generally. Liberals generally HATE the market, though I agree that some liberal-tarian inroads can and should be made.
talk to anyone is my credo.
Can’t hurt.
17 Michael H. Wilson // Mar 2, 2009 at 10:24 pm
About ten years ago at a outdoor booth one disabled man said to me “You’re all me and no we”.
He pretty much had the attitude down right. Too many libs have takn the idea of Darwin economics to heart and don’t have the sense realize that we all don’t start out on the same rung on the ladder.
I’m not suggesting that we need to give people welfare. Just the opposite is needed. Get the government off their necks. Those barriers that hold some down are there to help others get to the top.
18 Leymann Feldenstein // Mar 2, 2009 at 10:45 pm
“Those barriers that hold some down are there to help others get to the top.”
True. But when you have “limited government” which is only limited to making sure that the people held down don’t take anything away from the people who made it to the top, sooner or later the result will be violent revolution.
Dog eat dog Darwinian economics and casino capitalism can’t peacefully survive when government is limited to protecting the strong against the weak, the talented against the untalented, and the haves against the have nots.
Certainly not in a democracy when the mob of unwashed downtrodden masses vastly outnumber the ones who made it to the top or, as W.E.B. Dubois puts it, the “talented tenth”. At some point you have to choose between anarchy, democracy, or enlightened despotism.
The alternative is violence, chaos and destruction.
19 Catholic Trotskyist // Mar 2, 2009 at 10:49 pm
Why was the Constitution Party not at CPAC?
That’s pretty stupid that the New York Conservatives couldn’t find someone to staff their table.
The Catholic Trotskyist Party thought about setting up a booth, but decided against it. The chairman attended a major Catholic congress instead.
20 Richard Cooper // Mar 2, 2009 at 10:51 pm
If it was up to me, I would take LP’s limited outreach budget and do this
Advertise in as many college newspapers, including their websites, as possible.
We need young foot soldiers. College newspapers are not very expensive.
The websites seem to draw alumni traffic as well as current students.
Richard Cooper, Campaign Manager http://www.sundwall4congress.org
former Chair, LPNY
21 Michael H. Wilson // Mar 2, 2009 at 11:06 pm
Richard I agree with that if that was all the money we had. Frankly we should make sure all of them receive the news releases. Having sent releases to college papers I have seen it help.
MW
22 Trent Hill // Mar 2, 2009 at 11:18 pm
“Why was the Constitution Party not at CPAC?
That’s pretty stupid that the New York Conservatives couldn’t find someone to staff their table.”
The CP should’ve probably had a table at CPAC–but it doesnt matter, they wouldn’t have been that well recieved. They’d have been literally the ONLY protectionist group there.
As for the NYCP, I think they REALLY should’ve found a staffer.
23 Anti-Catholic Christian // Mar 2, 2009 at 11:52 pm
Hey Catholic Trotskyist what was discussed at the Catholic congress. Was it about how the so-called illegal immigration is a plot by the Vatican to Catholicize America?
24 Nemo // Mar 3, 2009 at 2:06 am
I must say that at the end of the day it’s a great thing that the LP did indeed have SOME level of representation here. While it may not have been the most traditional and/or strongest, as someone said, planting seeds is definitely a good thing. It will take time, but especially with desperate it’s detractors are starting to look, I see good things for the LP’s future.
25 Robert Capozzi // Mar 3, 2009 at 7:11 am
RL: Ann Coulter, Bobby Jindal, and Rush Limbaugh are the future of the libertarian movement?
Me: Ross, I would share your concern if ANYONE believed this. But I doubt they do, so your point feels like a straw man.
I’d think the LP would attend CPAC to reach out to the attendees, not the speakers. The speakers are probably lost causes. Finding L-leaning conservatives I’d a thunk was the mission.
Seems sensible to me. I’d think going to, say, an ACLU event would mostly be about finding L-leaning liberals.
26 Robert Capozzi // Mar 3, 2009 at 9:17 am
BM: When the LP has endless cash for Conservative Leadership Conferences featuring Mitt Romney and Alan Keyes…
Me: Endless cash? We seem to be watching a different movie.
There’s absolutely zero stopping left-oriented Ls from running for office. In fact, they have. Didn’t Outright’s own Ruth Bennett run several times, in high-profile races? A fact I encourage, and I don’t know anyone who feels otherwise.
BM: …the incessant efforts to de-gay and de-choice the platform…
Me: As a participant in reworking the platform, I assure you that neither was my personal agenda. I’ve made no secret of the fact that I DID want to rid the platform of ultra-fringey ideas like the right to private nukes and personal secession.
The platform is still pro choice, which is my personal take. But I do know and respect pro life Ls, and consider them L? Do you disagree?
Mostly, the platform was made less specific on a range of issues, not just gender and reproduction. Do you disagree?
There is nothing to stop an L from campaigning on a strongly gay/choice rights agenda, yes?
27 Brian Irving // Mar 3, 2009 at 9:38 am
What the hell was the LP at CPAC at all? Haven’t libertarians learned that not matter how sincerely genuine conservatives work, they will be dissed by the Republican Party establishment (see Ron Paul)? Haven’t libertarians learned that gain nothing by defining ourselves as conservatives or liberals?
28 Susan Hogarth // Mar 3, 2009 at 9:44 am
Actually, reaching out to the losers in an election makes more sense than reaching out to the winners.
This may be true, but remember that pro-rights, individualist, anti-empire Democrats are as much ‘losers’ as pro-rights, individualist, anti-empire Republicans.
Our constituency transcends right and left – we represent (or should represent) those who value freedom as the highest political goal.
29 Susan Hogarth // Mar 3, 2009 at 9:49 am
What the hell was the LP at CPAC at all?
Because they need us most, perhaps.
Outreach is a Good Thing. I looked at the CPAC polling results and something like 3/4 of the folks said that making government smaller and less intrusive was -their- first political priority, above continuing war and ending abortion and ‘protecting marriage’. That’s encouraging, and it’s natural that we should want to speak to those people and show them what the LP offers.
30 Robert Capozzi // Mar 3, 2009 at 10:52 am
Brian, please ’splain how having an outreach table is tantamount in your mind as “labeling.”
And weren’t a LOT of Ron Paul supporters self-identified “conservatives”? Doesn’t Paul himself sometimes call himself a “conservative”? Hasn’t he himself gone to CPAC?
Outreach means talking with people we might disagree with on some, even most, subjects, yes?
31 Trent Hill // Mar 3, 2009 at 11:04 am
“they will be dissed by the Republican Party establishment (see Ron Paul)?”
How did Ron Paul diss the LP?
32 Jason Gatties // Mar 3, 2009 at 11:47 am
Clearly he was referring to the fact that Ron Paul (who many people feel is Libertarian) was dissed by the Republican establishment.
33 robert capozzi // Mar 3, 2009 at 12:06 pm
yes, Ron was dissed. a lot of conservatives feel mccain’s nomination represented a dissing of conservatives.
again, the establishment’s a lost cause. perhaps some conservatives are ripe to rethink their views and affiliations.
34 Steven R Linnabary // Mar 3, 2009 at 12:23 pm
Actually, each of us are more comfortable in different atmospheres.
Locally, I am most comfortable at the HempFest. I think the LP gets really good feedback at such functions.
I’m not a gun person, but I do help out at the local gunshows. I don’t think we get as good a reception there, though. Other Libertarians that help at gunshows believe differently, so we continue going.
Other local Libertarians enjoy the Pride Festival, and believe we are making real inroads with the gay community.
These are activities we are committed to locally. I certainly expect the National arm of the LP to do outreach to groups that are not available to local groups, such as CPAC. I hope there are other conferences that National is working toward doing outreach.
One group would be the Islamic community. Last September I helped at the Islamic Society of North America conference (it was held in Columbus). We were warmly received, and I really think it would be worth our while to have National make sure we had table space at the next conference (possible staffed with locals).
Of course, there ARE other venues for outreach, none of which will result in the majority in attendance becoming Libertarian. But bickering over whether we should even be doing outreach is counter productive.
PEACE
35 Erik Geib // Mar 3, 2009 at 12:30 pm
Ok, so I can see there’s a lot of speculation on this page about the LP’s intent concerning CPAC, but as an actual LNC intern working the event, I’d like to offer a little insight:
-First and foremost, the staff had numerous discussions concerning our desire to attend a similar ‘progressive’ event for outreach, but we’re largely unaware of most of them. I’ll try and bring up America’s Future Now to see if anyone’s heard of it.
-Second, no LP member at CPAC betrayed any Libertarian beliefs, and we spent most of the day trying to argue *for* gay marriage/rights, individual choice on abortion, etc.
-It’s also worth noting that we signed up a tremendous number of ‘moderate’ Republicans who agreed more with the LP on social issues than the GOP. This included hundreds of pledges, and even a few ‘dues-paying’ sustaining members. We weren’t there ‘courting’ conservatives… rather, we were there trying to find ’small l’ libertarians and reign them into the party. The Romney, Huckabee, Palin, Limbaugh, etc. types did not much like us, or we, them.
-Finally, I think a presence at events like this further solidifies the LP’s image as a growing party, and a viable alternate to the DNC and GOP. Our table was constantly abuzz with activity (compared to very little buzz or activity elsewhere at the event), and many people (especially young people) were very pleased to see us there. The LP is successfully moving away from its image as a small, fringe party and into acceptance as a mainstream force. Events like this are of great aid to this movement.
Now, take what I said for what you will as, after all, I am just a lowly intern (as many of you know the job market’s not exactly great right now), but all this speculation and internal politicking does very little good for anyone. Let’s unite all our factions and move forward with viable libertarian alternatives to the many problems plaguing our country today.
36 Robert Capozzi // Mar 3, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Thanks for your on-the-ground reporting, Erik. If there’s ONE demographic I like for the LP growth, it’s moderate Rs, who tend to be fiscally conservative, socially liberal, and war averse.
I’m biased, as an East Coast sort, but these people are especially homeless these days. The foundation of being pro markets and tolerant on social issues is a foundation I especially find prone to L-ism. The GOP has REALLY left them, swerving hard right. The Ds are swerving hard left.
Principled-but-flexible-and-open-minded centrism is a winning tack, seems to me.
37 Susan Hogarth // Mar 3, 2009 at 1:04 pm
Erik,
Thanks for your work at CPAC and (I presume) elsewhere for the Party.
First and foremost, the staff had numerous discussions concerning our desire to attend a similar ‘progressive’ event for outreach, but we’re largely unaware of most of them. I’ll try and bring up America’s Future Now to see if anyone’s heard of it.
I had never heard of AFN (though Paul Frankel may have mentioned it on Saturday in Charleston; I’m a bit blurry on that evening:) but I quickly googled it this morning as an example. I’m sure there are others. There are two ways to find them (and I’m sure I’m not telling you anythign you don’t already know) – networking and searching. If none of your immediate circle is aware of them, you need to expand your searching and/or networking reach.
But those of us in the Party who DO want to see more left-outreach can also share such information – and we have a responsibility to do so. HQ’s responsibility is to not blow us off by saying “They’re a bunch of commies and no one respects them” – which was the essence of the response I got to an inquiry about tabling at an antiwar rally sponsored by ANSWER a year or so ago.
I am hopeful that the new staff will be more responsive to suggestions from the membership in the future.
…all this speculation and internal politicking does very little good for anyone. Let’s unite all our factions and move forward with viable libertarian alternatives to the many problems plaguing our country today.
Our factions ARE united – and will be so as long as we are all within the LP. It’s (too) easy to just say ‘let’s all get along’ without discussing and acknowledging real differences of opinion about strategy for moving forward. Such discussion can be strengthening rather than weakening, but answering legitimate concerns with ‘let’s just do SOMEthing’ is usually nonproductive and often seen as insulting.
38 Susan Hogarth // Mar 3, 2009 at 1:08 pm
The GOP has REALLY left them, swerving hard right. The Ds are swerving hard left.
Bah.
Both the DP and The RP have swerved hard STATEward. The LP needs to offer the alternative to people interested in the rights of *individuals* rather than the powers of the state.
39 Gene Trosper // Mar 3, 2009 at 1:34 pm
@38
I really like that response, Susan!
40 Erik Geib // Mar 3, 2009 at 1:45 pm
I wasn’t trying to insinuate we should take the ‘let’s do something’ approach. Rather, I was only trying to strengthen the notion that inter-party sniping (i.e. some of those above who decided to assume the national office’s intentions and/or speculate as to what occurred at said event) isn’t productive for LP growth and outreach.
As an additional note, I’d like to say I’m quite proud of the diversity in the party, as it reflects the independence and individuality of the party’s constituents. I’m merely concerned with the tone and diction of some of its members, as we all too often (we, as in individuals) assume defensive positions in defense of our words and ideas under the assumption (false or not) that someone may misconstrue our language or intentions. Rhetoric is important in the battle for liberty – just ask any ‘mainstream’ independent voter who is turned off by use of words such as ‘empire’, ‘lies’, ‘big brother’, etc. Despite the validity of such statements, few Americans are keen to listening to such things. The two ‘major’ parties realize this… Hell, look how easily they both use the term ‘war’ for Iraq. There’s no war going on there (the war ended long ago) – it’s an occupation – but that’s not even half as legitimate sounding.
As such, I’m merely suggesting that some of us not be so quick to assume the intentions of others, and tread carefully with our language in doing so. The sniping that can occur without such action makes our attempts to grow the party look disorganized and weak.
And yes, I understand the irony of the defense of my position (which does require at least some small amount of assumption on my part) given the rant I just partook, but please understand I view the semantics of that as relevant as the absolute/relative argument.
41 Erik Geib // Mar 3, 2009 at 1:47 pm
As for response 38, I agree whole-heartedly. The Republicans attempt to be cultural collectivists, the Democrats are economic collectivists.
42 Austin P. // Mar 3, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Erik where’s my debate packet?
43 G.E. // Mar 3, 2009 at 2:27 pm
I’m glad to know the LP was fighting the good fight for statist-welfare marriage and infanticide. THAT’s what’s really important!
LP = disgusting.
44 volvoice // Mar 3, 2009 at 2:52 pm
Erik,
I hope some of those young guys from “Students of American Liberty” out of East Tennessee State University stopped by to say hello. These guys are Libertarians reaching to the left through the antiwar movement. Left/Right …whatever, we should be reaching out to anyone who will listen. But….people are wanting some action from National on some kind/any kind of outreach to the left….sooner rather than later. I’m in that crowd.
45 Robert Capozzi // Mar 3, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Susan 38,
I don’t disagree. Hard left and hard right are both stateward in my book, two sides of a coin. It some ways, they look very different, but both want massive increases in the State.
46 Trent Hill // Mar 3, 2009 at 3:17 pm
VolVoice,
There were about 10 kids from Students for Liberty, they were a nice group a kids. However, no one really paid much attention to them or their booth–Yound Americans for Liberty was the talk of CPAC with their 70+ volunteers and 100+ chapters.
47 Susan Hogarth // Mar 3, 2009 at 3:35 pm
The Republicans attempt to be cultural collectivists, the Democrats are economic collectivists.
Too simplistic, IMO. Many Rs are just as interested in having the state control ‘the economy’ as many Ds are – and many leftists truly value small businesses and individual property rights.
Caricatures of the RP and the DP are useful – up to a point. Beyond that point they serve more to cloud than to clarify thinking.
I’m merely suggesting that some of us not be so quick to assume the intentions of others, and tread carefully with our language in doing so.
I absolutely agree. But if you are relatively new to the LP (and I consider myself a newbie at 8+ solid years of state-level activism), you might consider that the frustration you’re hearing isn’t necessarily the result of prejudicial ignorance or a willingness to think the worst of HQ staff (though there may be some of that), but the result of years’ of experience with staff ignoring the possibility – let alone the necessity – of outreach to the left.
As I said, I have high hopes that this will change quickly over this next year. I suppose we’ll see.
HQ has the issue that many if not most of the staff there have come to the LP from the right, and specifically from the RP. That *in itself* is not a bad thing, but it does lead to some less-than-optimal functioning such as the situation where you describe where the staff had numerous discussions concerning our desire to attend a similar ‘progressive’ event for outreach, but we’re largely unaware of most of them. As an activist, I find that frustrating to hear. Rather than ‘numerous discussions’ where people talk to people *just like them* (and apparently just as ignorant) and – unsurprisingly – discover nothing new, did it occur to anyone to simply *ask* left-libertarians (or, heven forbid, an honest-to-god Democrat) about progressive events? Or even to *google*, for heaven’s sake?
HQ folks need to be aware of this evident selection bias within national’s staff (which the LNC should not have created, but that’s a different rant) and try to compensate for it by *actively seeking advice and help* from left-leaning Libs (and, dare I say, from libertarian-leaning Libs such as myself). Left-libs are *eager* to help with suggestions, effort, and money – just try asking, and then listening to what they have to say! Rather than trying to imagine what left-libs think or know, just try ASKing them.
Also, while I’m ranting, let me suggest that as an intern, phrases like “The LP is successfully moving away from its image as a small, fringe party…” are not going to ingratiate you with the folks who’ve spent years’ worth of hard effort getting the Party to the point where you have condescended to believe it’s ‘mainstream’ enough to deserve your attention. NOR will such phrasing do the LP any good – publicly calling your employer ‘near-fringe’ is a bit of a no-no in the Paying World, I’d say. A better alternative might be to stress how the reception the LP gets at such functions shows how far the LP has come. That subtly *praises* the work of older activists by giving them some credit for bringing us to where we are, rather than subtly insulting them by suggesting that they contributed to the marginalization of the LP.
48 Michael Seebeck // Mar 3, 2009 at 3:47 pm
OK, time to put on my old Outreach Director hat and Lights of Liberty two-time triathlete mantle for a moment.
Susan @ #4 is correct in that we need to do outreach in both directions.
Ross @ #5 is correct: theme the booth to the expected audience.
Brian’s concerns @ #9 are mitigated by doing what Susan suggests @ #4.
Gene B’s comments @ #14 are correct in that when one group is in power, outreach the other direction as it is more effective since the losing group is searching for the solution to win again, and that makes them more likely to turn to us.
Leymann @#15 doesn’t get how to message property rights into the “Peace, Land and Bread” schtick of Obama (who is really “More War, We Let Them Take Your Land, and We’ll Give you How Much Bread We Feel Like”). The message is that we (the LP) want you to have a fair shot to earn what you can and keep what you earn and make your own choices with it.
Michael @#17: “We” starts with “me”, else there can be no “we”. The classic collectivist rebuttal is that a collective is composed of individuals and that no collective is strong unless each and every individual in teh collective is strong and that’s only accomplished by looking out for the individual through giving them their freedom and liberty, and the ability to be responsible. Not slamming you; just that’s the answer to that statement.
Richard @#20, the outreach you suggest is good but it is more of a state-by-state issue since each state is different in their college system. California is vastly different than Kansas in both size and composition, for example.
Steven @#34: you touch on a most important point, besides working both directions, and that is to get the volunteers who are most comfortable in certain venues. I sucked at gun shows but did them anyway, but I kicked butt at PrideFests and outdoor events. My dogs kicked butt at everything, but then again, they’re social elephants anyway. Getting the volunteers is tough, no doubt.
Erik @#35: Talk to LPSF, specifically Starchild, for some left-leaning event ideas. Ditto Eric Garris at AntiWar.com.
Susan @#38: Both have turned stateward, just the DP has turned stateward left and the GOP stateward right. You’re both correct.
I guess I see outreach as more of a state and local than a national undertaking, which isn’t to say national shouldn’t do it–just that he spots should be picked carefully. The real challenge is to get the volunteers to do it and the venues to do it in–some are just cost-prohibitive, others are volunteer-prohibitive, still others both–and getting the theme right. I know that at a Pride Fest, for example, we themed for privacy, property, and equal rights, while at a gun show it was obviously property rights and RKBA. When we did mosque security we focused on protection of religious freedom and the privacy of the members in the mosque (this was on 9-14-01, BTW). Gimmicks can be useful (the classic of the LP matchbooks at drug rallies and anti-smoking ban rallies comes to mind, as does Joe Johnson’s 8-foot Lady Liberty costume, which was awesome and unfortunately stolen, but was useful in a parade float which hit 135,000 people live and another 300,000 on TV!), and they events can be real fun.
OK, end of soapbox for that.
49 Trent Hill // Mar 3, 2009 at 6:00 pm
http://digg.com/politics/There_were_Third_Parties_present_at_CPAC_too
50 paulie cannoli // Mar 4, 2009 at 4:24 pm
I agree.
51 paulie cannoli // Mar 4, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Generally agreed. However, keep in mind that Democrats and leftists who believe peace and civil liberties are as high, or higher priorities than big spending on social programs are also out of power under a Democratic administration, just as Republicans who believe real spending and tax cuts are as important or more important to them than the social agenda of the religious right or a jingoistic foreign policy are out of power under the Republicans.
And in truth, both groups also contain many people who don’t feel strongly on the issues that separate them from libertarians, or are open to conversion on those, or even already agree with libertarians (at least softcore libertarians, and sometimes even hardcore libertarians) but vote for one or the other major party due to tactical reasons (that they can win statewide and federal races and we can’t).
52 paulie cannoli // Mar 4, 2009 at 4:35 pm
All good ideas. At the national level, we need some sort of network – not necessarily through the official party apparatus, in fact, probably best as an independent project – to share them.
It would, of course, be nice if LP.org and/or LP News reported such outreach successes and linked the tips/networking site when we have one. But I think we can get the word out about it even if they don’t.
53 paulie cannoli // Mar 4, 2009 at 4:52 pm
I agree. However, has anyone checked at whether they are willing to rent us a table and what it would cost?
I recall someone who worked at national at the time (possibly Steve Gordon, but I’m not sure) saying they looked into it, and could not get anyone from the conference (then called Take Back America) to cooperate with them at all. I don’t know the truth of it, since I have not contacted them myself, so I’m curious if anyone has.
Perhaps state parties could do it if national won’t?
Agreed again. Does anyone know of a good resource for finding such events in one place online? I can post info about hempfests, peace rallies, pride rallies, migrants rights marches, and other one-issue events that could be useful to LP.
Can the radical caucus organize such efforts? If it is outside our scope as a caucus, we need a new caucus or organization of some sort for this purpose.
54 paulie cannoli // Mar 4, 2009 at 4:57 pm
Well, yes. But criticizing the situation doesn’t solve it.
If you are willing to help organize efforts to create libertarian outreach at left-leaning events, the criticism can be constructive. If you come back with some answer such as the LP is too embarrassing to promote, it doesn’t change the current course of things. If you point out what you have done in the past, or what you are doing through non-party related efforts now, it does not do anything to address the specific problem you point out here.
55 paulie cannoli // Mar 4, 2009 at 5:06 pm
On the contrary, more and more people are realizing that we can’t afford big government to continue to wreck the economy, manipulate the money supply with a monopoly currency backed up with increasingly non-existent faith and credit (faith based money), lock the haves and have-nots into place by putting a lid on market processes, etc.
Obama does not offer peace. And he won’t deliver it, any more than the Soviet Bolsheviks who actually used that slogan did. Nor did they deliver bread, although they did manage to redistribute the land. Their failure to deliver peace and bread is, of course, what led to their downfall.
All the more reason they should embrace the laissez faire policies which would make that possible for the greatest number of people.
Fancy slogans won’t put food on the table and obscure academic theories won’t pay the mortgage.
Someone forgot to explain this to the Keynesian managerialists who form the economic policies of the bipartisan concensus.
56 paulie cannoli // Mar 4, 2009 at 5:12 pm
It depends on which “liberals” you are talking to, just as it does with conservatives. In my experience, “liberals” are more open to libertarian ideas than conservatives.
Of course, that depends how libertarian ideas are presented as well. Since the last few decades have consisted of libertarians marketing libertarian ideas in conservative-leaning rhetoric, naturally more groundwork has been laid there.
The typical picture that both conservatives and progressives paint is that big government tends to redistribute wealth downwards. Conservatives and progressives differ as to whether this is a good thing.
To be relevant – and accurate – libertarians need to challenge this narrative and point out that big government actually tends to distribute wealth upwards ; that it tends to make environmental problems worse, not better; and on down the line with other leftist goals, which many libertarians share (something which many in our potential target audience don’t even know to be the case at all).
57 paulie cannoli // Mar 4, 2009 at 5:14 pm
Exactly.
Libertarian ideas should be presented in such a way that points out that non-coercive sharing is the best, most effective and most just way to help people.
58 paulie cannoli // Mar 4, 2009 at 5:17 pm
I agree.
Maybe some state parties can lead the way?
I’ve also proposed creating an independent organization to facilitate such efforts outside the party.
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2421661756
http://pauliecannoli.wordpress.com/2007/08/03/college-libertarian-organizing-committee-2/
59 paulie cannoli // Mar 4, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Who does the LP send its news releases to?
60 paulie cannoli // Mar 4, 2009 at 5:21 pm
I didn’t know most Conservatives considered their litmus test issue.
61 paulie cannoli // Mar 4, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Good idea. Any plans by the LP (or any LP chapters) to set up at ACLU events?
62 paulie cannoli // Mar 4, 2009 at 5:26 pm
I think you talked past each other on that one. Brian was referring to outreach booths at ideological conferences sponsored by the national party, not radical or left-leaning libertarians running for office, which is a different topic.
63 paulie cannoli // Mar 4, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Exactly the point of being there.
64 paulie cannoli // Mar 4, 2009 at 5:27 pm
Exactly!
65 paulie cannoli // Mar 4, 2009 at 5:28 pm
I agree.
66 paulie cannoli // Mar 4, 2009 at 5:29 pm
Yes, but many of his followers came from the left as well.
Something which the LP could certainly accomplish as well with a little bit of marketing savvy, since it is unlikely that they backed Ron Paul because of the social conservative issues where he diverges from the LP.
67 paulie cannoli // Mar 4, 2009 at 5:31 pm
Good point.
68 paulie cannoli // Mar 4, 2009 at 5:34 pm
Erik,
Good points.
If there is serious interest in finding other events where libertarian-leaning leftists are likely to be at, I can help with research. I also recommend promoting college/youth outreach as much as possible.
69 paulie cannoli // Mar 4, 2009 at 5:37 pm
It used to be called Take Back America. I did mention it, but I thought it was called Empower America.
70 paulie cannoli // Mar 4, 2009 at 5:44 pm
Susan @ 47
right on the money.
71 Trent Hill // Mar 4, 2009 at 6:07 pm
hahaha. Paulie is like the last 15 comments, lol.
Hey–do you want to post some stories? I can email them to you.
72 sunshinebatman // Mar 4, 2009 at 6:08 pm
“Endless cash”? I don’t think a booth at CPAC costs more than a few hundred bucks. The only other costs would have been for xeroxing literature.
(ACLU usually has a booth at CPAC, btw.)
73 Trent Hill // Mar 4, 2009 at 6:14 pm
sunshinebatman, you’re right. A booth at CPAC costs less than $1000, I believe. It only costs about $5000 to get on stage for a few minutes.
74 paulie cannoli // Mar 4, 2009 at 6:25 pm
hahaha. Paulie is like the last 15 comments, lol.
Yeah, I just got back from SC yesterday and am catching up on my reading. This is the first time I have had a chance to read this thread, so I’m responding to everything at once. There are some other threads I haven’t gotten to yet.
Hey–do you want to post some stories?
I’ll try to get to some tonight or tomorrow. I have way many more that I want to post than I have time to get to.
BTW I added contact.ipr as a separate “page” (like “about”) but it did not show up. I think it needs approval from you to be linked from the front page.
75 paulie cannoli // Mar 4, 2009 at 6:26 pm
“Endless cash”? I don’t think a booth at CPAC costs more than a few hundred bucks.
I think the point was that we have been at CPAC and CLC a bunch of times, but not at equivalent progressive events.
76 Leymann Feldenstein // Mar 4, 2009 at 7:09 pm
Paulie Cannoli said “All the more reason they should embrace the laissez faire policies which would make that possible for the greatest number of people. ”
You mean the same laissez faire policies put into place by the founding rich white guys who established a constitutional republic to protect the propertied interests of the greatest number of rich white guys?
77 paulie cannoli // Mar 4, 2009 at 7:15 pm
You mean the same laissez faire policies put into place by the founding rich white guys who established a constitutional republic to protect the propertied interests of the greatest number of rich white guys?
I don’t tend to think of things like slavery and genocide of the native population as laissez faire.
78 Leymann Feldenstein // Mar 4, 2009 at 7:26 pm
Michael Seebeck said “The message is that we (the LP) want you to have a fair shot to earn what you can and keep what you earn and make your own choices with it.”
Your idea of a “fair shot” may be alot different from that of an unemployed factory worker with a high school education being thrown out of their house with a wife and kids to support. Equal opportunity means different things to different people, and those born into wealth with all the advantages that come with it have alot more fair shots and “equal opportunity” than those born into poverty. As George Orwell revealed in “Animal Farm” some people are more equal than others.
If the LP was smart they’d stick to civil liberties and pacifism. The rest is just another form of economic and social Darwinism, which benefits the few who are superior and talented and leaves the rest to exploitation and extinction.
79 paulie cannoli // Mar 4, 2009 at 7:35 pm
benefits the few who are superior and talented and leaves the rest to exploitation and extinction.
Any force-based alternative benefits the few far more so than a voluntarily-based approach.
The few being those who wield and enforce the power of the regime, and those with sufficient pull – whether that pull consists of money, as in the crony capitalism of the USA, or power through connections, as in the USSR – and the many being everyone else.
A voluntarily-based approach does not always produce equality, but it certainly produces greater prosperity than a force-based approach, since no committee can plan the economy better than it can plan itself.
Over time, although not always necessarily, this means that the poorest people under a voluntary-based approach are better off than they are under a force-based one.
Given the tendency of a force-based approach to squelch innovation, over even more time, it also means that the poorest people in a voluntary-based society are better off than the richest people in a force-based social, political or economic regime.
80 paulie cannoli // Mar 4, 2009 at 7:39 pm
If the LP was smart they’d stick to civil liberties and pacifism.
Force-based monopoly governments don’t just grow in the direction you want them to. They have to have strong military and police forces to enforce their economic (dis)order. They have to enter into foreign quarrels to exercise their troops and weapons, and bolster their weapon industries. They have to suspend civil liberties to deal with those who oppose their disastrous economic and military policies.
It all ties in together.
Of course, there are any number of leftist parties that claim to support peace and civil liberties.
So what would be the point of the LP becoming yet another one?
81 Leymann Feldenstein // Mar 4, 2009 at 7:52 pm
Paulie Cannoli wrote “Someone forgot to explain this to the Keynesian managerialists who form the economic policies of the bipartisan concensus.”
Despite the occasional recessionary cycles, the Keyenesians haven’t done too badly the last few decades. From my own experience conditions were actually alot worse in the 70s and 80s with stagflation and the misery index. In 1982 the misery index was in the 20s. Assuming things today get worse before they get better I still don’t expect the misery index to get above 15.
Keynesian deficits to finance WWII ended the depression, and laid the basis for the postwar recovery and economic expansion of the 1950s and 1960s. Deficit spending under Reagan, despite high interest rates, stimulated economic recovery and expansion in the 1980s. Deficit spending also avoided what could have been a protracted recession after 9/11. The trick this time around will be to stimulate the economy but knowing when to put on the brakes in time to avoid the “irrational exuberance” which led to the irrational expansion of credit preceding the current collapse.
When you’re in a plane and the engines fall off you don’t get into a debate over whether God intended man to fly. You use the tools you have available to deal with the emergency and save the philosophical arguments for the classroom.
82 Rocky // Mar 4, 2009 at 7:55 pm
Much is made of doing outreach by tabling at conservative/liberal/progressive events. I suggest that the LP CREATE events which reach across the spectrum. As I envision it, these would be single-issue events which would be inclusive of other political persuasions who agree on those issues – LP sponsored anti-war conference, LP sponsored pro-marijauna rallies, LP sponsored LBGT events, etc. Invite others to co-sponsor/participate.
Be the change!
83 Leymann Feldenstein // Mar 4, 2009 at 8:08 pm
Paulie Cannoli wrote “Of course, there are any number of leftist parties that claim to support peace and civil liberties. So what would be the point of the LP becoming yet another one?”
My point is what is the point of the LP being the LP. I’ve maintained the statist LPers should find their home in one of the other statist parties, and the anarcho LPers should join forces with those activist organizations promoting peace and civil liberties.
Instead of wasting time and resources subsidizing the LP bureaucracy and appratchiks, put them to better practical use supporting groups such as MoveOn, AntiWar (kudos to Angela Keaton for seeing the light), NORML, etc.
84 Steven R Linnabary // Mar 4, 2009 at 8:15 pm
I see nothing useful coming from “supporting” pro war groups such as MoveOn. MoveOn WAS antiwar when the wars were republican. Now that Bush is gone, MoveOn is silent on the wars.
MoveOn is not about to bite the hand that feeds them.
PEACE
85 Rocky // Mar 4, 2009 at 8:39 pm
@#83 – Would that be the same MoveOn that has become a wing of the Democrat Party and is now shilling for Obama’s health care and economic “stimulus” and climate policies as its 3 main issues with the war in Iraq (no mention at all of the war in Afghanistan/Pakistan and Obama’s coming war with Iran!) pushed down to #4?
I prefer to work with UP&J and ANSWER on the left side of the antiwar issue – at least they still recognize the empire as their main issue. I agree with Steven @#84; I don’t see much that MoveOn would be good for.
86 paulie cannoli // Mar 5, 2009 at 11:13 am
Keynesian deficits to finance WWII ended the depression, and laid the basis for the postwar recovery and economic expansion of the 1950s and 1960s.
On the contrary, the fed’s manipulation of the money supply caused the depression, and the big government programs of Roosevelt prolonged it by several years. Managerialist manipulation of the economy has held down much growth and innovation that would have otherwise taken place.
Deficit spending under Reagan, despite high interest rates, stimulated economic recovery and expansion in the 1980s.
It created a bubble which is now collapsing, along with the entire post WW2 bubble.
The trick this time around will be to stimulate the economy but knowing when to put on the brakes in time to avoid the “irrational exuberance” which led to the irrational expansion of credit preceding the current collapse.
There will be no more tricks. The managerialists trick bag is empty. The expansion of credit was pushed by the government. They are not smart enough to manage and manipulate the economy; all they can do is screw it up. It’s like a bunch of brain damaged monkeys doing surgery with carpenters tools.
When you’re in a plane and the engines fall off you don’t get into a debate over whether God intended man to fly. You use the tools you have available to deal with the emergency and save the philosophical arguments for the classroom.
When managerialists have manipulated the economy into a crisis, you don’t let them keep manipulating it; you get them the hell out of the way and let the market correct itself. The longer this is avoided, the bigger the correction when they are finally unable to manipulate it any longer.
I think we are at that point now, but even if we aren’t, allowing them to administer yet another shot of economic dope just causes an even bigger collapse later.
87 paulie cannoli // Mar 5, 2009 at 11:16 am
When you’re in a plane and the engines fall off you don’t get into a debate over whether God intended man to fly.
It occurs to me that this analogy attempts to paint the economy as some sort of machine which requires central managers to operate. Of course, it isn’t: it’s more like a river which follows a natural course, which they have channeled and dammed (and damned). A big wave is here, and the dam is breaking. It will cause much more destruction than if the river had not been channeled and dammed.
88 paulie cannoli // Mar 5, 2009 at 11:16 am
Much is made of doing outreach by tabling at conservative/liberal/progressive events. I suggest that the LP CREATE events which reach across the spectrum. As I envision it, these would be single-issue events which would be inclusive of other political persuasions who agree on those issues – LP sponsored anti-war conference, LP sponsored pro-marijauna rallies, LP sponsored LBGT events, etc. Invite others to co-sponsor/participate.
Be the change!
Good point.
89 paulie cannoli // Mar 5, 2009 at 11:31 am
My point is what is the point of the LP being the LP.
The point should be to
A) promote making government smaller on all issues as a unified whole – peace, civil liberty, and laissez faire – and to point out the connections between them, which make each necessary for the existence of the others
B)Within the realm of partisan politics, which allows libertarians to reach audiences which academic discussions never reach, and to exercise leverage by swinging races and opposing otherwise unopposed candidates.
The major parties don’t do A. Other parts of the libertarian movement don’t do B.
put them to better practical use supporting groups such as MoveOn, AntiWar, NORML, etc.
Moveon is only useful when Republicans are in office. Other single issue groups (Gun Owners of America, Marijuana Policy Project, Drug Policy Alliance, etc.), and other broader libertarian movement groups (Mises Institute, Reason Foundation, Downsize DC, Advocates for Self Government, Center for Small Government, International Society for Individual Liberty, and so on) can and should certainly be supported.
But they do not take the place of the LP.
Neither do libertarian caucuses in the major parties, although they have their place as well.
90 Trent Hill // Mar 5, 2009 at 2:02 pm
“It’s like a bunch of brain damaged monkeys doing surgery with carpenters tools. ”
So I shouldn’t have gotten the breast reductions?
91 paulie cannoli // Mar 5, 2009 at 2:09 pm
That depends. Were they hairy and growing out of your back?
92 Susan Hogarth // Mar 18, 2009 at 7:02 am
We weren’t there ‘courting’ conservatives… rather, we were there trying to find ’small l’ libertarians and reign them into the party.
*wince*
Erik, I think you mean ‘rein’ above – although actually I would suggest that’s a poor word choice – something like ‘woo’ might be more appropriate. I do agree with the sentiment, and that is also the goal of tabling at AFN.
Leave a Comment