Late Report, Libertarian Convention, Part 2

While I was excited about Johnson's win as nominee for President, I was crushed by Mark Rutherford loss in the election for LNC Chair.

You may recall that I previously endorsed Rutherford. Mark was great for the LPIN, teaching candidates to focus on issues of greatest importance to the voters, not self, first; and of relevance to the office which you seek. He also tried to shape the LPIN's Central Committee to mirror boards of successful civic or public institutions, such as hospital boards of directors. This is important, because Libertarian Party boards tend to focus on the finest points of policy rather than creating a top-notch organization. In my opinion, the LNC has often been the most guilty of all Libertarian Party organizations of this wheel spinning.

After all- the point of a political party is to get people elected towards moving policy in your direction, or to do other things, such as lobbying or issue advocacy that moves policy in your direction.

Internal debate for correctness achieves none of this.

So, on all these considerations, the 2012 LNC elections were a complete wipe-out. It was bad to lose, but bitter because the losses were so narrow.

Several votes were taken, and it was weird. At the end of it all, Rutherford lost to Geoff Neale by 7 votes.

Many thanks to Doug Masson, who followed my Facebook live blogging and summarized here. Also see Reason Hit & Run blog, here and here, with vote totals.

My lasting disappointment is with Geoff Neale's track record and what that portends. When Neale was previously Chair (2002-2004), the LP lost membership and his reputation was that of being stand-offish and uncommunicative. He was remarkably later elected LNC Treasurer (2006) and resigned a year afterwards. As was pointed out to me, a Treasurer of an organization doesn't resign. It's a malfeasance to do so, because it sticks the organization in a perilous position- especially as a political party, where one mistake on a filing can result in the organization being taken down.

And, even at this election, he threw another former Treasurer, Bill Redpath, under the bus, blaming him for the problem that led to his resignation. I thought that pretty well foreshadowed that nothing has changed with Neale- stand-offish, divisive, unable to own up to human shortcomings. In sum, a loser.

Rob Place sat next to me during much of the convention and he remarked in his wry way, "Remember how I was saying the worst case scenario was that Hinkle beat Rutherford? This is ten times worse than that. I wish we could have had yesterday's worst case scenario back." I couldn't have agreed more.

As regards Indiana, fortunately, we have a strong party and will survive and thrive despite the anticipated non-assistance and self-inflicted wounds the next two years will bring. Other state affiliates won't be so lucky.

Fortunately, Gary Johnson has won big elections before, and he has Ron Neilson, his campaign chair from both of Johnson's gubernatorial wins, on board as his chair once again. They will build a strong and potent team without the LNC. 

In one way, the clean sweep of the LNC might be a blessing. The past two years were marked by charges of an 'evil cabal' of Wayne Root, Mark Rutherford, Alicia Mattson, Aaron Starr, and others on the LNC sabotaging Chair Mark Hinkle. While I saw it as Hinkle being a weak Chair and failing to make the case on items to win over the LNC members, the 'evil cabal' charges had an impact on Rutherford's chances. (Remarkably, Wayne Root, the focus of so much antipathy by those who dislike the pragmatic voices in the LNC, was re-elected. The only one of the so-called 'cabal'.) Anyhow, the 'cabal' and the pragmatics are out, and the radicals are in. Divisiveness should not be an issue. That will be a relief.

At the end of the day, if Neale and the radicals fail to accomplish anything in the next two years, they won't be able to blame anyone but themselves. Given the track record, I expect failure once again. I hope that doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results at last comes to fruition, but I won't be holding my breath.

Conventions & Platforms

I've always been a little flat on the Libertarian Party's national platform. It doesn't function like a party platform should, but rather as a manifesto. That's ok for a new party, but not one that is trying to let the country know, "We're an established party, and here is what we will do as a focused effort to improve the country. Now, vote for us on the strength of this".

I believe that at each national convention of the LP, we should be adopting 3-5 planks that represent our solutions to the major issues of the day. If I could wave my magic wand, the platform going into 2010 elections would look like this:

1. No more bailouts. Nobody is 'too big to fail'. If you make bad decisions, they won't be subsidized by the rest of the country.
2. No more stimulus spending. Deficit spending is a placebo, and doesn't generate genuine wealth. It drains the country of tomorrow's wealth.
3. Fix the health care problems caused by government intervention. Eliminate the federal mandates that generate inefficiency and needlessly drive up costs.
4. End the wars. Pull out of Iraq & Afghanistan immediately. Stop trying to be the world's police officer. It doesn't work.
5. Restore civil liberties. Repeal the Patriot Act and all other laws that direct law enforcement to spy on American citizens.

For my part, as a County Chair, I will be directing the Libertarian Party of Hamilton County towards having a platform that does just this sort of thing- presents the issues and solution we will run on locally for 2010.

Doing this does not represent an abdication of the full range of policy solutions libertarians have for the myriad issues we could address. Rather, it prioritizes the response to the most pressing issues affecting the greatest number of citizens.

I'll have info on the LP of Hamilton County's convention posted shortly.

Update: A correction has been made to replace the word 'panacea' with 'placebo'. Thanks to Todd for the Websterian QC action!

Indiana Primary Dilemma

OK, so it's no dilemma for those who refrain from participating in Primary Elections on the basis of these elections essentially being the private business of the political parties, and not a genuine public function. The basis for this position in some areas?

All Indiana primaries are closed primaries. This means you have to choose either a Democratic or Republican ballot. For instance, there is no Libertarian ballot. There is no independent or non-partisan ballot. The "offices" being voted on include Precinct Committeeman and Delegate to the Party Convention. Primary info from the Secretary of State's office.

But, some areas will have non-partisan school board races, and fewer still will have local issues. If you object to our Primaries on the basis of it being publicly funded private function, be certain that these two items are not on your ballot before resolutely staying home. If these are on your ballot, and you don't care to vote in the D or R Primary, ask for "a school board ballot".

Normally, my primary voting goes like this: I walk into the polling place. I find my precinct station. I ask the volunteer if there is a Libertarian ballot knowing full well that there isn't. When the volunteer advises me that there is only a Democratic or Republican ballot, I say 'thank you,' I sign the book, and I leave. The volunteer says, 'Don't you want to vote?' and I reply, 'I just did in the only way I can that represents my views'.

Some Libertarians will face a different dilemma this year, because they want to cast a vote for Ron Paul- the only Primary candidate remotely close to representing our views. A problem arises for those who take the letter of the law seriously. The law reads:

IC 3-10-1-6Eligible voters
Sec. 6. A voter may vote at a primary election:
(1) if the voter, at the last general election, voted for a majority of the regular nominees of the political party holding the primary election; or
(2) if the voter did not vote at the last general election, but intends to vote at the next general election for a majority of the regular nominees of the political party holding the primary election;as long as the voter was registered as a voter at the last general election or has registered since then.
As added by P.L.5-1986, SEC.6.

There is great temptation for many Libertarians to vote in the Republican Primary. It isn't because they are eager to cast votes for a slate of Republicans in the November General Election. It is so they can cast a vote for Ron Paul- the only Primary candidate remotely close to our views.

Chances are great that the partisan Libertarians don't qualify to take a partisan D or R Primary Ballot, for either or both of the clauses found in the law above.

Come November, most Libertarians are going to want to cast votes for as many Libertarians as are on the ballot, perhaps one or two Democrats, one or two Republicans, and more likely, have a whole bunch of blanks because you can't vote None Of The Above.

As for me, I will not cross over and take a Republican ballot. I did support Ron Paul's campaign and wish him well, but the coronation of McCain is complete, and my one vote in favor of Paul has no meaning. In fact, it would be worse. It would signal a willingness to vote Republican, which I am utterly unwilling to do. With the marginalization of Paul, the Republican Party has further reinforced its disinterest in general liberty and limited government, so I'm not going to give them my vote, only because I think Democrats are slightly worse. I'll vote as I always have- go in, sign the book, leave.

Side note: Did you know that Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney are still on the Indiana Primary Ballot? It's true. Link.