Everyone thinks their children, their dog and their
ideas are the best.

That's an honorable sentiment.
And it's almost mandatory to believe in yourself
and your own, or how would we survive or prosper?

But, when people get too carried away in their
own personal fundamentalism, it gives them
tunnel vision... They operate with blinders...

Let me explain.

Recently on this and several other lists one
'Angrytarian' stated to us all, with complete
personal assurance, that running for small
'winnable' offices was the only worthwhile
thing Libertarians could do with their time
budget as Activists.

Then we have 'the Nolan' telling all of us we
ought to use the LP as something other than
a Political Party.

Both of these folks have the decades long
habit of telling other people they are wrong
when there is a divergence of opinion on
policy or procedures.

Well, in this case, the only person who is
usually wrong, is the one who says there is
only one way to skin this particular cat.

Moving the US and/or the World in a Libertarian
direction is not a simple or obvious process.

One single type or style of effort WILL NOT
produce freedom, or even assure us of any
movement in that direction, even.

Anyone who tells you what you 'should do, is
both wrong and arrogant almost 100% of the time.

Let's discuss:

1. Volunteer Time is NOT Fungible

Know-it-all 'leaders' will tell you to do [Activity X].
They will say things like, 'don't have a fundraiser,
phone bank instead', Etc...

The problem with this is that some Volunteers and
Activists HATE to phone bank. We can illustrate
this with most things. Some people are good at
some things, and not at others. Also, some
people LIKE to do certain things, and NOT others.

You force people to do something they don't want
to do, you will have a horrible rate of Volunteer
Attrition, some of it permanent. You will also get
a bad case of Volunteer Burnout, which gives you,
at least over the short run, the same result as
Volunteer Attrition.

#2 Donations and Donor Interest are NOT fungible.
I have donors that will give money for anything with
the word 'student' in it, for example.

A High School Libertarian club. College, University.
Scholarships, essay contests.

On the other hand, these same people will NOT
give me a penny for events, like a County Fair.

3. Personalities are not Fungible.
As the Peter Principle teaches us, just because
someone is good at one thing, does not mean
they can be good, or even competent at another.

Someone who is a good phone banker might
be a terrible door knocker. Someone who is a
good door knocker might be terrible at a County
Fair. And MORE IMPORTANTLY, they might not
like it very much.

For example, I have been quite successful at
most of the different activities we are talking
about here. But, there are several I just don't
enjoy, despite my ability to execute.

If I forced myself (or a so-called 'leader' did) to
keep on with these things, I would be unhappy
and burn out. [The Fun Factor]*

4. There is more than one way to skin a cat.

Let's say you want to recruit new members.
Should you a) phone bank Registered
Libertarian Voters, or b) direct mail good
prospects, or c) have events and personally
solicit folks, or d) Ask your current members
to each recruit one person.

Certainly these and other methods have been
used successfully, as well as unsuccessfully.

The answer to the above question is: 1) it
depends, 2) all of the above, 3) none of the
above and 4) choose what a) works best for
your area, your goals and the talents and
skills your participants have.

It's just like the silly/stupid assertion that we
should ONLY (i.e.) run Candidates for lower
office for X, Y and Z reasons...

You ONLY do one thing, you miss out on
some opportunities, and you freeze out
some/many of your Volunteers and activists.

5. There are more than just cats to skin.

Some folks think winning elections is the
only thing that matters. Believe me, I love
to see Libertarians win. As much, or more
as the next Libertarian.

But there are other measures.

What about Membership?
LP Voter Registration...
Party Name Recognition.
Voter Education
Party Positive Perception by the Public...
Fundraising...
Party Activity...
Activist Team Morale...

Etc...

To me, the most important measures are
Members, Votes and Money.

Maybe to you, they might not be, and I am not
going to shove my favorite metrics down your
throat if you don't agree.

However, I am going to make the case for
Synergy and the Multiplication Effect.

While the adage 'Politics is a game of
Addition, not Subtraction' is a very, very
valid and important one, that's applicable to
measuring gross votes and voter leverage.

But when it comes to the overall effect a
political group has, one must realize that
each successful effort improves the result
of the other efforts going on.

That one person runs for Congress, for
example, does not take away from the
person running for a small Board of
Education seat. Rather, it helps them
because of the brand exposure, and will
increase the vote totals and credibility of
the person running for the minor office.

Just as the folks who think we ought not
to 'waste' time and money running a Presidential
Candidate, and instead focus on only
[insert activity X here] instead.

[Please see items 1-5 as reference for this.]

Bob Barr and Wayne Root are not going to run
for Schoolmarm of West Elbow, Arkansas.

The Donors supporting Barr/Root will NOT give
to a ballot initiative to legalize pot in Texas...

The Volunteers volunteering for Barr/Root are
not going to show up at a San Francisco Gay
Pride Parade...

Not most of them, anyway.

A few will, and that exception further proves
the rule.

6. When you make Volunteer/Activist activities
fun and successful, they are much more
likely to repeat their efforts on that and
OTHER things they might not have otherwise
tried.

When you give a Barr/Root donor good bang
for their buck and good feedback/communication,
when you come back to them with another item,
they are much more likely to give. For example...

So, don't let anyone 'should' on you.

Any good effort can help move the Libertarian
ball towards the goal line. Do what you like,
do what you're good at. Get like minded nice
people to help you, and learn how to do it.

Running for local, County, State, or Federal
offices ALL have excellent benefits and no
single one is best. Some might have a bit
more leverage in some instances. But, in
ALL instances, every candidate up and down
the ticket is helped that other Libertarians
are also there.

Recruiting is important.
If you like that more, do it.

Fundraising is good.
If you can get, give or both, go for it.

Events are great!
If you like to put on events, do it.
Do the best one you can.
Get the most people at it you can.
Promote it as much as you can.
But just do it.

And your effort will absolutely help out the
Libertarian Party, the larger Freedom Movement,
and all the Candidates, Officers and Activists
in your spheres of influence.

And as for the 'Angrytarians' and 'Nastytarians'
who make up stories about people and are
constant doomsayers about anything that's not
their idea or agenda, get as far away from them
as possible.

Have fun
Learn about how to do things from folks who have done them successfully over
an extended period of time.
Plan
Measure
Be organized
Be professional
Be nice
Make friends
Don't argue with folks over policy or issues

And call me if you need help or have questions.
866 OC Bruce
866 622-7823
Both toll free

I'll be glad to help, FREE, with advice and to get
you started on the effort you want to make happen.


This article Copyright Bruce Cohen - June 2008
http://www.getbruce.com

*Why did I learn and participate in political
activities I don't/didn't enjoy? Because I want
to be able to understand them. I want to be
able to do them when needed. And, most
importantly, I want to be able to teach them to
others when such an effort is appropriate.





Allen Rice <amrcheck@...> wrote:
"The great thing is this world is not so much where we stand, as in
what direction we are moving."

O. W. Holmes

--- In CALPCandidates@yahoogroups.com, Starchild <sfdreamer@...>
wrote:
>
> Colin,
>
> You make a good case for the LP making more of an effort to
define
> "success" as bringing about a free society. To the extent that we
are
> seen as "successful" for achieving political power, we are in
danger
> of failing, because the clearest path to political power has
always
> been abandoning our principles.
>
> Love & Liberty,
> ((( starchild )))
>
>
> On Jun 15, 2008, at 11:08 PM, Colin Goldman wrote:
> > I'm not sure about the "fraud" bit, but certainly the general
> > public naturally assumes that a political party ss an entity
> > organized for the purpose of obtaining political power, and they
> > likewise assume a candidate for office as somebody with a goal
to
> > be elected into office. Thus, a party not obtaining political
> > power, or a candidate not obtaining office, is seen as a defeat.
> >
> > We can argue internally over whether or not this means defeat as
> > per our various preferences as to the goal of this Party, either
in
> > the past, now, or in the future, but in the eyes of the people
we
> > seek to convert to our principles, it will continue to appear as
> > defeat. And defeat is antithetical to popular support. This is
a
> > nation that loves a winner. A country of bandwagoners. Not
all,
> > but many, most perhaps. Success breeds success. Now, success
can
> > take many forms, but so long as we're playing under the
categories
> > of "political party" and "candidates", it won't take the form of
> > garnering but a small fraction of electoral support.
> >
> > On a personal level, I've actually seen support for my espoused
> > principles diminish in significance among my peers since the
> > beginning of my various runs for office. I'm not the only
person
> > here who's ever heard, "Sure, your ideas make sense, but this
> > country will never go for that." And what's our response? "It
> > will, someday." Well, repeated bouts of extremely marginal
> > electoral support only turns a somewhat believable
prognostication
> > into more of a completely unsupported tout. That is, when
you're
> > not playing the game (and losing), it's far easier to sell your
> > potential to others.
> >
> > This will be my last partisan election, at least for some time.
> > While I fall more onto the side of the pragmatic view that the
> > purpose of our party is to win elections and assume power, I
don't
> > see how mounting campaigns which highlight and expose our
marginal
> > level of support leads us closer to this end game. I think that
> > radio talk shows, newspaper columns and Internet blogs, even
moving
> > into the teaching ranks where young, open minds can be affected,
is
> > a more productive means by which to garner support for our
cause.
> > Yes, it should be our goal to win elections. But in races where
we
> > simply do not stand a chance of even a strong showing (a vast
> > majority of our involved races), I think it behoovs our overall
> > cause to stop running.
> >
> > - Colin
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Allen Rice
> > Sent: Jun 15, 2008 9:19 AM
> > To: CALPCandidates@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [CALPCandidates] Re: Why electing candidates should NOT
be
> > the Libertarian Party's mission (David Nolan)
> >
> > Starchild,
> >
> > The title of this thread, which you initiated, is
> >
> > "Why electing candidates should NOT be the Libertarian Party's
> > mission"
> >
> > I don't see that anyone has said that the LP should do nothing
else
> > but that.
> >
> > But NOT to make that a primary goal for what purports to be a
> > political party, is to committ a fraud, as I said earlier.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Allen Rice
> >
> > --- In CALPCandidates@yahoogroups.com, Starchild <sfdreamer@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Pamela,
> > >
> > > It seems to me that your two statements below are somewhat
> > at odds
> > > with each other:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 2:19 PM, Pamela J. Brown
> > > <pamecon@> wrote (in part):
> > >
> > > (1)
> > >
> > > > We already have think-tanks and research groups like IJ, NRTW,
> > Howard
> > > > Jarvis, FIRE and CAGW to lobby for change and provide advocacy
> > to
> > > > those in
> > > > need.
> > > >
> > > > Our job, the only job of the LP, is to provide candidates for
> > > > office that
> > > > will be friendly to & support the policy efforts of the above-
> > > > mentioned
> > > > groups -- period, end of sentence.
> > > >
> > > > To that end, all we (the party) should be doing is recruiting
> > > > candidates,
> > > > organizing/funding campaigns, and helping advertise the 'LP
> > > > alternative' to
> > > > voters. Period.
> > >
> > >
> > > (2)
> > >
> > > > The problem for us is, we have the K12 socialist bureaucracy &
> > the
> > > > mainstream statist media brainwashing the public about
> > the "wonderful"
> > > > nature of wealth transfers & government control.
> > > >
> > > > Because of this huge barrier, one unique to our party (but a
> > net
> > > > BENEFIT to
> > > > the other two statist parties), we perhaps need to think of
new &
> > > > "different" ways of getting our message across. It's horrible
> > to
> > > > see the
> > > > Statist message winning, with fewer & fewer citizens even
> > > > questioning its
> > > > validity over time. Things are getting worse & worse IMO,
> > unless
> > > > we can
> > > > disseminate the message of liberty with much greater success.
> > > >
> > > > I don't know how many of you listen to talk radio, but that is
> > one
> > > > "area"
> > > > that is keeping the flame of liberty alive. It seems that many
> > > > hosts are
> > > > libertarian, or libertarian leaning, as a rule. They often use
> > the
> > > > 'L' word
> > > > in public policy discussion on air.
> > >
> > > I agree with you on the second part -- the desirability of
> > finding
> > > new and different ways of getting our message across. But your
> > first
> > > statement, in which you state a very narrow view of what you
> > believe
> > > the LP ought to be doing, would, if adhered to, greatly limit
our
> > > ability to carry out your good suggestion.
> > >
> > > I understand the thinking that since the LP alone among
> > libertarian
> > > organizations in the U.S. has the ability, as a political party,
> > to
> > > run candidates, that we should only run candidates. But focusing
> > only
> > > on this ignores another important way in which the LP is
unique --
> >
> > > namely its potential, by virtue of its size and opportunities
for
> > > activist participation, to be a vehicle for a mass movement. In
> > my
> > > view, we need a mass movement for liberty more than we need
> > > libertarian candidates for public office. Of course it doesn't
> > have
> > > to be either/or. I'm not advocating that the LP stop running
> > > candidates. I am just encouraging others to be less narrow-
minded
> > > about how we can go about fighting for liberty. Again your
second
> > > comments above seem to reflect an understanding of this. After
> > all,
> > > who say the talk radio phenomenon coming? And who knows where
the
> > > next opportunity that turns out to be the equivalent of talk
> > radio
> > > may arise?
> > >
> > > Love & Liberty,
> > > ((( starchild )))
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]