Let me take you back to the day I was first introduced to the weapon of political destruction, Robert’s Rules of Order. Some 30 years ago, back when I was foolishly trying to affect change within the GOP, I attended one of my first county conventions. I don’t remember exactly what year it was, but it was in the early 1990s. I had been active in politics for a few years, but I had not gotten involved in the actual party infrastructure until recently. The convention, attended by many hundreds of delegates, was a one-day event. It was about the size of an off-presidential year Libertarian national convention. Somehow I ended up sitting in one of the front rows, off to the side near the exit. I had not really had much interaction with formal rules, so I was quite interested in the little cheat sheet that was handed out at the door. The convention progressed, with nominations and seconds, followed by elections and votes with seemingly endless debate of stupid things. Election of a temporary this and that, followed by a permanent this and that. I understand it now, but back then, the process required under South Carolina Election Law seemed very strange. Eventually, it started to wind down, until they got to “resolutions.” Anyone who has attended a Libertarian Party convention knows about resolutions. That is the part of the convention where people stand up and spew out sometimes sane and sometimes insane things to vote on as resolutions. Sometimes they pass, but they are frequently shouted down. As I was sitting in the room, I began to notice that a lot of people appeared to have left. Then it happened. The convention chair, a prominent local politician, who years later became Lieutenant Governor, and with whom I once had a very heated debate over the merits of mustard-based vs vinegar-based barbeque sauce, was gleefully taking a resolution from the floor. It was in support of the Confederate flag and secession. Where the bleep was I sitting? What was this stuff? I mentioned to the person sitting next to me that the room seemed to not have enough people in it. He suggested that I call for a quorum check. I raised my hand. The chair kept going, so the person next to me nudged me and said to shout it out, which I promptly did: quorum call! Everything stopped. Looking stern and solemn, the chair checked the room. He quickly determined that there was not a quorum present and the convention promptly adjourned. This was my first experience in the use of Robert’s as a weapon of political destruction. I received a few upset looks and comments while leaving from some of the supporters of the resolution, but a few others looked relieved that some kid (I was in my early 30s) had done something they were afraid to do. Robert’s is complex. It is huge. But it can be used to defend yourself in a knife attack and might stop a slow bullet if you have it in your jacket pocket covering your heart. Of course, it better be a really loose-fitting jacket to be able to hold that book. Other than that, it is primarily a tool of obstruction. Robert’s can be used to run effective meetings and conventions. But it can also be used at those events to obstruct and interfere with the process. I have seen it used at LNC meetings to delay and obstruct motions or prevent people from speaking by causing delays until time expires and not everyone gets to speak. Endless dilatory amendments that have to be discussed before they can be voted down. People losing track of what the actual motion is because it has been amended so many times. Secretaries frustrated by trying to track who has spoken and what the motion currently is being voted on. But I have also used it and seen others use it to run effective and efficient meetings. It is also used quite frequently at the microphone at national conventions to waste everyone’s time. We all know who these people are. Another former Libertarian Party member recently commented that he and others in his state party were prevented from actually accomplishing anything through the use of Robert’s. When I called it a weapon of mass destruction, he likened it more to a weapon of pipe obstruction. He said it packs the pipe with bull [deleted] so nothing can move through the pipe. Obviously, I am not alone in my opinion of Robert’s. Something better needs to be used. Rules of Order are needed, otherwise you simply have chaos. But they need to be simpler and easier to manage and understand. I understand Robert’s. I studied enough to be able to pass the test. It was recommended a number of times that I take it. I somehow avoided it and I’m glad that I did. In my opinion, and in the opinion of quite a number of others, a Classical Liberal party needs to find something better to use. Better rules of order, and better ByLaws. In my last commentary, I mentioned the embarrassment of South Carolina being the home of people like Strom Thurmond, Lindsey Graham and Tim Scott. I have just learned it was also the birthplace of Henry Martyn Robert. Yup. The guy who wrote Robert’s. Can it get worse?
Month: June 2023
How the West was Lost
No, that’s not a typo. I said lost not won. Of course most people currently living in the US would call it a victory. The winners get to write the history books. However, if you were someone who lived on this continent before the relentless swarm of invaders headed inward from the eastern shore, you would say lost. The same is true of political parties. New parties are not always built these days. Most people posting comments on Third Party Watch speak of it as a horrible and unthinkable option. I agree that in most states the system has been rigged to make it difficult, but it is not impossible. Historically, internal political movements tend to just take over the old ones and change them. Not always, but it happens frequently in our country. If you are old enough to have followed politics in any of the “big two” parties before their most recent philosophical changes, you probably would say they were lost. Look at what is called the Democratic party. Is it a liberal party? Conservative? Has it been a driving force in the civil rights movement, or an entity controlled and run primarily in defense of slavery? The answer, of course, is all of the above — at various times in history. If members of the Democratic party from the 1860s had been alive during the 1960s, they would have insisted it had lost its direction. I can only imagine what the founders of the Republican party would think of it today. I don’t think anyone actually knows what it stands for. I don’t think that anyone who was a member of it as recently as 20 years ago knows what it stands for today. I live in a state that has brought Strom Thurmond, Lindsey Graham, and now Tim Scott to national prominence. Tim is the most hated politician in The Community, yet “loved” in DC. We were talking about him in the barbershop Saturday morning. Technically, it is close enough to where he lives to be his barber shop as well, but over the years I have rarely seen him there. Certainly not since he became political royalty in DC. A far cry from serving on Charleston County Council. Scott scares me politically. He is not really what you are seeing on TV. But back to losing the west. The Libertarian party is changing as well. The “party of Nolan” is no longer his. I can’t claim to have known him as well as many others did, but I learned a lot about his thinking in the time we both served on the national committee. I don’t think anyone would say he could possibly be happy with what is going on today. Dr Feldman certainly would not. Why do the good die too young? The Mises are in charge, long live the Mises! What the heck is a “Mises” anyway? It doesn’t appear to me to be anything like an anarchist or minarchist. Even the actual Mises Institute seems to have disavowed them. But who they are doesn’t matter. They won, and for now at least they are in charge. They call it a win. The original Libertarians would not. How did they get to be in charge? The management and seating of delegates at party conventions is flawed. You could even call it corrupt. States can send more delegates than they are actually allowed to seat, and they can get seated in other states. Personally, I think that is a violation of the intent of a political convention in representation by state. It should be illegal. Oh, wait! It actually is in some states! By allowing overflow delegates to be seated in other delegations, states that are not able to send their own excess delegates become smaller in proportion to states where carpet baggers are seated. All it takes is controlling a few states and bringing lots and lots of extra people and you take over. This flaw has been present for many years, and has been used by a number of factions to a certain extent at various times. It is a dirty little secret of libertarian party conventions. But the system is not all bad. Allocating delegates based upon a percentage of the most recent vote for president is actually a rather brilliant idea. It promotes getting out the vote. I have thought of improvements, but they will come later. However, allocating other delegates based upon the number of dues paying national members is, of course, pay to play. It is corrupt and another dirty little secret of libertarian party conventions. Everyone tries to take advantage of it. State parties have competing membership drives to try to increase the size of their delegation faster than each other. The only winner is the bank balance of the national party. A brilliant fundraising idea, but easily corrupted. Some state parties also allow people who do not even live in their state to join, vote at their state convention, and be delegates to the national convention. The dirtiest of the dirty secrets. Even the Democrats don’t allow this (although they have “super delegates” which is one of their dirty little secrets!) I was not present, but I’ve been told that all of these tactics were deployed successfully by Mises. When you store open cans of gasoline in your living room next to the fireplace, well… You get the picture! There is no perfect system of allocating delegates. But there are certainly better ways. A Classical Liberal Party must avoid the mistakes of the old parties. And how do you avoid takeover and subversion of your message? How do you avoid a future “Mises Event” either by that or some other faction? How do you avoid becoming pigeon-holed as Starchild calls it?
MacArthur Versus Hooverville
You may or may not remember reading about the Hoovervilles. Ad-hoc camps in several cities, most notable outside of the District of Columbia, put together by former servicemen who came – peacefully – to demand their back pay from World War I that the government had deferred and held hostage. There was a depression ongoing in our country, and these were desperate people. But they were peaceful. They built a temporary town, complete with roads. They marched peacefully and hoped the government would react. It did. MacArthur, Patton and a few tanks, and even some minor underling named Eisenhower (who history now records as being opposed) went in and mowed them down. Fortunately, only a few people were killed, but they were disbanded and sent home. Hoover got rid of Hooverville. The Libertarian Party has its own Hoover, and they have sent in the troops. Guns have been replaced by lawyers and lawsuits, but the effect is the same. Rebellion has been quashed – for now. While I commend those with the courage to stand their ground, the political tanks are rolling right at them. No candidates last year in California in their largest county? Someone mentioned that a few days ago in a comment. Wow. Political tanks have been rolling. I’ve said this before, and I certainly mean it, when I wish activists like Starchild luck in rescuing their party. The sad history of political organizations in this country would indicate that the LP is in the middle of a shift in philosophy – not a good one – and it is not going to be easy to fix. As was very correctly pointed out by another former party member, the real goal of a political party is to run candidates for office. To influence the political process. A huge part of that is getting out into the public and talking about your message. I agree. However, when that message keeps changing – seriously they wiped out the abortion plank? – and the leadership fiddles while Rome burns, how do you even get people willing to run? Well you don’t seem to in California and some other states. Patton has been there. The technical arguments that Starchild put forth about why people aren’t getting involved and left vs right is not the whole story. While he credits the caucus in power as being a factor, I believe he overlooked the most crucial point: their leadership is in it not just for the sake of power, but also with the mission of destroying a party that opposes their demi-god – a certain former president. I have talked to some of these caucus members. They use the phrase MAGA. They love tRump (please do not change how I spell his name!). They are not what Libertarians would consider sane people. In 2023, a party that has always been factional has become even more so. As Starchild said, left vs right. The biggest damage caused by this internal fighting is what some would call the “brain drain”. A lot of good people around the country have been forced out. Institutional knowledge is not just going through age attrition, but through the loss of dedicated and honorable people. To quote Dr Feldman, “…that no pain, no gain, get those petitions signed in rain, libertarian…”. Those are who you are losing. Just so no one thinks this is sour grapes on my part, I do not feel I was forced out of the party. I left three years ago for reasons completely unrelated to this takeover. In my opinion, the party was still strong. It was still focused on the core beliefs.