Aaron Starr Fails to Bribe Libertarian Party Delegates

Over at Independent Political Report, Thomas Knapp reports that at the 2010 LP national convention:

"the convention considered a measure to allow voting on bylaws measures by mail. Aaron Starr, Treasurer of the Libertarian Party, estimated that such a mailing would cost around $8000–roughly as much as an issue of LPNews. Starr, a supporter of the measure, offered to pay for the first mailing. The measure ultimately failed by a voice vote."

This is not the first time Starr has pulled this stunt. At the 2007 Libertarian Party of California convention, Starr wanted a certain measure passed. I forget what it was for -- a bylaws change, perhaps. But I do remember that he publicly offered to donate $15,000 to the LPC if the measure passed.

These bribery attempts are not especially egregious. Starr made them in public, before all assembled delegates. He was not trying to buy votes for his own campaign, but to pass measures that he said (and likely believed) were in the party's best interest. Certainly, he's free to tie strings to his donations.

Even so, these were bribes. I wasn't at the 2010 convention, but I was at the 2007 convention, and I know that Starr's offer left a bad taste in some delegates' mouths.

Libertarians, even povertarians, are not especially prone to class envy. Yet an anti-elitist sentiment permeates many conventions. A feeling that "we're all equal on the floor."

Seeing a delegate flash his checkbook to donate money earns goodwill. But seeing a delegate flash his checkbook in an attempt to buy votes for a bylaw or platform change leaves a bad taste. Votes should be won on the merits -- on the arguments one can muster based on one's intelligence and principles -- and not on who has the bigger checkbook.

At the 2007 convention Aaron Starr's offer was rebuffed. At the 2010 convention Starr's offer was not only rebuffed, but he was later trounced in his attempt to win re-election for LP national treasurer.

If Starr is wise, he'll have finally learned his lesson. When you offer to donate money in exchange for delegates' votes, the answer is likely "No."

Are Rich Neocons Buying the Libertarian Party?

One of the Libertarian Party's many factional splits is that between its Povertarians (libertarians with little money) and wealthier members. Exacerbating matters is that these two groups tend to have different political priorities.

Povertarians are more likely to be Radicals, emphasizing peace and civil liberties. Rich Libs are more likely to be Reform types: pro-war, pro-Root, and more interested in economics. Thus, they are more likely to find common ground with Republicans, conservatives, and even Neocons.

I'm sure there are rich Radicals and poor Reformers. Ron Paul is no Povertarian, yet many (most?) Radicals love Paul.

But as a general rule, wealthier libertarians are less Radical. As radical activist Carol Moore once told me in an email, it does seem the pro-war libs have all the money.

For better or worse, money does help one excert influence beyond one's numbers in the LP.

Now, if you're crying "class warfare" or "Communist!", kindly stuff it. I know about true Communism firsthand. Trying to level the playing field, so that all libertarians have an equal voice in the LP irrespective of their wealth is not Communism. If you think it is, go back to searching for Obama under your bed.

How do wealthy libertarians buy excess influence within the LP? Here are some examples:


1. Joining more than one state LP.


Yup, I just learned that it's possible for someone to belong to more than one state LP.

At Independent Political Report, Marc Montoni writes at Comment 139:


"Carling is a member of several state parties, and in every one where he participates, it seems controversy follows.

"Not due to Carling, who showed up at our Virginia convention in 2003, but due to an attempt at sabotaging our presidential ballot-access in 2004 by a disgruntled former member, the Virginia LP eventually adopted a qualification for members that they must both reside in and be domiciled in Virginia. In other words, now, if someone moves out of state, the mere act of moving out of state is an ipso facto resignation of membership. Not being a member disqualifies one from holding LPVA office, also.

"In any case, I would advise all state LP’s to adopt requirements for members to be resident and domiciled; and probably registered to vote as well.

"Pick a state, and stay there!"


Montoni is referring to M Carling, an LP stalwart with many state and national titles under his belt, and (I believe) a Root supporter.

At the 2008 California LP convention, Wayne Allyn Root flew his entire family in from Nevada to get them credentialed as California LP delegates, including his then under-age daughter.

I second Montoni's suggestion and agree with the Virginia LP. You should be domiciled in the state whose party you wish to be a member of, and should only be a member of that state's party.


2. Expensive convention locals.


Perhaps the most infamous example of this is 2006's controversial California cruise convention.

Another example is the aborted 2010 Hawaii convention. Aaron Starr approvingly posted that his significant other was so thrilled that she did "cart wheels" upon learning the 2010 LP convention might be held in Hawaii. (Honolulu ranks as one of America's most expensive cities on many lists, and that's not including travel expenses to get there.)

Fortunately, more sober heads prevailed and the 2010 convention was held in St. Louis.

Then there's the 2012 Las Vegas convention, with is actually in a hotel outside of Vegas. Radicals have complained that cheaper cities, and even hotels within Vegas, were available, if one had tried to find them.

Instead, the LNC not only chose a venue that was more expensive than need be, but one that was most convenient for Root's supporters (Las Vegans who might drop into the convention and fill up empty delegate slots).

Expensive convention locales are a great way to price out Povertarians, who are more likely to be anti-Root Radicals.


3. Convention floor fees.


Some Povertarians say that it should be free for delegates to attend a convention. Delegates are already paying for their travel expenses and hotel room, and should not have to pay extra to do party business in the convention hall.

Others say that "There's not such thing as a free lunch." It's unlibertarian for wealthy libs to subsidize Povertarians' use of the convention hall.

That makes sense on the surface, but as one person (I think it was George Phillies) observed, the LNC's only task within the Bylaws is to run the national conventions. LNC membership fees should fund the convention. Only if there's any money left, should the LNC fund other stuff. Delegates are already "paying" by attending, and should not have to pay double for a convention hall that their LNC fees should already have covered.

Someone else (I think it was Thomas Knapp) wrote that by holding conventions at expensive venues, it's really the Povertarians who are forced to subsidize the hotel expenses of delegates who wish to vacation at pricey venues. (Because hotels offer discounts if you hold a convention there.)

Floor fees, like expensive convention venues, are another way to price out Povertarians. Some will come and subsidize the vacationers, but others can't afford it, and thus can't participate as equals in running the LP.


4. Bribery


I'm not talking about anything illegal or against the rules here. But sometimes, a wealthier lib will offer a large donation to the LP, provided that delegates vote his way. Aaron Starr did it at the 2007 California LP convention and 2010 national convention. I'm sure others have done likewise.

Povertarians, naturally, can't buy votes with cash. They can only hope to persuade with principles.


Perhaps some libertarians will see this post as class warfare or Communism. And I suppose that an argument can be made that "the market" should decide whether party rules that allow for the above behaviors should be permitted.

Fair enough. And to the LP's credit, Starr's offers were rebuffed.

But my commentary is part of the "marketplace of ideas." And I think the LP has a moral obligation to keep its expenses down, and its rules written, so that people of every economic background can equally participate in the LP.

Isn't that the best way to "grow the party" -- which most Reformers claim they want to do?

Is the California Libertarian Party Greasing the Wheels for Wayne Allyn Root?

What with more important news, such as the upcoming April antiwar protest rallies, I'm increasingly tired of covering the petty sleaze that infests today's Libertarian Party, but here's goes...

I'm not sure if there's a fire, but smoke indicates that Root allies in the Libertarian Party of California are trying to stuff the 2012 delegation in Root's favor.

It's been a California LP tradition that the state convention alternates between southern California one year, northern California the next. A ruckus ensued when this tradition was ignored (e.g., the 2006 convention on a cruise ship to Mexico, which left from Long Beach, CA, so it was briefly in "southern California").

Aaron Starr was state chair in 2006. He arranged for another cruise convention for 2008.

But in 2007, a new set of CLP officers were elected, partially as a backlash against Starr's cruise convention. Kevin Takenaga was elected chair. (Starr chose not to run again, because, he said, he wished to focus on being national LP treasurer). The Takenaga faction ended plans for a 2008 cruise convention (the contracts had not yet been signed).

Now, in 2011, the Takenaga administration has set the LPC convention not in northern California, but in Nevada. Root country.

Does this mean anything? I don't know for sure, but it fails the "smell test." It may be legit, but it smells fishy.

But wait -- there's more!

Now "Libertarian Girl" reports on Independent Political Report (comment #6) that the Nevada LP is spending its own cash to promote the California LP convention.

LG writes: "the Clark County excom, not my vote, voted to let the Chair alone decide to send our money to the state, who decided to let the chair alone decide how to spend it (NO I'M NOT MAKING THIS SHIT UP) and the chair has decided to spend 1500 advertising the cali convention. TOTAL FUCKING BULLSHIT, the LP in NV is corrupt, sorry Wayne but this is so far past acceptable there aren't even words"

(It's noteworthy that LG is a longtime Root fan.)

Why would the Nevada LP spend $1,500 to promote the California convention?

"Gains" suggests (comment #13): "Because they are going to stack the California delegation with WAR supporters... again. Duh. You don't even have to live in California to vote, you just need $125 and the officership in your pocket."

Is Gain's right? Well, Root did carpetbag his whole family to the 2008 CLP convention, signing them up as delegates.

"Delegate Stuffing" asks (comment #22): "Are not delegates to the 2012 national convention to be chosen at the California LP's 2012 state convention? They're not choosing any national delegates at the 2011 convention, are they?"

Gains replies (comment #25): "The WAR camp has enjoyed a very friendly posture with the operations committee in California, which has traditionally been handed the responsibility to filling in unused delegate slots from the California Convention, of which there is usually some good number.

"The responsibility is in the ExCom of California's hands by rule, and opacity in the office has lent itself to them having to, in a state of deadline emergency, OK the operations committee list for filling those slots without more than a few moments of review.

"The problem is cultural. We need officers and representatives that do this business without skulduggery, bypassing the will of membership. We also need membership that does not engage in exclusive politicing with delegation slots.

"I am not going to point at individuals for blame, nor call the set up especially nefarious on its face. Deescalating WAR's acceptance in the party seems to be a sign that that culture is starting to form.

"The answer lies in getting involved, though I am sure some force wielding authoritarian-libertarian will try to correct the issue with by-laws proposals."

It's noteworthy that...

* The LNC has set the 2012 national LP convention in Las Vegas, NV. Root country.

* The same CLP leadership that opposed Starr's cruise convention, has now shifted its principles to arrange a Nevada convention. Root country.

* The Nevada LP (Wayne Allyn Root, Vice Chair) is promoting the California convention.

* The California LP has many delegate slots available, whereas Nevada has but a few. (Hence the temptation for "Nevadans for Root" to carpetbag into California.)

If this isn't a "fix," then coincidences are certainly aligning nicely for a Root victory at the 2012 national convention (regardless of whether he runs for president or chair).

Like Gains, I don't know if anything's afoot. But petty skulduggery has long been one of the LP's few strong suits. (Yes, some LP officers no doubt fantasize about big stakes skulduggery, but if they had any skills in that direction, they'd be Demopublicans.)

Okay, now back to more serious business...

Stewart Flood Exposes LNC Control Freaks

Libertarian Party watchers have long suspected that a group of pro-war/Republican Lite control freaks (sometimes dubbed The Starr Chamber after former LNC treasurer Aaron Starr) have conspired to dominate or manipulate the LP.

Their goal was to advance their petty power and pro-war/ Reform faction policies.

Their methods included purges (e.g., Angela Keaton, Lee Wrights, Rachel Hawkridge), takeovers of state LPs (e.g., Nevada, Oregon), and slick gamesmanship in misusing Robert's Rules of Order.

Now, the May/June 2012 issue of George Phillies's Liberty for America has published Stewart Flood's following exposé:

Former LNC Member Stewart Flood writes on Independent Political Report the comments currently numbered 525, 532-535 [Ed: here are only short bits from much longer posts. Emphasis added here.]

"Now that I [Ed: Stewart Flood] am not on the LNC, I believe it is time to set some of the record straight, and blow the lid off several of the greatest conspiracies the Libertarian Party has seen...

"The Starr Chamber is not gone. They have quite a few members on the LNC and they will do their best to follow the marching orders they have been given. Yes, they actually hold secret meetings...

"I am no longer on the LNC, so I have no reason to not admit that there are secret meetings where a majority of the LNC decide in advance how to vote and where motions are written and given to members on cue cards. Mr. Starr was usually the chair of the meetings that I attended. He continued to do this (over my objection) after he was defeated in his re-election bid for office...

"Remember, I know the real plan. A few other people have figured it out on their own without being told. It is really quite clever, but this convention was a major setback for them. I have never supported or agreed with what they want to do to the party...

"The major hooded key holders of the inner circle are gone, leaving only five or six of their pawns on the LNC.

Flood does not state this group's goal. But from my own observations, these people are mostly Party Cultists, supporters of Wayne Allyn Root, and generally pro-war.

Rachel Hawkridge Quits Libertarian Party

Washington state LP officer Rachel Hawkridge (who two years ago addressed the LNC's attempted purge of Lee Wrights) joins the long list of activists and leaders who've left the Libertarian Party.

Hawkridge gives her reasons in the below email, which was forwarded to me.

Hawkridge writes:


Dear State Chairs, Friends & Allies –

Most of you know by now that I have abandoned you, disappeared, and you have probably heard that I have left the LP.

It's all true. I'm finished. Life member of the LP. LPWA's "Activist of the Year -– 1999". I'm not going to be silent, nor take any more BS from this bunch of misogynists.

Several months ago, [LP national chair] Hinkle demanded that I step down from the Convention Oversight Committee. He said I wasn't participating, that furthermore, "everyone tells him" that I hadn't done anything last term on COC.

Except the Admiral (last year's COC Chair), who when asked if this was true, said "Absolutely NOT"!

I said I had been participating –- just about one week before this demand, I had been on a conference call WHERE HE WAS PRESENT, where I talked a lot!

For most of the conference calls, I had been present, but muted, as they were invariably scheduled during dinner time with my Hugs. I listened to the discussions, sometimes unmuted and commented, but mostly eMailed in between.

I told him this, and he continued to insist that I resign, or he would remove me. He said it would "be better for me" if I resigned.

Former treasurer James Oaksun told me that most COC correspondence was not being distributed to me (nothing that went through the Secretary, Alicia Mattson). Mattson confirmed that she was not sending me the information on a conference call when David Nolan asked.

I provided proof of my presence (hours of damned conference calls from my phone bills, and eMails), and also told him that the conference call reports listed participants.

Hinkle then called me a "bald faced liar" to a friend of mine.

Then there was the Oregon debacle -– Hinkle, Mattson and Carling showed up at an Oregon convention, and Carling and Mattson intimidated the State Chair into canceling due to lack of quorum. They maintained that the quorum requirement (according to RONR) was not met, as it required a percentage of the entire membership.

Another Registered Parliamentarian provided an differing opinion, as Oregon's conventions are NOT conventions with "elected representatives" as in the RONR requirement, they are "mass meetings" where everyone who is a member is welcome. Hinkle threatened Oregon officers with "We'll be watching."

The LNC's secretary, Alicia Mattson, established a secret discussion list from which I was excluded, apparently on the basis of untrue allegations that I couldn't be trusted with confidential information. This list is used to conduct business, as the Vegas binder had printed pages from it on agenda items.

In Jan, it came to my attention that Pat Dixon was actively sabotaging the LSLA conference.

At that point, the health problems that I had fighting for a couple of months became a crisis, and I went into surgery. The result of putting off surgery for a couple of months meant that I was seriously run down, and hellaciously anemic. I spent several days in the hospital just getting TPN BEFORE I could have surgery. (TPN is nutrition by IV; in my case by a line directly to my heart.) I was in the hospital for a total of 2 weeks, followed by a long and very tough recovery.

My Hugs demanded answers from Hinkle, and has never gotten any response other than "Tell her to resign."

Hinkle is a liar, and will cut out any representative that he doesn't like. As State Chairs, we are not important enough for him to respectour State autonomy, nor our representative. He refused before his election to vote against "his friend, Aaron Starr", and now Starr has a firm hand on the puppet strings. Starr's paramour Mattson is Secretary, and taking over much of the decision making on agenda and RONR, since Hinkle is incompetent.

Finally, the "data dump" sent to State Chairs more or less monthly, most recently in April 2011, did not list me as a member, even though I'm still officially the state chair of the Libertarian Party of Washington, and a Life Member of the Libertarian Party. (Headquarters claims to know nothing about why my name wasn't on the April "data dump" for the LPWA, and claim that I'm still listed as a member).

Hinkle will lie, with no compunction, even about things that can be proven.

My Hugs and I are leaving the LP completely. He's been a member since his original member number of 324. I've been a member since 1995.

Please accept my gratitude for allowing me to be your representative, and forgive me for quitting on you. I cannot continue to be part of the disgrace that much of the LNC has become.

I urge you to elect Vicki Kirkland to Rep., and elect a new Alternate on Monday evening. Don't let the seat fall to someone who will misrepresent you.

I appreciate getting the chance to get to know all of you, and would love to continue to have a social relationship with you, even though I will not be involved in the Party.

Peace.

Rachel Hawkridge
Sovereign Woman, Nama Waycho & Lover of Hugs


Libertarian activists are abandoning the dysfunctional LP (which increasingly behaves as a subsidiary of Wayne Allyn Root Enterprises), and are instead investing their time and money in Antiwar.com, Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty, or really, anyplace other than the LP.

Pro-War/Antiwar Divide Behind New York Libertarian Party Purge?

Dr. Tom Stevens writes about a purge within the New York Libertarian Party.

If this is your typical LP infighting, then the procedural rationales are trivial, convoluted, and fake. Usually, the ostensible reasons for any LP purge or feud are a cover for some underlying personal or ideological dispute.

Here's what I find noteworthy about Stevens's report:

"While the main culprits behind attacking the Queens LP and Dr. Tom Stevens (our unanimously elected State Representative) have been Blay Tarnoff, Gary Donoyan and M Carling (the same people behind the 2006 de-chartering of the Queens LP)...

"...In the months leading up to this action, John Clifton, LPQC Chair, proposed two bylaws amendments to change the State Bylaws, the sum and substance of which would have allowed duly chartered chapters to elect a Chair and State Representative of their own choosing..."

To divine what's really going on in any LP feud, it helps to know the personalities involved.

On one side of this dispute is M Carling, an ally of Root supporter Aaron Starr. That is, Carling belongs to the LP's pro-war faction. (Root, Starr, and Carling would probably dispute the term "pro-war.")

Curiously, Carling has been active in both the New York and California LPs, and has reportedly been active at Oregon LP conventions.

On the other side of this current LPNY feud is John Clifton, who has been an "outside the box," pro-peace thinker, at one point suggesting that the LPNY endorse Cindy Sheehan for Senate.

Are there pro-war/antiwar, Reform/Radical motives underlying this current feud?

I don't know. It's possible.

However, in 2008 Dr. Tom Stevens ran for president on the Objectivist Party line, with the very pro-war Alden Link as his running mate. And they're apparently doing so again in 2012.

Curiouser and curiouser.

Libertarian Party of California; Dirty Tricks at the State Convention

One reason I'm sick of going to Libertarian Party conventions (state or national) is all the Parliamentarian tricks that opposing delegates play to subvert one another. The sort of petty, dirty tricks that's typical of Demorcrats and Republicans ... and, unfortunately, also of Libertarians.

LPC delegate Carolyn Marbry reports this from last weekend's state convention in Long Beach:

"A common trick I saw put in play this last weekend in CA was the handing out of flyers while your opponent was making his nomination speech. Rustle, rustle, and the delegates are distracted. [Mark] Hinkle did it to [Michael] Seebeck when he was running for rep and [Aaron] Starr did it to me during the excomm meeting to try to derail my resolution re: floor fees, er, I mean poll taxes, er, I meant registration fees.

"I'd love to see that crap stopped because it's simply bad manners. I'd love for the delegates to see it and appreciate it as bad manners and a clear indicator of a weak case, for someone to resort to that or to waving a sign at excomm members saying 'orders of the day — adjourn?' to try to keep a resolution from being presented."

Marby's comment may be found at Independent Political Report.

In their defense, Democrats and Republicans compete for real power, and real outcomes. Libertarians don't have that excuse. They compete for crumbs, yet with a hysteria that implies they think it all matters.

Libertarian Gamma Males Hate Alpha Males

Control freaks have long pestered the Libertarian Party. They infest the LP from time to time, trying to dictate how everyone should behave "to win elections," or what the party's message should and should not be. The Nevada LP's recent crack down on its county parties is one example. The actions of the Reform/liberventionist/Root faction provide other examples.

Even so, the control freaks always have a hard time because, as it's long been said, trying to manage libertarians is like herding cats.

Now I've come across an interesting term, in an article about Herman Cain, that relates to this phenomenon -- the Gamma Male.

From reading this article, it seems to me that Alpha Males can easily rule Beta Males -- but the LP is mostly composed of Gamma Males. Alpha Males (which is what I consider Bob Barr, Wayne Allyn Root, Aaron Starr, and some others, to be) cannot control Gamma Males. Gamma Males don't want to rule, but they rebel against control.

(Yes, there are some women in the LP, but unfortunately, the party's fate is still largely determined by male power dynamics.)

Here's the relevant excerpt from the article, by Daniel M. Ryan, found at EnterStageRight.com:

"The division of people into Alpha and Beta started, unsurprisingly, with experiments on rats. Studying social dynamics, the scientists found that certain rats struggled to assume leadership of the rat packs and tended to end up as leaders. They were labeled Alphas. Other rats didn't fight for leadership, and were content to follow: they were labeled Betas. The two categories seemed exhaustive, until those rat-watchers discovered a third kind of rodent.

"That rat was labeled the Gamma. Superficially, it appeared to be an Alpha. What differentiated the Gamma from the Alpha was the former's disinclination to either lead or follow. Gammas that got leadership slots grew tired of being the boss and went off on their own. Interestingly, they were confused with Alphas but not Betas. Gammas weren't much for following....

"The Gamma personality has not entered the popular argot, despite the Gamma's correspondence to a definite psychological profile. A Gamma male, or female, is a dominant loner.

"Like their rat counterparts, [Gamma humans are] not much for following but show little inclination to lead. In a way, it's surprising that there's not more recognition of the Gamma personality because there's a whole Gamma subculture right in front of our eyes. As dominant loners, whether rough-hewn or refined, they're inclined to be individualists.

"As people, they tend to assume that other people are like themselves. Consequently, they tend to see the leader-follower bond as a little odd or degrading. Some are more sophisticated then others, but their psychological profile inclines them to look on leaders with suspicion and followers with disdain.

"H.L. Mencken, to take a single example, was all Gamma. What other kind of person would see democracy as something akin to a well-run slave plantation, with vote solicitation obliging the master to always wear velvet gloves and keep pampering the slaves? His knack of portraying political leaders as either rascals or buffoons went hand-in-hand with an eternal contempt for their supporters and followers. Clearly, H.L. Mencken's own political prejudices squared tightly with the Gamma profile. So does anyone who despises the "sheeple" for needing the sheepdog."

Read the entire article.

On Angela Keaton and Ron Paul

My editorial in the January 2009 issue of California Freedom, which subscribers should have received by now:

Some of our best libertarians -- our most principled and productive libertarians -- are outside the party. For instance, Ron Paul. And joining him now, Angela Keaton.

* Angela Keaton

Angela Keaton resigned her At-large seat on the LNC shortly after their December meeting, during which she was subjected to a silly and unimportant disciplinary hearing, orchestrated by LNC Region 4 Representative Stewart Flood. Michael Seebeck reports on the meeting on page 1 of this issue, along with links.

Most of the charges against Angela were of her publicly criticizing the LP and its leaders, with her usual irreverent wit. She'd also joined a Boston Tea Party Facebook account, thus lending support to a competing political party. (Whereas Bob Barr only contributed millions of PAC dollars to GOP candidates running against LP candidates, while he sat on the LNC. Small potatoes compared to a Facebook account.)

Yes, Angela speaks freely and doesn't care if she offends. She can be abrasive and blunt and impolitic. She does not easily tolerate fools. She asks tough questions of LP leaders, and demands strict adherence to principles. A no-nonsense nun, ever ready to smack mushy-headed libertarians with her ruler. Or with a funny zinger.

I wasn't at the LNC meeting, but like others, I followed it live on IndependentPoliticalReport.com. IPR eyewitnesses reported that, as Flood presented his "evidence," attending activists began to laugh. So did some LNC members. Flood grew ever more irate, which increased the laughter, which further incensed Flood.

Judging by the laughs, the funniest exhibit in Flood's case against Angela was a photoshopped image of her and LP Treasurer Aaron Starr, posted on Angela's Anarchist Bitch blog, captioned: "Luka Skywalker meets her father, Darth Herr Vader."


In describing the event, Thomas Knapp said: "Stewart Flood's presentation of 'charges' and 'evidence' against Ms. Keaton came off as the clown show it was. Accounts from on the spot describe open laughter from the audience and a public near-nervous-breakdown on the part of Flood himself. Keaton acquitted herself quite well, speaking in her own defense... She denied the LNC's authority to dictate what opinions she would express or how she would express them,"

Flood's resolution moved to suspend Angela's LNC membership, to be rescinded upon her submitting a letter, for publication in the LP News, apologizing for a laundry list of alleged misdeeds.

Rather than suspend or clear Angela, the LNC sent the matter to committee for further investigation. To which Angela replied: "I will under no circumstances submit to any committee investigation."

Angela resigned a day or so later. She cited health reasons. Eric Garris, her boss at Antiwar.com, issued a letter saying that Angela's LNC work was interfering with her duties at Antiwar.com, and she must choose one or the other.

I've heard rumors that Garris was merely offering Angela a gracious excuse to exit. One longtime Los Angeles LP officer opined to me, "I think Angela just got tired of all the petty b*llsh*t on the LNC, and said 'to hell with it.' And I don't blame her."

Angela Keaton will now devote her full time to Antiwar.com and the cause of world peace. The LP's loss is humanity's gain.

* Ron Paul

On December 13, 2008, the California Secretary of State issued the official results for the 2008 presidential race, write-in votes included. They are:

Barack Obama ..... 8,274,473
John McCain ..... 5,011,781
Ralph Nader ..... 108,381
Bob Barr ..... 67,582
Alan Keyes ..... 40,673
Cynthia McKinney ..... 38,774
Ron Paul ..... 17,006
Chuck Baldwin ..... 3,145
James Harris ..... 49
Frank Moore ..... 36

The top six names appeared on the California ballot as candidates for the Democratic, Republican, Peace and Freedom, Libertarian, American Independent, and Green Parties, respectively. The latter four were officially certified write-in candidates.

Most Californians were unaware that Ron Paul was a certified write-in candidate and that votes for him would be counted. Even so, Paul pulled over 17,000 votes -- without appearing on the ballot, without a current campaign, without the public even knowing that he was a viable option.

Imagine how many votes Paul would have won had the public known that write-in votes for him would count?

And how many additional votes had Paul been on the ballot?

Even many Libertarians were unaware of Paul's official write-in status. Some told me after the election: "I'd have voted for Paul, had I known my vote would count."

Chuck Baldwin was the Constitution Party's write-in candidate. The American Independent Party (which had been the CP's California affiliate) split over the war issue. Baldwin supported the CP/AIP's traditional noninterventionist position. Alan Keyes was the choice of the pro-war faction. A California court ruled that the Keyes faction was the legitimate AIP representative, so Keyes's name appeared on the ballot.

James Harris ran on the Socialist Workers Party. Frank Moore ran on the Just Makes Sense Party. Moore has been described as a "performance artist," so his campaign might have been an extension of that, rather than a serious political endeavor. His running mate was cable access TV "sex therapist," Dr. Susan Block.

Curiously, both Harris and Moore received under 55 write-in votes. One must obtain signatures from 55 pledged electors to be a certified write-in candidate in California, so it seems that even their electors didn't want to "waste their votes" on Harris and Moore.

On December 14, the Constitution Party's Bill Lussenheide reported on IndependentPoliticalReport.com: "There were three counties in California that did NOT count the write in votes for either Chuck Baldwin or Ron Paul. [And presumably, not for Harris and Moore.] Their totals should not be considered complete. [They are] Del Norte County, Mono County and San Benito County."

So it seems that Paul received more votes than recorded in the state's "official" report. Which is somehow poetically appropriate, considering the candidate and the state.

As Joseph Stalin reputedly said: "It's not who votes that counts. It's who counts the votes."

* LP Conventions

I congratulate the LNC on one good decision. The 2010 LP national convention will be held in St. Louis. Good choice. A cheap locale for most povertarians, conveniently situated in the middle of the continental U.S., and not in some pricey state like Hawaii, or on an expensive cruise ship. Room rates are $109 a night.

The LPC state convention will be held this April, in Visalia, California. That's near Fresno.

Peace and Glasnost

My editorial, in the April 2009 issue of California Freedom:

When Mikhail Gorbachev became Soviet dictator in 1985, he announced a policy of glasnost, which has been translated as "openness." He meant that Soviet media should freely promote a diversity of opinions, rather than parrot the party line. Party decision-making should be transparent. Criticism of party leaders should be welcome. Citizens' opinions should be heard, however "negative."

I've been told that I shouldn't discuss America's foreign interventions. I should only print material that "all libertarians agree on," otherwise I'm being "divisive." I shouldn't cover LNC meetings, or disagreements and embarrassments, or debate and discussion. I should only print "positive" stories. Doing otherwise violates CF's Mission Statement.

Yes, CF has a MS. Here it is:

"CF is the official publication of the LPC. Its purpose is to promote and enhance the political success of the party. To accomplish this it provides an informative and entertaining blend of political news, analysis, features and advertising for its members. Its content focuses on: 1. California events, rather than national; 2, Externally oriented politics, not internal debate; 3. Our successes, rather than our disappointments; 4 Libertarian analysis of political positions enjoying support from the mainstream of California voters; 5. Practical guidance on winning elections and changing public policy."

At the 2007 LPC convention, I asked Elizabeth Brierly about the MS's origins. She told me that Bruce Cohen had asked her to draft a MS to guide future editors. Elizabeth prepared a first draft, which went round robin between herself, Bruce, and Aaron Starr, with the two gentlemen offering changes until the MS met their specifications.

ExCom approved the MS on August 20, 2005.

Like a Constitution, a MS must be interpreted. To say that CF's content "focuses on" X rather than Y can mean either that X articles/LTEs should predominate over Y articles/LTEs (the free speech-oriented interpretation); or that X should exclude Y (the restrictive interpretation).

It's been suggested that my coverage of LNC activities violates the rule against "internal debate." Why? Perhaps because it's an "internal" (party business) rather than "external" (election campaign) matter.

But if we interpret "focus" so restrictively, CF could not promote or cover party conventions. Conventions are "internal." Yet I assume that, even post-MS, CF always covered libertarian conventions, state and national.

Clearly, there is no absolutist ban on covering "internal" matters.

Perhaps the problem is with "debate"? I may cover "internal" matters, but not debate about internal matters. Actions by party leaders may be reported, but not questioned.

No, I can't believe that's what the 2005 ExCom intended, despite some party leaders distaste for glasnost. (One reason the LNC persecuted Angela Keaton was for her live blogging the September 2008 LNC meeting to the membership.)

I interpret the MS's phrase "focuses on" to mean that X material should predominate over Y (comprising a majority of CF's content), but not exclude Y. Certainly, antiwar is a position "enjoying support from the mainstream of California voters."

I would like to print more about county LP events and election campaigns, but I'm getting few submissions. I assume we're in a post-election year doldrum. If you want to read about "California events," then write it. I can't publish what I don't get.

Finally, I was told that CF should not print discussion or debate about contentious party issues, because those are properly left to the conventions. The problem is, many members aren't aware of internal controversies unless they're reported. If they don't know, they may not attend the convention. This creates the risk that party business will be ceded to well-organized minority factions.

I have changed the tone of CF from two years ago. I hope I've brought glasnost to it. Transparency about party matters, and openness to debate, may bring "divisiveness" and "negativity." But it would be ironic if a libertarian publication had less glasnost than the late Soviet Union.

* We're All Demopublicans Now

On March 9, Donny Ferguson, LNC Director of Communications, sent out a mass email, writing: "the most important principle is winning" and "There is nothing more noble and principled than winning an election" and "winning elections is the most important libertarian principle there is." These sentences were boldfaced and underlined to emphasize his theme.

Winning is also the Demopublicans' most cherished principle; all other principles are negotiable. Seems the LNC has just equated Demopublicans with Libertarians.

Susan Hogarth reprints Ferguson's article, with her reply.

* Libertarian Muslims

In every war, The Other is demonized. I've never confused Russians with Communists, or Germans with Nazis, yet always, some self-styled patriots will conflate the actions of some with an entire race, religion, or ethnicity.

It needs repeating: most Arabs and Muslims are not terrorists. Some are libertarians. Their website: Minaret.org.

* Independent Political Report

A critic accuses me of insisting on the last word. He's miffed that I replied to one of his articles.

He's also wrong. Many of my editorials are sprinkled with urls. Rather than have the last word, I often give you "heads up" on key issues, then send you off to research further.

I often refer you to Independent Political Report.

This is the current "hot spot" for discussions (and flame wars) about the LP. Party leaders post here. LNC meetings are posted -- while in progress. The site is uncensored, unmoderated, and easy to post to. Anonymously, if you wish.

Glasnost indeed!

* Rob Power Resigns

Rob Power resigned from ExCom at the conclusion of their March meeting. He writes that he "went to Long Beach with every intention of resigning" and he "merely signed" his resignation letter at the meeting's conclusion. He adds, "I'm going to be writing a detailed explanation of why I decided to resign."

Power's term was to expire in 2010. Now there'll be an additional At-Large seat to fill at the Visalia convention.

* Late March Issue

The March CF went out late. I finished it in February, but I have no say when issues are printed or go online. Even so, I'm sorry the Riverside LP meeting notice ran late. I advise future LP event notices to be submitted way in advance.

* Libertarian Peacenik

If you can't get enough of my long, rambling, "antiwar obsessive" editorials, visit me at: Libertarian Peacenik.

Peace. Glasnost.

It's Not Just About "Getting Votes"

My "From the Editor" column, which appears in the October 2007 issue of California Freedom:


Although I've been following the LP for thirty years, it's only in the last ten that I've heard the refrain: "The LP is a political party. It's not a social club or a debating society. It's about getting votes."

Those who say this usually begin by sniping at the LP's lack of electoral success. Then they invite everyone to be part of their solution to fix things--or get out of the way!

Unfortunately, there's no agreed upon solution. Two self-styled experts have chided me over the years for not knowing how to "get votes" even as they feud with each other. One in particular wins fewer votes every time he runs, yet this hasn't stopped him from extolling his vote-getting expertise on blogs and listservs.

However, I'd rather advance liberty than "get votes." And to do so, the LP must also promote education and stay true to principle.

If we can attain liberty by winning elections, fine. But why not also advance liberty by other means, if possible? Some would reply, "Because the LP is not a think tank, a social club, or a debating society." I disagree. The LP is a tool, to be utilized however best fits our needs.

Yes, we're a political party. A third party. A different animal from a major party. Different strengths and weaknesses. A cat who fights among lions because "being feline is about winning the 'lion's share' of the carcass" will lose. But this doesn't mean that a cat can't "get food" by other means.

A third party's primary strength is its freedom to speak truth to power. Liberated of any chance of winning most elections, our candidates have the luxury of saying things that people need to hear. It's nice to have libertarian think tanks and artists doing so as well, but political campaigns can educate people in ways that think tanks cannot. We should not ignore using elections as teaching tools.

The Libertarian Perspective, a series of weekly op-eds that the LPC syndicates to the media, is a mostly educational effort. Can anyone say that we should stop this effective program because "we're a political party, not a think tank"? (Kudos to Aaron Starr and Richard Newell for establishing The Libertarian Perspective.)

The various socialist parties did much educating in the 19th and early 20th centuries. They lost many elections, but won many hearts. In time, both major parties promoted socialism due to popular demand. Likewise, the Prohibition Party won few Congressional seats, but helped change people's thinking so that the 18th Amendment became reality. And the Reform Party won enough votes in the 1990s to compel the major parties to address deficit spending (however briefly).

That's how it's worked in America. Third parties rarely attain power, because once their ideas gain popularity, the major parties steal their agendas. And a major party that offers X appeals more to voters than a third party offering X, because a major party has the power to effectuate X.

It may be our destiny to advance liberty by pressuring the major parties into passing our agenda. Fine with me. I don't care what letter a politico has before his name so long as he advances liberty.

Like it or not, we're street fighters, not backroom insiders. We are the vanguard of liberty. The Anti-Bolsheviks. We must fight (peacefully) for a libertarian revolution on all fronts, not just on the ballot. In letters to the editor, radio and TV call-ins, speaking engagements, and protest marches. To paraphrase Tom Joad: "Wherever there's a rally against victimless crime laws, we'll be there."

If I'm wrong, no problem. The activism of LP Educationists and Electoralists (those who emphasize vote-getting) do not obstruct one another. Both groups want to advance liberty. Both need votes to do so (either to elect Libertarians, or to pressure Demopublicans into passing our agenda). And both require an educated public to win those votes.

Each of you is free to decide whether to emphasize campaign work or educational efforts. We need both.

What we don't need are people who would sacrifice principle in order to "get votes." We must not drop unpopular stances, or shun unpopular victims of the state, for fear of "losing votes." I'd rather we lose elections than lose our integrity. I've no sympathy for those who, because they "want to see some liberty in my own lifetime," would sacrifice an unpopular person's liberty for their own.

It's easy and tempting to play to the mob. But as a party of reason, we've set higher standards for ourselves. This requires educating and elevating voters to our level, rather than descending to the level of Demopublicans.