Henry Haller wrote: HH> we would need to add the sections that define the issue, the libertarian solution, and the action/transition steps to get there. <HH
I'm increasingly skeptical of the issue/principle/solution/transition structure. Can somebody take a sample plank and walk us through how that extended structure has bridged differences instead of exacerbating them? The record of that structure in the 2004 platform is dismal. For example, the Transitional Action sections of eight of the 2004 platform planks demanded various "immediate" repeals etc. The language in the Transitional Action section is actually more extreme than the rest of the plank for these six other 2004 planks: Victimless Crimes, War on Drugs, Right To Keep And Bear Arms, Immigration, Trade Barriers, Election Laws. For many other planks, the transition section is just as extreme as the rest of the plank, or essentially restates what the rest of the plank says, or is an alphabet-soup list of laws and agencies that we demand be abolished. The "two sandbox" model -- if indeed that is how the structure has been intended to operate -- seems to invite the sort of extremism and editorial incontinence that many of us believe are the platform's two biggest problems. HH> My major concern is the omission of any plank dealing with the current erosion of our civil liberties which the current administration justifies as necessary for internal security. <HH In a platform of ~20 planks, we don't have much room to devote a separate plank to restate our existing principles as a criticism of an administration that will have only six months left in office when the platform is adopted. We should organize the platform around positive and enduring assertions of our rights and liberties, as opposed to laundry lists of current trends we oppose and why our opponents are wrong. Is there a specific civil liberty being eroded that is not already affirmed (or not affirmed strongly enough) by the draft platform? If so, we can fix that. The only items in the Bill of Rights that are arguably not mentioned by the draft are the rights to peaceably assemble, petition the government, and not quarter troops. I haven't noticed these three rights being eroded lately. Guy McLendon wrote: GM> So again my question is with regard to the Atlanta consensus: Does the LP have enough organizational spirit to complete one idea before we jump around to another? <GM Did anything get written down about the "Atlanta consensus"? I for one am willing to be educated about the history and merits of the Atlanta structure. But I doubt that many of us will be easily persuaded by invocation of tradition for tradition's sake. :-) I was and remain willing to work on George's program of rewriting and consolidating 6-10 planks per convention, but with the Portland Platform Revolution we have what might be a one-time chance to scour away almost all the barnacles that have encrusted and obscured the Platform's shining principles. We should be prepared both to capitalize on that opportunity, and to make constructive progress if that opportunity eludes us. GM> its an absolute requirement that the Platform Committee be prepared to recommend changes that basically mend the Platform based upon its current form. [...] Perhaps the theme of the Denver Convention will be Platform Café with two entrées on the menu. <GM Or more. People are proposing such good fixes to the Greatest Hits draft that I'm going to split it into two versions: one that keeps language from prior platforms whenever possible, and one that isn't shy about fixing problems in that language while remaining recognizably inspired by it. We probably can't sell the latter version unless we show its connection to the former. Kevin Bjornson wrote: KB> If the statements were general enough, they would satisfy puritans while at the same time allowing room for pragmatists. We don't need to make a neutral "issue" statement as a preface. <KB Hear! Hear! KB> The entire platform should fit on four 8.5"x11" pages. That way, printing and mailing would be cheaper. [...] The first paragraph states the main idea, and a summary of 3-5 main arguments. Following are 3-5 paragraphs, one paragraph per main argument. Within each paragraph are sub-arguments. The last pargraph recapitulates the 3-5 main arguments [...] <KB The Greatest Hits draft would easily fit on two sheets. But if you're looking for a piece of marketing literature to hand to the average voter, then don't author it by committee at biannual conventions requiring 2/3 approval under bylaws that also allow for random plank deletions, challenges to the Judicial Committee, minority reports, etc. The bylaws-mandated plank structure virtually guarantees that the Platform cannot make a good mass-mailing. The goal of Platform reform is not to write the ideal voter outreach pamphlet. The goal of Platform reform is to remove the obstacles to writing voter outreach pamphlets that are ideal for each of the various kinds of voters. We shouldn't make Platform reform harder than it already is. Let's write a Platform that does its job, so that our candidates and other marketeers can do theirs. The job of the LP Platform is to provide a comprehensive but terse reference document for looking up what direction the LP advocates for any important area of public policy. The job of the LP Platform is not to be a magical text that will convert to libertarianism 51% of the average voters who read it. No such text is possible, and we would be setting up the platform reform movement for failure if we frame our effort that way.
