Report from the LNC meeting

The Libertarian National Committee is meeting this weekend in St. Louis, Missouri.

As discussed on the Libertarians for Peace list, I attended with a view toward making the case against the Boortz appearance to as many LNC members as possible on an individual basis, rather than asking for time to propose any resolution or address the committee in session. I've been able to talk to several, but not all, members, and may be able to talk with more before the weekend is over.

The news I have to report is not good, but it's not as bad as it will appear at first either. I'm reporting it in a particular order for a particular reason, with what would appear to be the "bad news" first.

The LNC passed a resolution, on a roll call vote, as follows:

"The LNC supports our Convention Committee's invitation to Neal Boortz to speak at our national convention in Atlanta in May 2004. We do not condition participation at our convention on membership in the LP or on 100% compliance with the national party platform. We welcome the continued efforts of Mr. Boortz and many others to further the freedom movement in whatever way they choose."

Votes for the resolution:

Ken Bisson, Bill Redpath, Austin Hough, Mark Nelson, George Squyres, Sean Haugh, Mark Cenci, Fred Childress, Steve Givot.

Votes against the resolution:

Mike Fellows, Bette-Rose Ryan, R. Lee Wrights, Mike Dixon, Steve Trinward, Joe Dehn.

Abstentions: Mark Rutherford, Geoff Neale

At first blush, this appears to be serious reverse. I don't think it is as serious as it looks, though.

First of all, The LNC didn't reach the issue.

Those who object to Mr. Boortz's appearance do not object because Mr. Boortz isn't in "100% compliance with the platform." We object because he is a public figure whose public stature makes any appearance on his part prima facie representative of what the Libertarian Party stands for and because he is in complete disagreement with the Party's position on the preeminent public policy issue of the day.

From that standpoint, the LNC's resolution is faulty. It doesn't address the actual issue involved. They might as well have passed a resolution to the effect that "We support wearing galoshes in rainy weather because Major League Baseball should get rid of the infield fly rule" or "We oppose socialization of medicine because Fordland, Missouri is the geographic center of tornado activity in the United States."

Because the LNC did not, for whatever reason, choose to address the actual issues involved, the matter remains very much open.

Also note that the resolution carried on a one-vote majority of 9-6-2. This is an LNC which is divided not only on the issue itself, but on what is relevant to the issue. It is an LNC that is, in my opinion, open to persuasion between now and May.

I also had a chance to talk, cordially, with three members of the convention committee: Nancy Neale, Bette-Rose Ryan and Sean Haugh. I believe that all of them are committed to publicly presenting the LP in a way that is not at odds with the party's position on the war. That doesn't mean that they are contemplating a cancellation of Mr. Boortz's appearance, but I believe that it bodes well for whatever efforts we intend to make to highlight that position.

More later.

Regards,
Tom Knapp

Posted by Tom Knapp at December 13, 2003 03:12 PM | TrackBack
Comments

Thanks for the report, Tom.

I'm puzzling over what to make of it all. Why is having Boortz as a speaker so important to them? Do they not want to admit a mistake, or look like they are caving in to pressure? Or is there a more substantive reason?

As has been discussed elsewhere, it seems many LPers hope the party can get away with ignoring foreign policy, in effect being neutral on the war. For me, the point of the Boot Boortz movement is to test whether that is really the predominate attitude in the LP. It's not so much anti-war v. pro-war, as anti-war v. "don't care", with the small number who actually support the war watching hopefully from the sidelines. In the LP, the triumph of "don't care" is the best the War Party can hope for, but if they do get that it will be a big win for them.

Regarding the LNC members who voted to keep Boortz, I don't want to jump to conclusions about their motives. Maybe they analyze the matter very differently than I do. But I want to hear from them what there analysis is, and why they want Boortz as a speaker. The reasons against are too strong for them to rest on "it was decided a long time ago". The issue is re-opened, whether they like it or not.

Posted by: David Tomlin at December 14, 2003 02:14 AM

David,

I think that LNC members had varying reasons for supporting or not supporting the resolution. For example, Mike Dixon made it fairly clear that he considered what topic Mr. Boortz might address as relevant, and wasn't prepared to support his appearance without knowing.

Of the general reasons I gathered for support of the resolution, two predominated:

1) The opinion that Boortz's name recognition would attract attention, and even that the controversy itself is a good thing in terms of getting the LP's name in front of the public -- i.e. not only are demonstrations welcome, but encouraged.

2) The desire not to interfere with -- I don't recall if the word "micromanage" was used or not -- the convention committee's work. They were assigned to put together the convention, and some LNC members think that they should be allowed to do so without having the LNC over their shoulder telling them how.

I don't think that there was any generalized feeling of support for Mr. Boortz's particular views, or any concern about caving, although either might have affected the opinions of one or two members.

Regards,
Tom

Posted by: Tom Knapp at December 14, 2003 10:42 PM

David,

I think that LNC members had varying reasons for supporting or not supporting the resolution. For example, Mike Dixon made it fairly clear that he considered what topic Mr. Boortz might address as relevant, and wasn't prepared to support his appearance without knowing.

Of the general reasons I gathered for support of the resolution, two predominated:

1) The opinion that Boortz's name recognition would attract attention, and even that the controversy itself is a good thing in terms of getting the LP's name in front of the public -- i.e. not only are demonstrations welcome, but encouraged.

2) The desire not to interfere with -- I don't recall if the word "micromanage" was used or not -- the convention committee's work. They were assigned to put together the convention, and some LNC members think that they should be allowed to do so without having the LNC over their shoulder telling them how.

I don't think that there was any generalized feeling of support for Mr. Boortz's particular views, or any concern about caving, although either might have affected the opinions of one or two members.

Regards,
Tom

Posted by: Tom Knapp at December 14, 2003 10:44 PM

So what this amounts to is LNC leadership by subcommittee. How patently pathetic can they get.

Nancy Neale has already had me censored from the Travis County (Austin, Tx, where the Neale's have their residence) LP yahoogroups activist lists, after I raised concerns over the Boortz invite. I guess LP members like myself, a gulf war vet, a reserve usaf officer, former candidate, former Tx exec committee don't need to be stirring the waters when it comes to principle.

To be sure, I did make the case that Boortz is such an affront to core LP values and the official LP platform. I stated that if the LNC didn't dis-invite Boortz, the LNC chair should be recalled.

No, we can't have open rebellion in the ranks, can we, so she had my posting privs cnx-ed, by crying to the county chair, who by the way is seeking the Texas LP chair next year. of which Geof Neale had previously help prior to taking the LNC chair.

In any case, what I believe is happening is that both the LNC chair and his wife Nancy, have a greater loyalty, a greater affinity to a personality like Boortz than they do to core LP principles. Thus, they see no problem with Boortz' speaking.

And thus it amounts, in my estimation, to a defacto neoconservative insurgency at the LNC.

In addition to the good efforts of the petition creators and backers, and to Raimondo's coverage, I hope we can get some hitters like Harry Browne, who sounded most sympathetic to our plight on his Saturday nite radio broadcast, to sound off and write an op-eds blasting Boortz and the LNC decision.

Some threatened resignations on the LNC would be nice, as well as heat from the LP exec, Joe Seehausen, and other prominent LPers.

Posted by: Paul Farris at December 15, 2003 12:13 PM

Quoth Paul:

-----
So what this amounts to is LNC leadership by subcommittee. How patently pathetic can they get.
-----

Most organizations use subcommitees to coordinate activities.

Most viable organizations stand behind the work of those subcommittees to a large degree, and try to abstain from intervening in that work.

I don't see either of these facts as indicative of an unsound approach.

-----
Nancy Neale has already had me censored from the Travis County (Austin, Tx, where the Neale's have their residence) LP yahoogroups activist lists, after I raised concerns over the Boortz invite. I guess LP members like myself, a gulf war vet, a reserve usaf officer, former candidate, former Tx exec committee don't need to be stirring the waters when it comes to principle.
-----

I'm not on the TCLP list, for the obvious reason that I'm not located in Travis County. Therefore, I can't really speak to this issue, except to note that the list's stated purpose is to "promote and facilitate strategy, tactics and activities of the Travis County Libertarian Party." This issue isn't a Travis County issue, it's a national LP issue. Might that have had something to do with the conflict that resulted in your ejection from the list?

----
To be sure, I did make the case that Boortz is such an affront to core LP values and the official LP platform. I stated that if the LNC didn't dis-invite Boortz, the LNC chair should be recalled.
----

The chair does not have the authority to dis-invite Boortz ... so why would a failure to dis-invite him be just cause for recalling the chair?

The chair has one vote on the LNC (he abstained on the resolution), and no vote on the convention committee (he is an ex officio, i.e. non-voting, member).

-----
In any case, what I believe is happening is that both the LNC chair and his wife Nancy, have a greater loyalty, a greater affinity to a personality like Boortz than they do to core LP principles. Thus, they see no problem with Boortz' speaking.
-----

I've seen no evidence that either Geoff or Nancy Neale have any "affinity" for Boortz at all. They do, however, both seem to regard the controversy as interesting and a potential promotion of the convention.

-----
And thus it amounts, in my estimation, to a defacto neoconservative insurgency at the LNC.
-----

I know most of the members of the LNC, and many of them pretty well. I don't see anyone on the LNC as a neocon. Believe me, if I did, I'd shout it from the rooftops.

-----
Some threatened resignations on the LNC would be nice, as well as heat from the LP exec, Joe Seehausen, and other prominent LPers.
-----

A threat to resign from the LNC would have precisely zero effect -- except that if it was followed through on, the person replacing the resignee would likely be someone who sides with the current majority on most issues.

I don't think that you'll see any effort on Mr. Seehusen's part to intervene in the situation. The convention is not in his portfolio, with the narrow exception, as I understand it, of selecting the LNC fundraising banquet speaker. Mr. Seehusen's job is to run the office and the party's general operations, not to go stomping around in the work of the LNC or its subcommittees.

Our best bet, right now, is continued and increasing activity on the part of LP members, the more prominent the better. I was pleased to see Harry take a stand on the issue.

The bottom line is that we have to make the consequences of having Mr. Boortz speak more unpleasant than the consequences of not having Mr. Boortz speak. From my personal point of view, there are limits on how far I'm prepared to go -- a "scorched earth" policy might get the job done, but it might also have consequences that are more unpleasant still for everyone involved.

For example, I know of a "scorched earth" threat that might well succeed, and that would likely require the support of 50 or fewer delegates. If it worked, that would be fine. If it didn't, nobody, including us, would be happy with the results ... which is why I have no intention of mentioning the details of that threat.

Regards,
Tom Knapp

Posted by: Tom Knapp at December 15, 2003 09:40 PM

Quoth Tom
___
Most organizations use subcommitees to coordinate activities.

Most viable organizations stand behind the work of those subcommittees to a large degree, and try to abstain from intervening in that work.

I don't see either of these facts as indicative of an unsound approach.
___

Fair enough. But, approach is one thing, outcome is entirely another. Thomas, any self respecting and clued-in Libertarian National Chair would tell the 'respected' subcommittee, diplomatically, if not forcefully, 'nuts - go back to the drawing board and try again on your Boortz selection, I'm not signing off on it.'

With LP membership over the last several years in a steady downtrend, ballot access for several states in doubt, and a situation like Boortz, I'm not sure how much more "viability" the remaining LP membership can stand.
____

I'm not on the TCLP list, for the obvious reason that I'm not located in Travis County. Therefore, I can't really speak to this issue, except to note that the list's stated purpose is to "promote and facilitate strategy, tactics and activities of the Travis County Libertarian Party." This issue isn't a Travis County issue, it's a national LP issue. Might that have had something to do with the conflict that resulted in your ejection from the list?

___

Tom, the LNC Boortz debacle becomes a local issue when someone like Boortz clearly mis-identifies the official LP position on interventionism, and we get winces/stares/double-takes/and 'who needs this', from potential members, potential supporters and regular members in the counties who wonder why and who is making it the business of a statist war-mongerer like Boortz to be addressing the LPCON.
_____

The chair does not have the authority to dis-invite Boortz ... so why would a failure to dis-invite him be just cause for recalling the chair?

The chair has one vote on the LNC (he abstained on the resolution), and no vote on the convention committee (he is an ex officio, i.e. non-voting, member).
_____

Has the Chair ever made a passioned plea to the sub-committee concerning Boortz' selection? Where is the leadership? ...That's what I thought.

Everything could be done by computer I guess. But this is supposed to be a political party of principle and passion. And I'm not the only one seeing neither at the top.
________

I've seen no evidence that either Geoff or Nancy Neale have any "affinity" for Boortz at all. They do, however, both seem to regard the controversy as interesting and a potential promotion of the convention.

I know most of the members of the LNC, and many of them pretty well. I don't see anyone on the LNC as a neocon. Believe me, if I did, I'd shout it from the rooftops.
____

Tom, promotion of the convention to whom? Boortz' fellow Georgian war-mongerers who don't have anything better to do Memorial Day weekend.

Plus, I wouldn't expect any of the LNC to tell you flat-out how enamored they might be by neoconservatism and it's ongoing "successes" overseas.
_____

A threat to resign from the LNC would have precisely zero effect -- except that if it was followed through on, the person replacing the resignee would likely be someone who sides with the current majority on most issues.......

______

Threats to resign and carry through, would bring into even sharper focus the folly of the Boortz invite.

The current LNC 'house of cards' on the Boortz situation would begin to fall, as resignations and heat from both prominent LPers and rank and file members is exerted dramatically.

In any case, I say we continue to brainstorm and continue to commend the online petition.

Principle Will Out!
Paul Farris

Posted by: Paul Farris at December 16, 2003 08:29 AM

Quoth Paul:

-----
Fair enough. But, approach is one thing, outcome is entirely another. Thomas, any self respecting and clued-in Libertarian National Chair would tell the 'respected' subcommittee, diplomatically, if not forcefully, 'nuts - go back to the drawing board and try again on your Boortz selection, I'm not signing off on it.'
-----

The chair doesn't have to "sign off" on the convention committee's work. As a matter of fact, he doesn't have any authority over that work at all, except to the extent that he has a vote on the LNC. He doesn't even vote on the convention commitee (he's an "ex officio" member).


-----
With LP membership over the last several years in a steady downtrend, ballot access for several states in doubt, and a situation like Boortz, I'm not sure how much more "viability" the remaining LP membership can stand.
-----

The issue of membership numbers has been of interest to me, and I've studied it a bit. Here are my conclusions:

The LP's membership was unnaturally inflated by the huge direct mail campaigns of the mid- to late-1990s, and to a smaller extent by a little trick of Perry Willis's (the "P" transaction that made any donor to the Browne campaign a "party member").

Now that those campaigns aren't being kept up, the party's membership is drawing down more toward its "natural" level. Now that Browne is no longer the LP's presidential candidate, some of the "members" who were "members" because they donated to him don't continue to send an annual check to the LP.

The LP didn't lose a bunch of members over internal issues of policy or internal conflicts, as far as I can tell. A few, but not many.

And, quite frankly, I don't think that artificially inflating "membership" numbers is something that's good for the LP. It's really just a distraction from doing real politics. If we do real politics, those numbers will come up anyway -- but getting them up without doing real politics won't help us do real politics -- it'll just eat up our time and money on the continued inflation process.

-----
In any case, I say we continue to brainstorm and continue to commend the online petition.
-----

I agree!

Posted by: Tom Knapp at December 18, 2003 11:29 AM

Guilt by association is still alive -- with the lkes of Boortz and his loving Bush II views.

What percentage of the general public care WHO the LP has at its National Convention speaking on TV ???

More hostile/idiotic machinations by the LP NatCom regime such as the Boortz invite -- fewer and fewer LP members.

Posted by: Demorep1 at December 18, 2003 12:22 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?






Powered by
Movable Type 2.64

design by blogstyles.