Frank Reichert wrote:
I sense here a couple of things here, mainly, that (1) the LP has long ago
lost relevance for addressing the real issues, and (2), if that is the case
then finding a way to refocus on the real issues. Both of these, I believe,
are probably the most important problems in trying to deal, or try and
resolve, with the idea of when might be the best time to hold a political
Convention.
If the LP can't find a way to be relevant, then it really doesn't matter
when - or whether - it holds its convention.
In suggesting such, I understand that the national mainstream media has
spent it's lot in confusing the real issues, which probably explains a lot
as to why the LP Conventions have historically been ignored by the
mainstream news. Most of the LP's self-proclaimed agenda is pictured in
terms of dealing with such things as the 'war on drugs', and other rather
wedge issues that don't seem to resonate very well with the mainstream
public.
Part of the reason LP issues like the drug war don't resonate is because of
the holier-than-thou attitude so many in the LP have. If you don't agree
with them 100% on every issue, you're not a "real" libertarian. The interest
in purging those who agree with 90% in order to maintain purity is greater
than the interest in expanding the base.
Usually, local LP candidates do better in local elections. I know I did,
at least twice, than the LP standard bearers at least. Probably that might
be because local people are known best by the locals, and so they vote for
them on the basis of what they know of the individuals running. When I
have personally run for public office however, I have never divorced myself
from our main issues. Often I have obfuscated these issues as not relevant
particularly to my own campaign, and for that you might have a clue as to
why local candidates to much better than the LP does on a national scale at
the local level.
Which demonstrates that there is no coattail effect. A presidential
candidate is important for whatever minimal publicity he can get that no one
else would and for rallying the troops.
As for local campaigns, I would guess there is a combination of (1) greater
understanding of which issues actually matter plus (2) people voting for you
because they either know you or know someone who knows you and therefore
vote for you even if they aren't libertarians plus (3) people being willing
to cast a protest vote in a down-ticket race either because they decide it
doesn't matter or because the race looks like a rout anyway, so why not?
Of course an LP primary is a ho-hum thing at best for 99.5 percent of the
population.
Admittedly, of course, that seems to be the case. Some of that is largely
because we are stuck with the LP Platform issues, particularly on the
abortion, border, and more radical issues revolving around the Drug War
etc. But some of that might be changing now. The LP also was first
onboard in renouncing the global 'War on Terror'! At least a large
percentage of mainstream America may be rethinking the later one at least
as I write this, since the greatest terror might be coming from our own
government as we speak in the minds of many today.
An LP primary is a ho-hum thing because nobody thinks it matters and because
the candidates often talk about "inside baseball" issues that don't matter
to those outside the party. I don't see the LP pushing the abortion issue
that heavily in most cases. The Drug War is an issue that should be a
(relative) winner, since 35% of the public agrees with marijuana
legalization, and another 35+% agrees with medical marijuana. LP candidates
tend to present their position on this issue badly.
As for the "War on Terror," that is an issue that is going to drag down the
Democrats in 2006, maybe 2008. Yes, I meant to write Democrats. I know
you're against the war, but most people are not. (I actually don't believe
most people are against the War in Iraq; it depends on how the question is
asked.) The war on terror, which should be renamed the War on Islamic
Fascism or Islamic Fundamentalism or something like that, continues to enjoy
great popularity. Anyone who is weak on that will be perceived as weak; that
is why the Dems will not win the White House in 2008. If you don't believe
me, look at the position Hillary Clinton is trying to stake out. If she
thought being anti-war were a winner, she'd be there. I realize her
political instincts are very weak, but Bill's aren't.
Such a perception isn't all that bad, honestly, because a lot of us have
been essentially saying that for decades already! The alter-math in saying
such a thing is that might possibly bring you into a confrontation with the
real terrorists in our midst, the Homeland Security forces that are looking
for reasons to find a way to silence you.
Maybe I am simply suggesting that the LP today ought to be more relevant,
and even perhaps vehemently so, by suggesting that the police state that we
are becoming needs to be confronted and challenged.
That would be a good way to get lumped in with the Cindy Sheehans, the
Michael Moores and the Moveon.org whackos.
I know you are reluctant to call it that, that is, when I call in the
fascist mindset that seems to be forming the basis of the neo-conservative
basis for actions of this government. Well, at least in the 1960s, people
were willing to call a spade a spade, and protest! We're starting to see
some of that again, but not nearly enough to energize a real
anti-establishment movement.
A lot of the people protesting in the 1960s were Marxists who wanted the
U.S. to lose the war in Vietnam, which we did *because of their protests.*
Don't believe me? Ask the Vietnamese. One of their leading generals said
that if it weren't for the antiwar movement in the U.S., they would have
surrendered. The people who protested in the 1960s were not for liberty;
they were just anti-US. I was too young to remember the 1960s well, but to
call it fascist, from what I know is pretty silly.
To define this somewhat, the establishment simply is the spin on everything
that belongs to America today, why we do what we do. This certainly was the
case in the 1960s, because I was there, and I, and almost everyone else
within my age, knew where the battle lines were. I had to personally make
a lot of choices. Everyone did, often siding with the establishment during
those times, and sometimes siding with radical criticism also. There is a
huge difference today. We are either with US, or we support the
terrorists. That is chilling, to be sure.
Why? The Islamofascists wish to destroy us as a people and convert everyone
to their variety of Islam, killing everyone who doesn't agree. How can you
be "neutral" under such conditions? Even if you disagree with aspects of
U.S. policy, how can you not be anti-terrorist?
Thank you. But I wish the LP could and would continue to be even more
assertive and confront what is obviously a blatant attempt to demand blind
obedience to the omnipotent STATE! It will be irrelevant only because it
refuses to confront a rather obvious deification of GOVERNMENT over the
lives and minds of individuals.
Honestly, it doesn't matter very much to me personally. A government that
controls me, whether from a socialist or fascist mindset (really probably
most of all from the same motive or mindset), which is really the same
thing entirely, is an enemy that needs to be defeated in any way possible:
By civil disobedience, by going to the ballot box, or, in the end, by
picking up the guns and ammo and destroying it all, is all a matter
considered for sound and reasoned minds to consider.
You might like the term "Pro-American". That's nice. But as a
Libertarian, I am 'Pro-Liberty', and as an American that has to take a
profound starting point in how I value such a definition of myself.
I am pro-American and pro-Liberty. That means I do not always support U.S.
government policies, but I do want our country to win and I recognize the
consequences of our losing. I am not convinced you feel the same way. I
think sometimes you let your understandable hostility to the US govt. blind
you to the fact that our enemies are far worse. Sometimes in a war you have
to choose allies you don't fully approve of, as with Churchill's comment
explaining his siding with Stalin in WWII, "If Hitler invaded Hell, I would
certainly put in a good word for the devil."
Regards,
Doug
_______________________________________________
Libnw mailing list
[email protected]
List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw
Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
