May 24, 2004
Thoughts on the LP 2004 Presidential Race -- Part 1: Joining and Leaving the Russo Campaign

I'll write about John Kerry and George Bush in a while, but for the time being, I want to focus on the Libertarian Party's race for its presidential nomination. The convention (and the nomination) are in a few days, and it's long overdue for me to weigh in.

Since I left the Russo campaign in April (at Aaron Russo's request), a number of people have asked me to clarify why that happened. And it's possible to answer that in a short sentence, but any answer to it has a lot of context behind it. My departure from the campaign was due to a culmination of things, and I've been struggling with how to explain it fully without explaining it all-- because to explain it all is a very big task, and the more I say, the more there is to hold up for contention within the party.

For those who aren't aware, there is a sort of combative gossip matrix within the ranks of the most hardcore Libertarian Party activists. If someone of any note within the party says something that can form a kernel of controversy or debate, it is likely to ricochet around e-mail lists and discussion boards and form the basis of conflict between Libertarian activists. This is never more true than during (or concerning) the presidential race.

I learned how mighty this phenomena was a few years ago, when I wrote an e-mail, which was titled "On healing, and moving forward for liberty", which was a rant against LP infighting, combined with a plea to end the divisiveness. It ended up being used by a prominent LP activist out of context, and was still being passed around (deceptively-- with the date removed, altering the context) almost a year after I sent it -- being used as fodder for the forces of division in the party. For all I know, it's still being passed around by people who want to tear down instead of build up.

And as people who are close to the presidential campaigns this year know, anything that is said about either candidate becomes instant fodder for the grist mill -- generally with one side silently cheering, and one side attacking, the person who dares to be critical about either candidate.

I'm critical by nature, and when it comes to presidential campaigning, I'm especially critical. Thus my hesitance about sharing my impressions on the presidential campaign -- especially considering that many of the people on both sides of this year's battle will be involved in choosing the camps for the 2008 run. In other words, I could make trouble for myself in my own plans.

In that context, I've been trying to decide whether (and/or how) to share my collective thoughts about my experiences in the Russo campaign. Because my review is, on the whole, not positive.

In the end I decided that my fellow party members deserve to be as informed as possible when choosing their presidential nominee. It's a very big decision, and I think I can add useful information for people to make that decision. If you notice me over-explaining, it's because I am trying as hard as possible to be thorough and clear, and trying to answer questions in advance where I can.

With that said, here is the first of (probably) 3 entries on the LP 2004 presidential race:

--------------------------

I've been almost entirely silent about the respective Libertarian campaigns here on my blog. At first it was lack of interest-- frankly, 7 months ago, the LP race was shaping up to be pretty boring. Gary Nolan -- a dependable and hard-working, if unexciting, candidate -- was taking all the necessary steps to earn favor within the party, and Michael Badnarik didn't appear as though he was mustering up enough steam to put up a serious fight. None of the other competitors were making enough effort to be seriously considered. (In fact, I may chastise them in another entry some day, for wasting our time and interest -- or worse, taking advantage of those things -- with frivolous campaigns. I'm looking at you, David Hollist. ;-\)

Enter (via a spam e-mail announcement) Aaron Russo. I had heard of Russo from here and there in the freedom movement. I probably knew of him mostly from his aborted 2002 run for Nevada Governor, and his offer years ago to put up tens of thousands of dollars to get Nevada's medical marijuana program up and running.

His e-mail announcement, and the site it led to, were charismatic and pretty exciting. The campaign seemed promising, if incomplete -- the site was by no means a thorough campaign site, but was more of an extended video brochure introduction to Aaron and his beliefs. He was labeled "Your Independent Voice", and there was no mention of the Libertarian Party. I looked through a lot of the site, decided not to sign up on the volunteer page because it required way too much info, and that was about it. I think I signed his petition against the draft back then, but I'm not sure. That was in December of last year.

Then in January, there was a new flurry of news about the Russo campaign. There was a story in LP News, which brought out this comment from me: "This is cause for some celebration. The possibility of the LP having a charismatic presidential candidate is very cool." The LP story had Russo explaining that he had planned on running as a Libertarian all along, he just wanted to try and attract independents for a while before declaring as a Libertarian. He said that so many Libertarians were asking him about that that he had to announce as a Lib to settle the confusion. There was a story in WorldNetDaily about Russo's anti-draft petition. And then there was a release posted on LibertyforAll, which was what finally got me back to Aaron's website. I did fill out the volunteer form that time, at least in part because it was the only clear way to keep in touch with the campaign.

A week or two later, I received a YahooGroups invitation to the russo-volunteers group, which I accepted. That's when the ball really started rolling. Campaign Manager Steve Gordon sent me an e-mail that started with "Welcome aboard! I have been read [sic] your blog for some time, and greatly appreciate your efforts for the cause of liberty. I wish you the best of luck." I sent an e-mail back which said in part, "...I'd like to talk to you soon about Aaron's campaign. I'm considering the idea of devoting a lot of time to it in the coming months. Is there a good time this evening or this weekend that we could talk more fully?" And thus began a roller coaster ride in the form of my involvement at the top levels of the Russo campaign (as, variously, ghost writer, Campaign Adviser, Media Manager, Communications Director, and Web Guy) which went on until early April.

It ended on April 9th (correction: 8th), during a phone call between Aaron and I, which was purportedly supposed to be about establishing a workable financial agreement between the campaign and I, and instead ended up becoming a (final) clash of peronalities and opinions. I'm not sure how Aaron would characterize why he decided he didn't want to work with me, but I'm guessing he would say that I had a bad attitude and could be obnoxious. (He had apparently said the former to Steve Gordon about me on one or more occasions, and he said the latter to me during that phone call.) I would say that it was because I was too firmly opinionated, and was willing to stand up to Aaron firmly on various points of contention. It's a matter of perspective, I guess. I can say this, though -- in every situation where Aaron and I came at odds with each other over a certain point, it was after a series of conversations between Campaign Manager Steve Gordon and I, where Steve and I were in agreement and Steve (according to his account) had grown fed up with attempting or had been unable to persuade Aaron on that point.

The disagreements that I can recall are: going negative against Gary Nolan's campaign (I've been very against it), raising and spending more money earlier (I've been for it), and "you can't run a serious presidential campaign on all volunteers" (my claim -- which Aaron didn't exactly disagree with, but our conversation about that was contentious). There may have been a fourth, I'm trying to recall. Mind you, I'm just speaking about actual confrontational conversations I had directly (on the phone) with Aaron -- there were plenty of instances where I disagreed with the campaign, and either the conversation was between me and Steve, or I didn't voice my complaint for whatever reason. I don't know how much my voice reached Aaron through Steve, so I don't know if there were other points where Aaron was seeing me as having a bad attitude.

Beyond the fact that Aaron and I both have big egos and opinions, he seemed to have decided at some point that my strategic opinion was not very worthwhile. Twice during conversations with him, I stated an opinion and he responded with a dismissive, (I paraphrase) "Oh- well, that's a strategy issue," with the implication being that my opinion was not wanted in that arena. At least twice in talking with Aaron I felt the need to re-assert that I was under the impression that I was a campaign adviser -- while on the other side of things Steve Gordon was telling me I was basically number 2 in the campaign after himself (and telling me "you're right" in response to nearly every suggestion or suggestive inquiry I made.)

The last time Aaron pulled the "Oh, that's a strategy matter" thing was in that last conversation we had-- in fact, his saying that was approximately the moment where the conversation derailed for me. We were talking about strategy at the time-- specifically, we had been talking about what I saw as a lack of attention being paid to the general election campaign. Aaron asserted that he had to focus on winning the LP nomination first, and then he could focus on the general election campaign. I agreed that he had to make sure he would win the nomination, but said that I felt that he had made doing that a lot harder than it needed to be, and that it could have been a lot easier to lock the nomination up if he hadn't done some things which had complicated the situation. He said, "Like what?" and I said, "Like going negative on Nolan, for one thing." That's when he responded with the "strategy" line. And I said something to the effect that of course it's a strategy issue, we were talking about strategy. A couple moments later (I don't remember the exact transition) I made the claim that I know more about winning the LP's nomination than he does (essentially taking a stand on behalf of the value of my strategic opinion). He replied, "That may be true." I replied, "It's definitely true." It was just moments after that that Aaron said he didn't want to work with me anymore, and shortly after that the conversation ended in an acrimonious way.

By the way, I do know more about how to win the LP's nomination than Aaron, and I feel very comfortable saying that. It's not bragging, it's just the way things are -- which is one reason I stood my ground on that point. The other reason I stood my ground was because I was tired of the lack of necessary internal campaign reform-- which, if I was to believe Steve Gordon (and I did) was due to Aaron's refusal to acknowledge the realities of the campaign, to develop a coordinated strategy, to solicit and accept input, and so on. Aaron basically summed up that notion in our last phone call, when he said something like, "This is my campaign, and I'm going to run it as I see fit."

Which is fine, as long as you know what you're doing. For example, if John Kerry said that and I was on his campaign, it wouldn't concern me in the same way, because John Kerry running his campaign as he sees fit includes having trusted advisors and taking their advice (i.e., soliciting and accepting input). It includes having a detailed and coordinated straegy. It includes recognizing the realities of the campaign. Certainly, John Kerry's campaign is his campaign, and what he says goes, but he leaves the vast majority of the task in the hands of others, and he relies heavily on the advice of knowledgeable people. Most importantly, he's not afraid to take that advice.

Three things developed between late January and early April: I developed enormous hope for the potential of Aaron Russo's candidacy, and the campaign failed to live up to that potential; the campaign did a number of things that I disagreed with or was disappointed by; and I tried (and mostly failed) to secure a paid position on the Russo campaign. The developments in all three of those areas mounted over time, and by the time Aaron and I talked on April 9th, I was basically fed up. Had I not been so fed up, or had Steve Gordon managed to gain headway more quickly in matters of essential reform in the way the campaign was run, and maybe if I hadn't been living with heavy economic stress over that time period, I wouldn't have been so firm and even pushy in my final conversation with Aaron. It may also be that Aaron had already decided against me before the phone call began, either because of my "bad attitude" or because of my pesky need to be compensated. I don't know...though the conflict between my need to get paid and Aaron's need to resist having paid staff (and to resist fundraising) was definitely a long-standing one. I may detail the money issue more later...it might depend on whether Aaron tries to claim I did a "bait and switch" in terms of asking to be paid (having previously volunteered). That's where he was heading in our last phone conversation, before we got sidetracked (and then derailed). I could explain it all in more detail, but it's a side issue, really. That situation was just a symptom of a bigger problem, and the bigger problem will be discussed in my next entry on this topic.

Next entry: Things that disappointed or disturbed me about the Russo campaign.

Posted by Lance Brown at May 24, 2004 03:49 PM
Comments

Hey I really like your site.

James Williams

Posted by: James Williams at June 13, 2004 07:39 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?