Comments on: LNC Falls Short of Own Policies on Transparency, Due Process http://georgedonnelly.com/politics/lnc-falls-short-policies Supplying your Soul with Sovereignty Since '06 Thu, 29 Jul 2010 00:45:42 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: John Famularo http://georgedonnelly.com/politics/lnc-falls-short-policies/comment-page-1/#comment-6655 John Famularo Sun, 21 Sep 2008 17:45:01 +0000 http://georgedonnelly.com/?p=416#comment-6655 It is my experience that the overwhelming majority of LP party members care little or nothing of what the LNC does and/or how it administrates the assets of the LP. They are satisfied with a “showing of the flag” in the presidential elections every four years regardless of the efficacy of such efforts in affecting public policy or the efficiency in their use of LP resources. From time to time there are a few members who do care about the details and seek to know and investigate what is going on at the LP headquarters and the LNC. This is treated as an annoyance by the LP staff (including paid consultants) and the LNC in general. The last thing they want is a wider evaluation or debate on their decisions. The more the general membership can be kept from the details the better. They blunt the general libertarian suspicion of government secrecy with a deflection and an appeal to paranoia with: “We are a private organization” and “The Ds and Rs are out to get us, so we can’t let them know” Eventually the potential reformers just go away. The LP is very successful in achieving its real goal, that is, maintaining existence, and totally unsuccessful in achieving its stated goal of changing public policy in a libertarian direction. The real goal is too minimal and the stated goal is too grandiose. Every attempt to develop a strategic plan to achieve a greater real goal in a reasonable time frame has ended is failure. Mainly because no one wants to admit that they have no idea of how to develop a detailed plan to achieve the grandiose plan. They fall back on the simplistic original plan at the formation of the LP in 1972 which simply put is “build it and they will come”. In order to change the plan, a majority of the supporting members at some point in time will have to become dissatisfied with the current plan or lack thereof and reorganize the party. This may be impossible because supporting members who become dissatisfied are 10 times more likely to become non-supporting members than reforming supporting members. There are approximately 20 times as many former supporting members as current supporting members. Even most former party officers are no longer active in the party. This is not true of either Dems or Reps. I don’t want to discourage any potential reformers but they need to be realistic and well organized. If they can muster a simple majority of the delegates at future conventions they can implement reforms. More easily with a 2/3rds majority. However, they will have to consider the more likely scenario that they will only have a committed minority. Splitting the majority on certain key issues might give them an effective winning plurality. It is my experience that the overwhelming majority of LP party members care little or nothing of what the LNC does and/or how it administrates the assets of the LP. They are satisfied with a “showing of the flag” in the presidential elections every four years regardless of the efficacy of such efforts in affecting public policy or the efficiency in their use of LP resources.

From time to time there are a few members who do care about the details and seek to know and investigate what is going on at the LP headquarters and the LNC. This is treated as an annoyance by the LP staff (including paid consultants) and the LNC in general. The last thing they want is a wider evaluation or debate on their decisions.
The more the general membership can be kept from the details the better. They blunt the general libertarian suspicion of government secrecy with a deflection and an appeal to paranoia with:
“We are a private organization” and
“The Ds and Rs are out to get us, so we can’t let them know”

Eventually the potential reformers just go away.

The LP is very successful in achieving its real goal, that is, maintaining existence, and totally unsuccessful in achieving its stated goal of changing public policy in a libertarian direction. The real goal is too minimal and the stated goal is too grandiose.

Every attempt to develop a strategic plan to achieve a greater real goal in a reasonable time frame has ended is failure. Mainly because no one wants to admit that they have no idea of how to develop a detailed plan to achieve the grandiose plan. They fall back on the simplistic original plan at the formation of the LP in 1972 which simply put is “build it and they will come”.

In order to change the plan, a majority of the supporting members at some point in time will have to become dissatisfied with the current plan or lack thereof and reorganize the party. This may be impossible because supporting members who become dissatisfied are 10 times more likely to become non-supporting members than reforming supporting members.

There are approximately 20 times as many former supporting members as current supporting members. Even most former party officers are no longer active in the party. This is not true of either Dems or Reps.

I don’t want to discourage any potential reformers but they need to be realistic and well organized. If they can muster a simple majority of the delegates at future conventions they can implement reforms. More easily with a 2/3rds majority. However, they will have to consider the more likely scenario that they will only have a committed minority. Splitting the majority on certain key issues might give them an effective winning plurality.

]]>