As one of the newer members of the Libertarianz party, I am passionate about what we might achieve in this great land.
We have been sliding backwards economically and socially for decades as we make our tiny political swings from left to slight left.
As a nation we continue to depend on the Government for prosperity, for morality & for common sense.
We are getting what we deserve.
We were first to Everest, first to fly, first to give women the vote. Now we focus on 'catching up with Australia'?
Why do we set our sights so low?
Whilst we might argue that the Libertarianz party's political influence is consistent, our election results are, frankly, dismal.
We would like to do better.
So what are we doing wrong?
If you were considering the strategic direction of the Libertarianz party over the next ten years - what would YOU do?
[Shane Pleasance is the Southland coordinator of Libertarianz. Visit his blog at www.inpho.co.nz]
45 comments:
I would change that silly bloody name. The Liberty Party would be so much better. Time to re-brand before the next election.
Yup, Liberty Party would look much better.
And keep the message simple.People aren't interested in the finer points of Libz policies which serve only as a distraction. They just tune out.
Fewer bureaucrats. Fewer rules and regulations. Less tax. More freedom.
That's enough.
Agree re changing the name. Also there would be a perception that you are a new party. Opportunity to re-launch etc.
KG's suggestion seems indistinguishable from ACT's platform. I know 'platform' is different from 'actions' but people mmmostly vote based on a party's platform. ACT as an obstacle/ally(?) would probably have to figure significantly in your calculations somewhere.
What the libertarianz are doing wrong:
1 - The name! It is terrible and name changes have been discussed many times before. Dump the name! Marketing it is like starting the race 1000m before the starting line.
1 - Endless name calling and word games like a bunch of juvenile students in press releases
2 - Shooting down any one who is less than 100% aligned with Libertarian ideals
3 - tirelessly attacking those who try to help but are willing to water down the great ideal in order to appeal to a wider public
Shane Pleasance, I wish you luck with this lot and I hope you make inroads where so many other supporters failed and were pushed out of the inner circle where character assassination seems a way of life.
What Dinther said!
You need to be seen as a single-issue party, marketing is easier that way. Why not become the voluntary taxation party? It would be a simple concept to understand and extremely attractive to anyone that works for a living.
Basing yourself around liberty would be a waste of time. Most NZers currently see themselves as free, so what good is a liberty party?
Why not become the voluntary taxation party? It would be a simple concept to understand and extremely attractive to anyone that works for a living.
better to have existing politicians sign a 'pledge'.
also don't agree with Dinther's 3rd and 4th point. they should stick with their ideals or come up with better ones not water them down.
"1 - The name! It is terrible and name changes have been discussed many times before. Dump the name! Marketing it is like starting the race 1000m before the starting line."
Agree....time to start afresh.Clean the slate and start to attrach people again.
"1 - Endless name calling and word games like a bunch of juvenile students in press releases."
Agree....Libz can appear both grumpy and childish.Some wit and cut however is not a bad thing sometimes.
"2 - Shooting down any one who is less than 100% aligned with Libertarian ideals"
Absolutley agree.This is the single biggest brake on Libertarianism ever taking off in this country...Libz piss off too many people who would be strong allies with a bit of patience and time.
"3 - tirelessly attacking those who try to help but are willing to water down the great ideal in order to appeal to a wider public."
See above.Don't surrender the principles...but do simplyfy and focus what you advocate and stand for.
Also....seperate the Libertarianism from the Objectivism! Too often we see people attracted to Libz ideas slapped and driven away by the %100 pure zealotry sometimes seen here and elsewhere...Sure Rand's philosophy is,in my opinion,the best foundation to underpin the political position of Liberty...but there are other paths to it as well and burning intrested non Objectivists is going to do nothing to advance Libz,and NZ's, cause.PC's blog is a great one...but its the main culprit when it comes to this.
Use the tools already tried and true from the States...For example "Operation politically homeless" as run by the Advocates for Self Government.Michael Clouds excellent "Secrets of Libertarian Persusion" is a powerful book that explains where Libz has gone wrong in the past and how it could adapt and grow in its outreach.
And when it comes to ACT...praise publicly and punish privatly.The up and comers within ACT are far more Libertarian than the elder members.They have read Rand and Mises etc and will advocate more Libertarian policies than ACT has up to now.That will be a good thing and may cause Libz members to reappraise how they relate to ACT in the future.Indeed there may well be a coming together at some time...who knows?
Agree with Jack. Libz should stop wasting time with those who will never vote for them - those like KG for example, who is constantly bashing Rand and Objectivism.
You threaten to take away these denture clackers Old Age Pension and grants to folk/groups they like and they go batshit crazy.
I think Libz should continue promoting Rand by way of essay competitions and sending books out to interested parties.
Libertariansim will never be very popular so don't beat yourselves up about it too much.
Sigh..it was only a matter of time before the post-menopausal name-dropping femijerk turned up and used a perfectly reasonable response to the post as an excuse to attack somebody.
See Dinther (and James) point 2.
Ruth.....KG's right....the infighting needs to stop.Im as guilty of doing this as much as anyone and we all need to take a breath and realise that we can disagree and allow time and reason to make our case and win over those who aren't quite there yet.
Sure...point out where you think someone has it wrong...but try and be constructive about it.
And yes...I will try to practice what I preach.
;-0
Libz could do a lot worse than apply the wisdom of the late Harry Brown..
"A Libertarians New Year Resolutions"
1. I resolve to sell liberty by appealing to the self-interest of each prospect, rather than preaching to people and expecting them to suddenly adopt my ideas of right and wrong.
2. I resolve to keep from being drawn into arguments or debates. My purpose is to inspire people to want liberty -- not to prove that they're wrong.
3. I resolve to listen when people tell me of their wants and needs, so I can help them see how a free society will satisfy those needs.
4. I resolve to identify myself, when appropriate, with the social goals someone may seek -- a cleaner environment, more help for the poor, a less divisive society -- and try to show him that those goals can never be achieved by government, but will be well served in a free society.
5. I resolve to be compassionate and respectful of the beliefs and needs that lead people to seek government help. I don't have to approve of their subsidies or policies -- but if I don't acknowledge their needs, I have no hope of helping them find a better way to solve their problems.
6. No matter what the issue, I resolve to keep returning to the central point: how much better off the individual will be in a free society.
7. I resolve to acknowledge my good fortune in having been born an American. Any plan for improvement must begin with a recognition of the good things we have. To speak only of America's defects will make me a tiresome crank.
8. I resolve to focus on the ways America could be so much better with a very small government -- not to dwell on all the wrongs that exist today.
9. I resolve to cleanse myself of hate, resentment, and bitterness. Such things steal time and attention from the work that must be done.
10. I resolve to speak, dress, and act in a respectable manner. I may be the first Libertarian someone has encountered, and it's important that he get a good first impression. No one will hear the message if the messenger is unattractive.
11. I resolve to remind myself that someone's "stupid" opinion may be an opinion I once held. If I can grow, why can't I help him grow?
12. I resolve not to raise my voice in any discussion. In a shouting match, no one wins, no one changes his mind, and no one will be inspired to join our quest for a free society.
13. I resolve not to adopt the tactics of Republicans and Democrats. They use character assassination, evasions, and intimidation because they have no real benefits to offer Americans. We, on the other hand, are offering to set people free -- and so we can win simply by focusing on the better life our proposals will bring.
14. I resolve to be civil to my opponents, and treat them with respect. However anyone chooses to treat me, it's important that I be a better person than my enemies."
http://www.theadvocates.org/browne-resolutions.html
Powerful stuff!
I think the Libz need to decide exactly what they want to achieve, because they are in no-man's land at the moment. (Not the Helen Clark kind). On the face of it, the Libz are a political party, yet they do nothing that will help them get elected into parliament, and wouldn't know what to do when they get there. From what senior Libz members have said previously, it sounds like they'd prefer to be a pressure group or "ideas factory", however the way they present their policies like the alternative budget for example is never going to get traction.
So, before you do anything, you want to identify what you are trying to achieve, and then work out a series of *achievable* steps to get there.
What Dinther said.
It's time that the Libz start endorsing/embracing Glen Becks and Sarah Palin and stop attacking them, simply because they're religious.
"It's time that the Libz start endorsing/embracing Glen Becks and Sarah Palin and stop attacking them, simply because they're religious."
They don't.Its the Objectivists that do that...and thats valid if you are an Objectivist.But doing it with your Libertarian hat on is stupid and counter productive.
Do Beck and Palin advocate true freedom favorable positions?....or are they confused,contradictory conservatives?Even if so they could be encouraged in the things they get right while firmly but fairly confronted on the things the get wrong.
Why are those people important if you're trying to get elected in New Zealand?
Hi Everyone.
I have been reading this comments thread with a great deal of interest, especially as some consistent points are coming through.
It should be said that pretty much all of the malaises with the Libz described here have been debated extensively among members all the way to the top. These comments here only serve to back up what many of us within the party have been saying for quite some time.
Like Shane I am a relatively new member of the party and as such can see some of the ruts that Libz have become stuck in.
It has been interesting to see what some of the (mis)perceptions those on the outside of the party have of those of us within it. The blame for these perceptions existing can only be laid at the feet of the party itself and there is no question we could do a much better job across the board. It is encouraging to see that the people who are often our harshest critics are the very ones who want to see us do better.
I invite everyone who is interested to email me your thoughts, ideas, suggestions and concerns directly. My contact details can be found on the Libertarianz website.
Thanks
Sean Fitzpatrick
Deputy Leader, Libertarianz
"A Libertarians New Year Resolutions"
1. I resolve to sell liberty by appealing to the self-interest of each prospect, rather than preaching to people and expecting them to suddenly adopt my ideas of right and wrong.
2. I resolve to keep from being drawn into arguments or debates. My purpose is to inspire people to want liberty -- not to prove that they're wrong.
3. I resolve to listen when people tell me of their wants and needs, so I can help them see how a free society will satisfy those needs.
4. I resolve to identify myself, when appropriate, with the social goals someone may seek -- a cleaner environment, more help for the poor, a less divisive society -- and try to show him that those goals can never be achieved by government, but will be well served in a free society.
5. I resolve to be compassionate and respectful of the beliefs and needs that lead people to seek government help. I don't have to approve of their subsidies or policies -- but if I don't acknowledge their needs, I have no hope of helping them find a better way to solve their problems.
6. No matter what the issue, I resolve to keep returning to the central point: how much better off the individual will be in a free society.
7. I resolve to acknowledge my good fortune in having been born an American. Any plan for improvement must begin with a recognition of the good things we have. To speak only of America's defects will make me a tiresome crank.
8. I resolve to focus on the ways America could be so much better with a very small government -- not to dwell on all the wrongs that exist today.
9. I resolve to cleanse myself of hate, resentment, and bitterness. Such things steal time and attention from the work that must be done.
10. I resolve to speak, dress, and act in a respectable manner. I may be the first Libertarian someone has encountered, and it's important that he get a good first impression. No one will hear the message if the messenger is unattractive.
11. I resolve to remind myself that someone's "stupid" opinion may be an opinion I once held. If I can grow, why can't I help him grow?
12. I resolve not to raise my voice in any discussion. In a shouting match, no one wins, no one changes his mind, and no one will be inspired to join our quest for a free society.
13. I resolve not to adopt the tactics of Republicans and Democrats. They use character assassination, evasions, and intimidation because they have no real benefits to offer Americans. We, on the other hand, are offering to set people free -- and so we can win simply by focusing on the better life our proposals will bring.
14. I resolve to be civil to my opponents, and treat them with respect. However anyone chooses to treat me, it's important that I be a better person than my enemies."
http://www.theadvocates.org/browne-resolutions.html
"Yeah, attitudes like that destroyed the Roman Empire."-Gibbon
Three things, from me. Not so much about the Libertarianz as about the libertarian movement and its various factions, if they want to have any actual political influence. Probably unpopular, but I'm not trying to win friends.
Electoral politics is, at its simplest, about convincing people you can adequately represent them and their views. If you want to do that, you need to treat them with a certain amount of respect. So my first piece of advice would be to stop thinking of, talking about, and treating the ninety-mumble per cent of the electorate who support some other parties as if they're looters, moochers, sheep or econo-philosophical illiterates. The first of these is the most important: you won't get people on your side if you hold them in manifest contempt, no matter how right and good you think you are. You don't need to worry too much about pissing off those who are never going to vote for you anyway, but you need to not disdain everyone who supports another party, because that's pretty much everyone.
Until this is done, and it may require a thoroughgoing purge of the party and a stern look at many of its allied groups, there will be no meaningful libertarian presence in the NZ parliament. And until it is done, there shouldn't be. A more practical option, if you persist with viewing yourselves as the Chosen Saviours of a Benighted People, would be to work to overthrow or otherwise minimise the influence of the democratic system.
And that brings me to my second thing: either commit to working within democracy and supporting democratic institutions, for all their failings, and eschew all anti-democratic and explicitly anti-government positions (such as the Jefferson quote posted here the other day), or commit to the overthrow or reform of democracy by external means. Because no political party survives in a modern democracy without appealing to the symbolic matter of democracy as an expression of freedom. This will be hard, since much of the anti-democratic rhetoric is quite correct on a practical level. But at present (and through most of its recent history) the movement is trying to gain influence via the democratic system while disdaining that very system as broken -- similar to how it's trying to win electoral support while disdaining those who might support it. This approach takes the worst of both worlds, it can't work. Pick one way or the other,commit to it, and be prepared to spend a long time rehabilitating yourselves (whichever way you choose).
[cont]
[cont]
Third thing is to think of yourselves like an actual credible political movement. This incorporates much of the former two points: abandon or distance yourselves from extremists like the fools at SOLOpassion (and the Objectivist community in general) and the lunatic teabag-gun nut fringes. Stop reflexively preaching Rand like scripture. Start gradually -- instead of campaigning to "legalise smack" as the Libz did last election, campaign on something more modest which rests on the same principles. Appoint people based on their political and organisational skills and experience, their networks and their charisma, rather than on the basis of ideological rectitude or internal cred within the movement. They need to consider more carefully what they say and do, what they stand for and how they deal with other political actors, particularly the entrenched interests. The party needs to be firmly coordinated from within, and individual candidates cannot be permitted to ride their own hobby-horses to the exclusion of a wider vision and more central policy goals. I understand that this may seem anathema, but it's a necessary condition for success.
I say all this not because I'm a libertarian -- I'm not one -- or because I want to see libertarianism sweep NZ politics and for us to become the Galt's Gulch of the South Pacific -- I most assuredly do not. But I do think that the libertarian critique of mainstream politics has a great deal to offer, and at present is prone to being marginalised and dismissed out of hand because libertarians don't understand democratic politics. I think the existing and dominant political movements we have could do with a sterner challenge from this quarter than what they presently face, and I think they will be the better for it. That goes for society, too.
Cheers,
L
KEEP IT SIMPLE- half of all voters are of below average intelligence!
Fewer bureaucrats. Fewer rules and regulations. Less tax. More freedom.
And rebadge.The old one didn't fly, so loose it.
lose!
So Lew (and others), what you are recommending is that in order for the Libz to get elected they need to abandon their principles and policies in order adopt alternatives that are more, dare it be said, politically correct.
The fact is, one can already vote for such political entities. For example, it is already possible to vote for the ACT Party, or the National Party, or the Labour Party, or even one of the other political outfits.
Time to check premise. What is it that the Libz seek to actually achieve? What is their goal?
I ask this in the light of the recent article posted on NotPC regarding the retirement of Jeanette Futzsimplesimmons. There were several points made regarding the successes of the old Values Party.
Any comments?
LGM
No need to abandon your principles- what they are saying is that you need to get folks moving towards those principles.
Smaller steps-folks don't like change, you need to ease them into it.
A lot of people like a lot of what you say. don't reject them because they don't like ALL of it. It is possible to have ALLIES that support MUCH of what you stand for.
Confucious he say, never seek strategic advice from your opponents, or from your competitors in the marketplace.
Their motivation is not yours.
Sounds like good advice to me.
Then why the fuck the local Libz would bother running for election at all? First, you're wasting your time, effort and money and not only that, if you think that all you need is to be an idea factory, then don't run.
Much of what has been said is good.
To add some comments:
Renaming is a good idea. The ~arians part of the name smacks of ideology which is not necessarily an easy sell for a political party. Something like Liberty Party is much crisper and has less baggage. People bring their own baggage when they see your name.
Also, getting out and doing things in the community would help alot. Sponsoring some events and educational competitions is a great idea.
As for keeping the message simple. I think this is not what you need to do if you wanna appeal to mainstream people. Look at the policies of major parties and they are detailed. Not necessarily complex but Lib policies should clearly explain the ins and outs of the outcomes that the policies will achieve.
Also you might want to think about transitional policies. There is your ultimate goal and then there is the current reality. Your gola is so far from current realist that people have difficulty trusing you, or in other words there is a huge gap of transition that you need to reassure people what will happen. For example, you cannot immediately drop taxes to Zero. How will police function? There will be anarchy? Outline a clear 5 or 10 year plan with details and people can see you are serious.
Also people wanna know you are not 'extreme'. That means the want to know that if one of your policies does not work (no matter the ideology or theory) then you will halt or wait on it. Then people will feel more comfortable in your hands. You can do this by making promises about what people can be sure they will get.
there is compromise of principle and compromise of strategy. When one compromises with others in the formation of a strategy, it can be wholly beneficial to all parties. I think thats what lew meant.
LGM, Oswald and Mo have it right. If the Libz' aim is to get elected, and the implementation of their principles is what's preventing them from achieving that aim (which it manifestly is), then I'm suggesting they alter the implementation. Unless you believe that libertarianism as political doctrine is incompatible with democracy, in which case I suggested an alternative course of action: try to overthrow or reform democracy; or indeed influence it as PC suggests. This is a worthy goal (though I would argue much of the latter advice also applies), but the question stated outright that the Libz are unhappy with their electoral performance, and that's the problem I addressed.
I would tend to argue (and indeed, I have elsewhere), that if your political doctrine is incompatible with liberal democracy, then it's probably questionable whether it's all that worth holding. But that's just me.
PC's fortune-cookie philosophising notwithstanding, the movement at present is an echo chamber, and that's costing it in terms of credibility and effectiveness. It's fair enough to mistrust my motives, and indeed it is pretty well known that I am no friend of orthodox libertarians in general (and loony Objectivists even more so) -- but you lot are rational individuals; instead of heeding or discarding my advice because it comes from me, judge it for yourself. I ultimately don't care that much either way. But know that what I'm saying here is what I'm saying to the movements I support: if you want to succeed at electoral politics, then act like you want to succeed at electoral politics.
L
Incidentally, part of acting like you want to succeed at democratic politics is being open to suggestions from outside the tent. You may not realise it but libertarianism is less a tent than it is an echo chamber, and one in which dissenting views are quickly drowned out. This goes double for Objectivism. As far as you lot are concerned, there's nothing anyone can teach you -- and your political hopes are pinned on the idea that the rest of the world will eventually come to their senses and realise that they agreed with you all along. Good luck with that.
It is beneficial for the movement that at least some of those leading it realise that the rest of the world might need a little help to come to those senses, and is aware that the movement itself possibly lacks the strategic vision and expertise to make that happen, and may need to cast around for ideas.
L
State exacly what how you would like to see NZ run. Show how it would benefit everyone living here.
Show how you would go about making the changes.
Don't spend so much time complaining. It's letting the other side choose the battlefield.
You need to find objectivist types to promote for local government as well. In fact I think that might be the best way foward.
What you could try is.
Find a town where you have some good local "troops".
People of some standing with good public skills.
Throw all your best available people nationally into the effort
in this particular town. If you can get to dominate a city council and your ideas work then you can take the next town.
It's like getting a beach head in an invasion.
Then you take the country one town at a time.
Shane, and many of the posters to this thread, seem to be under the impression that electoral success is a yardstick by which to measure the success (or not) of the Libertarianz.
This has not been (and cannot be) the case.
The strategy since day one has been to have a cultural change; in other words, a revolution inside people's heads. The party has followed this strategy and with success that can be measured by the many young people who have, as a result of the Libertarianz, been introduced to the works of Ayn Rand, von Mises, Locke, Jefferson and many of the other great advocates of liberty.
This is a wonderful achievement and the importance of this this was outlined in PC's follow-up post "Can the free market be saved without Rand?") A great read.
Julian
Julian
So what you are saying is that the Libz should be (or are) operating analogously to the old Values Party (which was probably the most successful political party in terms of achievement of its ideological aims over the last 40 years). Is that it?
LGM
LGM
In which case why do you bother standing candidates (some of whom act like clowns and do you much more harm than good) in elections?
@TWR: If you can name any candidates who act more like a clown than, say, David Garrett (to take just one clown at random) I'd be very interested to hear it.
Winston Peters. Keith Locke. Hone Harawira.
By the way, it's a shame Redbaiter didn't get this capcha conf word - it's "trolls".
Julian, I think the problem is that the strategy's success or otherwise can't be objectively measured; or rather, that the one thing which can be objectively measured is the success of the electoral strategy, and that the results are unsatisfactory.
I still don't see why the Libz can't have it both ways -- an ideological, philosophical consciousness-raising function as at present, coupled to a credible electoral platform staffed by competent people who aim to win -- or at least put in a strong showing.
To an extent you need to choose between this sort of a strategy, which aims to make people understand libertarian doctrine, what it is and what it isn't, and convince them of its value, and the current strategy, which relies on hectoring and disdaining people you see as unworthy in the hope they will swim against the current long enough to join the chosen few libertarians in their rather shallow idea pool. If you're that wedded to the mythological superiority of your political ideas and consider everyone who doesn't share close to 100% of them as misguided fools who aren't worth your time, and are unwilling to work to convince them of the merits of your ideas then I say again: you probably don't deserve electoral representation.
It's as I keep saying to Labour partisans: if your ideas and policy positions are that good, why don't you win every election in a landslide? The common answers I get are: the media is against us; the prevailing political culture is against us; the people are fools. None of these is changeable over the short-term, and it's futile to attack them, so they are predominantly employed as excuses to explain failure. The only wise course of action is to work on the one thing you can change: how you communicate your ideas and policies to the people. This diesn't need to mean watering them down at a level of principle, but it does require patience, tolerance, and a certain amount of faith -- both in your own abilities and in those of the electorate.
L
twr, I think he meant Libz candidates. For my money, Bernard Darnton and the "legalise smack" idiocy in Wellington Central is the example which springs to mind. For another thing, the fact that the party leader and several of its high-ranking people publishing frequent and politically toxic rants on this very website doesn't contribute greatly to the idea that you guys actually mean business.
L
Good post there by Lew, very true. It strikes at the heart of the problem caused by die hard (objectivist) Libz who dominate the party to the detriment of the image of the party itself. This is also disrespect to the non-objectivist members who don't say much about those objectivists who give the Libz the bad image (by association).
I wish that the Libz could work with or support ACT, but they (Libz) keep attacking every little unimportant thing that ACT does in parliament. ACT is closer in ideologies to the Libz than any other party and all the Libz is doing is to attack Rodney and team for their policies.
Start making friends and stop alienating your closest relatives.
Speaking of ACT:
http://publicaddress.net/6475#post6475
hahaha
I don't hate the name, but if you're going to call yourself "Libertarian", it'd be better if you were libertarians, not Randroids (especially while there are other Randroids out there saying it's impossible for an Objectivist to be libertarian...I think you can be both, at least in the "big tent" sense, but shut up about Rand already!). And quit bashing anarchists (an-caps, who are the real libertarians; have at it on the lefty "anarchists").
(But if you want to be useful, stop playing with politics and concentrate on getting Mises in front of school children!)
Post a Comment