Disturbing

This evening has been a bit disturbing. I had a long conversation by phone with someone who contacted me on Facebook seeking a phone call. Rather than talk about how he could help the Boston Tea Party, he wanted to recruit me to bring everyone back to the Libertarian Party, arguing that it would be more cost-effective.

Of course, I'm not part of the LP because the LP leadership betrayed the principles of the party and the ideals of liberty. Not recently, either. I was upset with their conduct toward candidates like L. Neil Smith in 1996 when it was clear that the national headquarters staff and the national committee, including the national chair, wanted Harry Browne to be the nominee. I left the party in 1998 when the corruption and scandals were too much for me to bear. I think that was close to the time when they moved the HQ to the Watergate complex, a place where scandal, back room deals, late night break-ins, rape, theft, and anything else seem to fit right into the overall Washington approach to running your lives.

The current deal with Barr that he won't run again in 2012 and the apparent deal to anoint Wayne Root as the presidential nominee in 2012 is part of that same tradition of betraying the individual, dues-paying members of the party. Obviously, members of the LP think that they get to have meetings of their local and state committees to choose candidates and delegates to represent them on the ballot and at the national convention. There apparently is a coterie of elitists in the party who think that they own the LP. So, instead of the delegates to the national convention choosing the nominee, the process is corrupted by back room dealing, by elitists making deals with other elitists, and by similar sleaze and filth.

This kind of thing has to end. It has to be exposed for the cesspool of indecency and corruption that it is.

Obviously, many people who voted for Mary Ruwart went to the national convention of the LP thinking that their votes mattered. And, to a considerable extent, right up until the fifth ballot when she was the leading vote recipient, they did. But, the sleaze and filth determined that it was in their best interests to have Barr the nominee this year, to have Root the VP this year and the nominee in 2012, and they cut a deal.

It isn't right that this kind of deal be used to determine who the nominee is. It isn't ethical to disenfranchise the members of the party in this way. And it is not just me that thinks it stinks to high heaven.

David Nolan, who co-founded the party, wrote a flyer seeking election to the LP's national committee saying that the party's membership was barely half of what it was in 2000. Why? Perhaps because the members feel betrayed - the feeling of betrayal I had when I stopped paying dues to the national party, the feeling of betrayal this phone conversation tonight brought up for me.

Nolan wrote, "The national staff and many members of the current LNC have been blatantly biased in favor of one particular Presidential hopeful. It's time for a change!"

Apparently, Nolan feels that this bias, this sleaze, this corruption, this filth, this back-room dealing, this disenfranchisement of the members of the LP is a problem. It is behavior inconsistent with the party of principle's claim to principle.

So, I want you to think about this kind of thing here in the Boston Tea Party. I want you to be angry about it, because it was happening here, too.

Tom Stevens deleted a poll which attempted to overturn an action of the national committee. Prior to doing so, it appears, to me, based on the investigation various members of the party have done, that Stevens and a small group of members organized three fake state affiliates with members not full-time residents of those states, and possibly without the national committee's desired five members. When these difficulties were exposed, Stevens called for the dissolution of the party here on this site.

So, I made an issue of it. I got nasty about it, to be perfectly candid. I was extremely unfriendly to Tom Stevens since last Thursday 5 June. I was unfriendly after he resigned to Rocco Fama, Mike Reid, and Alex Fitzsimmons. I believe that Fama's Tennessee affiliate was made up out of whole cloth. I continued to be unfriendly until these gentlemen also resigned.

Why? I believe we have to put a stop to political corruption, to fraud, and to abuse of power right here, right now. I'm in a position to be intolerant of it, and I mean to set an example. A few exemplary resignations were in order, and now we have them.

I don't believe I'm wrong about the Libertarian Party. I don't believe that I'm wrong about Stevens and his group. But it is entirely possible for me to be wrong.

Earlier tonight, trying to correct what I saw was an error in my response to Elf Nino's Mom on the presidential nominating thread, I deleted my comment. Oops, when a comment is deleted, so are its replies. Didn't know that. So, I apologized to the gentleman whose replies were deleted by my error. This is a fairly trivial example of where I've been wrong - I was wrong to trust the LP leadership with my membership dues in 1996 and at other times.

My request of the other members of the national committee is that you help keep things on track. Watch me for errors and abuse of power. Watch each other. Watch your own step. My request of the members of the Boston Tea Party is the same. Keep an eye on things we're doing.

Because the precedent of corruption in the LP is not one that I think we ought to bother repeating. If the Boston Tea Party is not going to be a beacon of liberty, decency, individuality, free expression, and ethical behavior, why bother?

I mean, the same is true of the LP. If you don't mind sleaze, corruption, filth, back room dealing, elitists running everything, and so forth, why not join one of the major parties that actually have the power to cut deals and work with each other? If expedience is all you care about, why pretend to have principles? It only sells more books if people buy it, and if you keep sleazing out, they won't.

What do I mean about elitism in the major parties? I read back in 1996 that the average American's income was around $36,000 per year. That is the gross national product divided by the population, so two government agencies each guessing at a number. The truth is, lots of people avoid being counted by the census takers, and lots of the economy is underground where it cannot be easily measured. But, that was the reported figure.

The people who attended the Republican national convention that year made an average of over $400,000 a year. The people who attended the Democratic national convention that year made an average of over $250,000 a year, as I recall the figures. Clearly, these people were not representative of the population.

And how did they get those fat paychecks? Not by working hard, not by having ethical business dealings, but by scamming the taxpayer. A little sleaze here, a little corruption there, and a big contract lands in their lap. Build some bombs to blow up children in the Middle East, or have exclusive rights to lay waste to several hundred thousand acres of government controlled land. Maybe create a new law to make illegal the form of product that their competitors sell, not exactly a bill of attainder, but the next best thing.

Is that what you want? Is that what serves your ideals best? Then go. Be a part of the parties that seek to corrupt, to deal, to sucker, and to defraud the American people of their tax dollars. Or be a part of the LP, which wants to use the same tools and somehow serve the cause of freedom and the purposes of private property.

In his phone call, this gentleman I spoke with indicated that he saw nothing wrong with it. He likened the LP's leadership to the CEO of a company - who does what he pleases with company assets. To be sure, until a minority lawsuit with criminal allegations puts him in jail.

But, of course, there is a difference between a political party which claims to represent the interests of individual members and a company which represents the purpose of making a profit for the investors. Investors put up with quite a lot, often very high CEO salaries, and all kinds of perquisites and benefits for the sake of those profits. Deliver profits and you can have a really nice life. Don't deliver, and you have to find a job somewhere else.

But that is why so many LP members feel betrayed. You feel betrayed because you have been betrayed. Your input is disregarded. Your serious grievances are set aside. You know that Bob Barr is a law enforcer, a patriot, opposed to Wiccans, opposed to gays, opposed to individual liberty, incompatible with the principles of liberty that used to be featured prominently in the LP platform, and the people who think they know better than you don't care.

I say again, they don't care. They don't mind if you feel betrayed. Because it is more important to them to be on the side that is winning, briefly, in, say, Denver, than to be on the side of righteousness, truth, justice, integrity, honor, decency, liberty, private property, or the fiduciary obligations that an agent has to those who paid him for agency.

I wish to make it clear that I'm not here for long. I wish to set things in motion and go do something profitable. After 24 October 2008, I am not available to be chair of this party. I might organize a state affiliate in some state where I live, but that's it. If the members of the party feel that "Transition Chair Emeritus" or some other title is suitable, or wish me to continue blogging on this site, I would not be disagreeable - but I don't want an office. I don't want power. I don't want to be consulted about how the party leadership should screw over the members and get what they want.

I would urge you to have few re-elections. Get used to turnover in all the offices. Keep the staff and the national committee on a very short leash. Give no one much power, and never license any unethical behavior.

Because, frankly, you've seen it all before. You've seen what has happened to the LP. You saw this dance troupe from New York with their mysterious disappearing state affiliates and their bizarre insistence on authority. Don't let it happen here. I can sniff out scandal and corruption some of the time, but not all of the time.

All that has ever been required of you for your individual liberty is eternal vigilance.

Comments

redgar:

Its not possible to "annoint" someone for the 2012 LP nomination. The delegates from each state party are the ones who pick the nominee. No matter who the national committee wants to be the nominee, the decision is made by the delegates. The worst that the national committee or the nominee could do would be to mislead the delegates. Barr may not be the best choice, but he was voted as the nominee by the members by a large margin.

I was a delegate and was pulling for Ruwart as best as I could. What did in her nomination was her statements on age of consent. (They were largely misunderstood by most)

planetaryjim:

If you have the perspective that the delegate counting process was clearly organized, that everyone who expected to vote was in the room and not called away on some errand (or wild goose chase), and that none of the inside elites had any influence over how delegates cast their vote then, sure, it is "not possible" to anoint someone for the 2012 nomination. And, in that case, Barr's agreement not to run is of no significance.

Barr was voted in by a very small margin. He was voted in by a margin somewhat larger than the total number of non-voting delegates. It was 324 to 276 with 26 for other candidates or none of the above, as I recall, which means 626 out of the 660 delegates were voting. Leaving 34 delegates not casting their votes, or not having their votes counted. (I monitored the California LP close voting and refuse a valid delegate's vote, quite firmly. Such a source of inspiration for me, it was.)

The margin of victory, 48 votes, was 7.3% of the delegates present. That's not a landslide and it is not a large margin. It is a narrow margin, with the backroom dealing and the corruption having a significant role in his victory.

Mary won more votes than Barr in the fifth ballot, and it was the deal cut with Root that swung the nomination for Barr. Whether you believe it or not, I believe part of the deal was that Barr would not run again in 2012.

The importance of the back room dealers and elitists is not to be misunderstood. David Nolan reports here: http://www.nolanchart.com/article3952.html that attendance was down 20% from 2004 and 30% from 2000. Obviously, delegates are staying home because they don't like the process, don't think their votes are being counted, don't think they can represent their constituents at the convention. Membership is down for similar reasons.

Mary Ruwart's position on the government involvement in age of consent laws, in traumatizing teenagers who want to spend the rest of their lives together, and in making it easy for conservatives to point fingers at anyone violating a "magic number" rule rather than treating individuals as capable of significant variation in their ability to mature and behave as they please is the correct position. Anyone who thinks that Mary favors child pornography or wants young children to be molested has not read her books, doesn't have the decency to speak to her directly about this issue, and ought to be ignored.

Robert Milnes:

I believe Chair's reference to deleting comments were mine. Basically I had nominated Mary Ruwart for vice-president of Boston Tea party. I discussed reform v purism & how she wasa my second choice for vp at the Lp convention. Dr. Karen Kwiatkowski was my first. Then I wrote another comment in which I briefly nominated Dr. Kwiatkowski for vice-president of Boston Tea party! I hope I am not a nuisance to them; after all KK has politely declined my requests to her before. But on the other hand, if seconded, let them have the opportunity to decline or accept with whatever rationale they care to communicate. My working hypothesis has been for a long time that a winning progressive alliance ticket should ideally consist of a left-libertarian (which I believe Teddy Roosevelt was) or Green/leftist or other libertarian who was willing to strongly, definitively reach out to the left, man and a right or other libertarian woman vp. So, in order to comply with the deadline, I'd like to take this opportunity to nominate for vice president of Boston Tea party, Christine Smith, Tamara Millay and Angela Keaton. Also Dr. Nancy Lord Johnson and Jo Jorgensen.

planetaryjim:

I have echoed a copy of this set of nominations on node 28 where nominations are organized. Thanks.