Posted at Liberty For All on December 5:
by Angela Keaton
How’ve you been? I’m doing well. Been doing some serious thinking about the events of 2008. Hard thinking. Know many of you have been. The distance has given me some perspective. And while I am thrilled with the addition of Wes Benedict as Executive Director and the emergence of Rachel Hawkridge as the conscience of the LNC, that’s not enough to reverse over a decade of damage from poor financial choices, ideological drift and endless drama.
What would I do? I would go for something completely different. As someone who is for open borders, armed kids and ending the Fed yesterday, this is why I would urge George Phillies, raging moderate, to run for Chair:
First, Libertarian Party members saw a new side to George during the various scandals of 2007-2009. Out with the timid physics professor in the taupe cardigan and in with an intellectual power house who can go head to head in debates with policy wonks on the drug war, civil liberties and that most difficult to master of subjects, foreign policy. The Chair is a spokesperson who must be fast on his feet. George has proven he keeps his knowledge current.
Second, with George, members know exactly what they will get for their money-and yes, they do expect something. George can produce a news letter and a good bumper sticker which is more than they are getting for their 25$ in several affiliates. They know the books will be well kept. Hence, more willingness to donate. People want to give money to libertarian causes but they won’t shell out endlessly for vanity ballot access campaigns and imaginary college libertarian programs. We will give to libertarians who are making honest activist efforts at any level.
Third, delegates know George is a long time party activist. His libertarian credentials go back over twenty years. “Show me your creds” is a test that some big but relatively new names fail. The LP needs more stability and consistency; fewer gimmicks and short cuts.
Fourth, many radicals (from left-libs to paleos-yes, it’s true) resent the gay and race baiting that has become all too common in the LP. Supporting uninhibited free speech doesn’t mean encouraging the worst aspects of human nature. The libertarian movement has and always will have a quiet but sizable gay and bisexual contingent. Sure, some of us are willing to cut Ron Paul some slack, but that’s an earned privilege. For me, I am tired of being told that queer concerns have to wait until someone else’s pet issue is solved.
Finally, tonight the LP could have been a player. Did you hear the God King’s speech? 30,000 more troops. Would it have been great if we had a chair who understands principle of non intervention? George does. Don’t we deserve someone who stands up for libertarian principles on the most important issue of the day?
George is libertarian enough for this radical and certainly better than the pretenders who came sniffing around during the last presidential election cycle. He can count, too. Ideological coherence and administrative competence? That’s what I want. That’s what he offers.
George, if you are reading this, run for chair. For real, this time. Not as the aforementioned cardigan wearing professor but as the leader you proved yourself to be in Denver.
““The Libertarian Party will get it’s usual >1%”
Yes, it probably will. Are you saying it will win the next presidential election? Even that would be more likely than Phillies being the next LNC chair. After all there’s more time left for things to change drastically between now and November 2012 than between now and this coming May.
” They’re too far off the mainstream to win. They alienate welfare recipients, social security pensioners, people on both sides of the immigration debate, both sides of the abortion issue, the 80% of Americans that can’t or won’t understand Austrian economics, the Bible Belt …the list goes on and on.”
All true.
“Interestingly, your list of offended parties consists of minority factions of negligible importanc”
In what alternative universe? Among likely LP delegates, they easily add up to a majority. This is why Phillies gets about 5% every time he runs for chair (4 times now if I am remembering it right) as well as last year for presidential nomination.
“The current party leadership, I understand, is almost universally reviled for their distance from their constituents, fiduciary incompetence, questionable morality, ineffectual policy, and cliquishness.”
Almost universally? Who did this polling? Is it available somewhere for review of results and methodology?
“Yet most have enjoyed multiple terms and it is estimated that those seeking to perpetuate their incumbency in St. Louis stand a good chance at success.”
How could that be true if they are “almost universally reviled”? Could it be that the reviling is actually, a noisy minority of the party? Or perhaps that those who seek reelection will go down in flames? It must be one or the other, I just don’t see how they would have a good chance of reelection if they are almost universally reviled.
“At least Mr. Phillies can propose a solution or an alternative.”
He can certainly propose it. My estimate is that he will not be the one to attempt implementing it, though. Do you have reason to believe otherwise?
@52:
Your argument is absurd, especially when viewed in the context of third-party politics.
“The Libertarian Party will get it’s usual >1%. They’re too far off the mainstream to win. They alienate welfare recipients, social security pensioners, people on both sides of the immigration debate, both sides of the abortion issue, the 80% of Americans that can’t or won’t understand Austrian economics, the Bible Belt …the list goes on and on.”
Interestingly, your list of offended parties consists of minority factions of negligible importance and embarassing obstreperousness.
The current party leadership, I understand, is almost universally reviled for their distance from their constituents, fiduciary incompetence, questionable morality, ineffectual policy, and cliquishness. Yet most have enjoyed multiple terms and it is estimated that those seeking to perpetuate their incumbency in St. Louis stand a good chance at success.
At least Mr. Phillies can propose a solution or an alternative.
Phillies will get his usual 5%. He has pissed off way too many people to win. Anyone who supported Harry Browne, Ron Paul, Bob Barr, is pro-life, doesn’t believe in global warming, 9/11 truthers, tax protesters, doesn’t have a favorable view of Abraham Lincoln’s legacy…the list goes on and on.
The Massachusetts LP is not exactly the powerhouse it was 10 years ago, apparently a lot of the former leadership felt they could not work with Phillies and are off doing other things such as Center for Small Government, Campaign for Liberty, Free State Project, etc.
Damn double post.
Excellent idea. Phillies has the potential to be a “mover and a shaker” and renovate the damaged credibility of Libertarians. He could position the party in a real neutral space between radical and reform, being as that is what he is: a “raging moderate” =)
Excellent idea. Phillies has the potential to be a “mover and a shaker” and renovate the damaged credibility of Libertarians. He could position the party in a real neutral space between radical and reform, being as that is what he is: a “raging moderate” =)
So what does Phillies have to say?
Certainly GP has some strong views on how to run the LP. From a policy-perspective, we couldn’t do better than George as far as I’m concerned. Whether he has the leadership skills — more important for the role of Chair IMO — I’m skeptical.
We can be sure that GP will NEVER take a limo on the LP’s dime 😉
Thomas M. Sipos // Dec 11, 2009: “I impugn individuals from every political background. If that upsets some Libertarians, then tough.”
Truth on, Bro ………..
ts, actually, I find this productive. I’m not a fan of Root’s attacking style, either. Impugning others isn’t cool. It’s especially uncool to impugn those on one’s own team, IMO.
Intuiting IS guessing.
From conversations I’ve had with George, he has displayed two ideas of which I favor.
1. Eliminate the expense of the DC office. Between the staff and office a large percentage of the budget goes to this. A nimble and intelligent LNC could do without most of those expenses with little damage to the current ‘operations’.
2. Hold LNC meetings via something the equivalent of WebX. The LPNY holds monthly meetings via a free teleconference service and is able to conduct 99.9999% of its business that way. I’ve also partaken in such meetings for the LNC and everybody gets their say it seems. My biggest problem attending LNC meetings wasn’t the money, though that is a factor, it’s the time. While it is nice to meet face to face on occasion, doing so isn’t imperative.
More money to assist particularly painful ballot access affiliates would do a lot for the party. I would support George in these two regards and wish him luck with all the meaningless forays that follow.
We’re going in circles. I never said “guessing.” That word makes it sound as if I’m plucking statements out of thin air.
I infer/intuit based on his words and statements.
Robert: “You are impugning the character of a fellow L “
There’s nothing magical or sacred about having an L before someone’s name. Some fine and honest L’s, D’s, R’s, G’s, C’s, and independents out there. And some dishonest folk in all categories. People are people.
It’s so childish — even cultish — to treat an L as something sacred. Yet some Libertarians (Reformers and Radicals) do this. Some are sincere, some do it to please their audience.
Well, I give no special deference to the letter L, and I expect no deference because I have an L before my name. I expect to be judged on my individual actions and words, not on the Magic L.
We Libertarians are not special. We’re not better or more honest than other Americans. The libertarian philosophy is better, but people are just people. I’ve known too many Libertarians in my life to stereotype L’s as all good or all bad.
Root impugns D’s, and many Libertarians find this pleasing. I impugn individuals from every political background. If that upsets some Libertarians, then tough.
ts, yes, thanks for feeding back. You are impugning the character of a fellow L by questioning Root’s motives, and you admit you’re guessing.
That’s not cool, IMO. Critiquing someone’s position is fair game, attacking them personally, not.
IMO.
Robert: “Perhaps we should learn to agree to disagree sometimes.”
You make it sound as if I were seeking an argument with you.
Recall, I stated my views on Root, then you jumped in to ask about my mind reading abilities.
That’s fine, but I’m merely responding to your questions and points.
elect Sipos as Inter galactic Emperor!
Allen Hacker already has that job.
ts, oh yes, perhaps re-view Paul on Meet the Press…nanny state: OK. Civil War: Not.
I say this not to tear Paul down…I admire what he’s done and doing. Root ain’t “perfect,” either…he’s like everyone…doing his best.
Perhaps we should learn to agree to disagree sometimes. Or elect Sipos as Inter galactic Emperor! 😉
ts, recall that I’m not a Root booster, but your accusation/opinion about what constitutes non-intervention rings hollow for me. You’ve not proven that Root reverted to his hawkish ways.
We agree that Paul and Phillies are both virtuous advocates for liberty. But do you honestly intuit that Dr. Paul didn’t know who the ghostwriter of the Newslettergate material was? If so, can I interest you in some FL swampland?
Thomas M. Sipos, wrong about Ron Paul. You hope he makes a bundle? He already has at the expense of the real libertarian movement. He ultimately falls into the Constitution party area. Not LP. Yet he is constantly associated with the LP because of his previous presidential run in 1988-a big mistake by the lp coming back to haunt it constantly-and the lifetime membership which is bought. He knows he can’t win with lp & cp so he joins the gop. Hypocrite AND chameleon. What you see is not what you get with him. We do not need any more of Ron Paul.
Robert, nothing wrong with book deals. What is wrong is using the LP to get one.
Especially wrong is lying about/pretending to change your views to get the LP nomination to get the book deal — and then further waffling back and forth on the positions you used to get that nomination/book deal.
I’ve no problem with Ron Paul’s book deals. I hope Paul makes a bundle. He didn’t change his views to get those deals, and what he writes needs to be read.
Paul and Phillies disagree on stuff, but both are the real deal. What you see is what you get.
ts, I’d think ANY good candidate would want a book deal and media appearances. Knapp’s working on a book, for ex.
Whether Root wants the admin aspects of LP chairmanship…who knows? I’d presume it’d be in his interests to be competent at it, if only as a stepping stone, even if your intuition is spot on.
So what does everyone here think of Mark Hinkle for chair?
I like George ,his competence is not in question , nor is his intelligence or sincerity but my biggest problem is he hates everyone or has/had problems with almost every Lib ever mentioned here.
It seems he’s got something snarky to say about alot of folks and I worry he would not bring the unity we desperately need but more divisions. w/in.
Robert, someone else already asked me if I could read minds, in a similar Root thread, many months ago.
Unless it was you, and you’d forgotten my answer?
Either way, I’ll answer again.
No, I can’t read minds. But one can infer and/or intuit a person’s thoughts and motives from their words and actions.
And Root is pretty transparent. Certainly, my predictions of his actions, made two years ago, have been right no.
I’d predicted that he’d use his LP candidacy to snag book deals, and TV and radio gigs, that he was mainly about boosting his personal profile. And I was right.
I predicted that he was an insincere and unreliable “non-interventionist.” Months after he claimed to have became a non-interventionist, he called for an Afghan surge. So I was right again.
But I claim no special powers. Many people see through Root.
ts 28, are you a mind reader? Can you read them at a distance? If so, I’ve got a business proposition for you, because your ability would come in VERY handy.
Danny,
The LNC shouldn’t be an ideological battleground. To the extent that its activities include ideological content at all, that content should be constrained by the Statement of Principles and the platform.
Rather, the LNC should be a competent board managing the financial affairs of the Libertarian Party and putting the party on a path of growth.
Among the reasons you’ll see some radicals (including, at the very least, Keaton and myself, and probably others) supporting Phillies is that he has a long record of:
– Demonstrating that he understands the LNC’s proper role.
– Making astute recommendations on how the LNC should go about playing that role.
– Making accurate predictions as to the results when the LNC doesn’t properly play that role.
I certainly have ideological conflicts with George, and we’ve ground some of those axes in public. Of course, it would be hard to find anyone I don’t have ideological conflicts with.
It’s really this simple: Of the announced or rumored candidates for chair in the next term, George is by far the most demonstrably competent. This is, and should be, the standard by which “pragmatists” and “purists” urge each other to cross ideological lines when it comes to choosing party leadership.
I would support Phillies, but he is way too narrow-minded for the LP. I can see alot of good he could do, but then I could also see a massive LP civil war start to brew.
I can’t remember where the article was, but his definition of core values a libertarian must support would be devestating if he tried to push this opinion too hard.
Root is not interested in the administrative duties of being Chair.
He just wants the Number One spot because he think it will boost his visibility and creds, thus enabling him to appear on TV and radio more often, and hopefully lead to more book deals, and maybe a paid TV or radio gig.
Of course, I’ve said this before.
I’m also sure that Root’s kitchen cabinet will help him draft statements that will spin his ambitions with words that they imagine LP delegates want to hear.
I voted for Phillies before when he ran for Chair, and I suppose I’ll do so again. He’s the real deal. With Phillies, what you see is what you get.
You’re off your meds
Tom, re: your opinion of Kubby. You are tripping. He was one of the worst candidates. Sure he is a fairly plumb line radical. But he makes way too many mistakes, gaffes etc. & stoned 24/7, who needs that in a President? Maybe if no one else was available…
Both have made statements to that regard, so apparently, yes.
Those are the ones I’ve heard of.
Kubby, a personal light weight if there ever was one …………
I am sorry for his medical problems, but he sure comes off, up close and at a distance, as a bleary eyed, West Coast Stoner with a translucent presence and fuzzy academic horse power ………
What is so special about being a big mouthed yet unresponsive blow hard whom shoots from the hips and then forgets what he said ten minutes before ??????????
Bob,
You write:
“You’d gouge your eyes out? Wow. What would you gouge out before supporting MY candidacy?”
Heart, liver, kidneys, etc. Or, better yet, YOUR eyes.
Yes, I endorsed Kubby. He and I disagreed on Ron Paul. I don’t have to agree with someone on everything to support him or her. I supported Kubby for two reasons:
1) He had the best suite of policy positions; and
2) He was hands-down the most credible, most well-known, best-self-presenting candidate in the race until Barr entered, and two of those three and competitive on the third even after Barr entered.
Agreed, the resolution to endorse RP/RP was out of order-WAY out.
The US LP national is expected to more or less do three things:
1) Public info, primarily in a website (in the old days it was a store and various periodicals) that gets people informed and interested, plus an activist/legal campaign now and then, produce various manuals, and provide orientation, legal support (file paperwork) and advice for national and state LP action by members.
2) Activist info, via conventions with training workshops/interesting crossover speakers every 2 years, so people can follow their freely chosen projects.
3) Provide a mechanism so members can select a national ticket and run a credible basic campaign (on the ballot in many states, some media) to whatever level they feel inclined.
My experience is that as long as people see a website up, convention, and a libertarian-direction national ticket every 4 years, plus a few goodies like a newsletter and d-base help, the members will feel national is doing a good job.
If they feel it’s doing a lousy job or not paying attention to their project, they have an array of Libertarian groups to turn to, many founded at US LP leader behest in the first place.
A good LNC and staff can zing it up, and a bad one the rest of LP will simply work around, but as long as they do these things on LNC, people will shrug.
They know the rest is up to the locals and members.
Root probably said to Redpath-get out of my chair. that is my stepping stone to the nomination.
I wouldn’t endorse Ron Paul over a pile of spit & puke & shit.
& yet you endorsed Kubby, who endorsed Ron Paul over himself & wanted to throw the keys to the equipment to the Iraqi’s while U.S. soldiers hopped on the evac choppers.
No, I’m not running for LNC Chair. I don’t have the patience to herd cats.
I wonder if Redpath had a little huddle with Root kinda like barr & Root in Denver, before making his announcement. If so, Root is a lock.
Is Robert Milnes running for LNC Chair?
You’d gouge your eyes out? Wow. What would you gouge out before supporting MY candidacy?
Ernie Hancock and Wayne Root are running for LNC Chair?
I met George at the convention in Denver and have come to respect him greatly. A “raging moderate” may just be what we neeed, and he has proven to be able to get things done.
Also, I’m glad to hear from you, Angela, and I’m glad you haven’t given up on us Libertarians completely.
who else is running besides Ernie Hancock , Hinkle and maybe Wayne Root?
The position of chair is pretty much an executive/administrative, not ideological position. His job is to make sure that the party is taking in more money than it’s spending, spending what it has wisely, and accomplishing its goals with its expenditures.
Even to the extent that the chair makes public statements on policy, he’s bound to constrain those statements to material that passes platform muster.
The only way in which Phillies’s “anti-Paul” attitude would likely have manifested itself during the last term is that he would probably have done what Bill Redpath SHOULD have done — ruled a resolution to endorse a Republican for President out of order.
The value of George’s presidential campaign wasn’t ideological (as a matter of fact, his positions on several issues were at least as bad as Redpath’s anti-liberty hoplophobic position as a US Senate candidate). It was in demonstrating that he could run an organization that got things done well.
His was the best-organized 2008 Libertarian presidential campaign, bar none and by a damn sight. It got mailings out frequently, in a timely manner, and of decent quality. It ran a well-done hospitality suite and a top-notch floor operation in Denver.
I’d gouge my own eyes out before I supported him for the presidential nomination because of our ideological differences, but I’ll gladly support him if he seeks the chairmanship again. He’s the best candidate whose name has been mentioned for the job.
I find myself consistently diametrically opposed to Ron Paul. Last year so did Prof. Phillies & Tom K.; if anybody paid any attention to us. So there is your chair & TWO presidential candidates. & what about The Progressive Libertarian Alliance Strategy to WIN? Oh, it isn’t a Strategy that involves the libs winning on their own & calling their own shots. Sorry. Not possible.
“Why would Ron Paul be considered anti-gay?”
Oh, maybe because even though he generally postures as a “constitutionalist,” he wanted to outlaw same-sex marriage so badly that he wrote the “Marriage Protection Act,” a law which, if passed, would have repealed the Full Faith and Credit Clause without the required constitutional amendment?
Or perhaps because when asked on national television about “don’t ask, don’t tell” he supported it?
um , that really resonated…wish it hadn’t … wish it wasn’t true
the really sad thing is , based on my observations in NV , no matter if we are kicking ass with ambition and flow or largely stagnate , the numbers on election day and thru-out the year remain unchanged. Its sobering and depressing to realize despite the effort , you’ve really accomplished very little.
We need leaders with vision who can surround themselves with proven doers. Those who run for chair must have walked the walk already.
Mr. Phillies is certainly no flash in the pan or “johnny come lately to save us all.” As delegates, we must demand all Chair candidates be experienced in accomplishing the kinds of things they claim they want to accomplish as Chair.
Recently, over a few beers, I chatted with a burned out former Party activist about what is wrong with the LP. It came down to the fact that most Party members and leaders are intelligent enough to know the LP will never win; that this knowledge effects the time and effort they put into being, say, a state chair. So they are content to be poseurs, wearing their titles but doing little to leave their state or local party better off than when they accepted the position.
Why don’t many state parties double or triple in size over several years? Why aren’t regional Natcom reps expected to grow their regions?
Why do county chairs not call meetings every month? I think there is a certain ennui that attaches to Party projects, that we go through the motions but expect no price for failure because hardly anyone else cares either. And those few who care passionately are eventually ground down by disappointment.
The LP needs to be doubling or tripling ever few years. It should not be content with spending another decade or two on the plateau of the moment with success just a dream and a promise that some magic bullet Chair or presidential candidate trots out as poseur du jour.
With all due respect to Phillies, this party in its right mind would not nominate and/or elect someone so diametrically opposed to Ron Paul.
” For me, I am tired of being told that queer concerns have to wait until someone else’s pet issue is solved. ”
Why would Ron Paul be considered anti-gay? Because he didn’t want to be assaulted by someone who acted unacceptably and grabbed him when he tried to leave the room and caught it on film? Or because Ron Paul used the word ‘queer’ in stating his displeasure at being assaulted? As you just used that word? No one should have to put up with that from someone straight OR gay. Or do you have a double standard? His openly gay campaign manager felt he was the best candidate, so I hardly think ‘gayness’ is a reason to reject Ron Paul. In fact, Ron Paul thinks all individuals should be treated the same, but that government doesn’t belong in marriage, at all.
I like that campaign slogan, “George Phillies, Raging Moderate”.
Hello. Angela. Glad to hear you are doing well. I also have called for George to be chair. My invitation to you to join my Independent ticket as vp is still open.