Category: Party Politics
Nov 11 Interview with Lars Mapstead
My first interview at the South Carolina Libertarian Party convention was with Lars Mapstead. As with most of the candidates, this was my first time meeting Mr Mapstead. This interiew was conducted about 11am on November 11, 2023 and took about 30 minutes. Since Mr Mapstead was my first interview of the day, he was actually asked one more question than the other candidates. Based on his opinion that he would decline to answer, it is not included and was not asked of the other candidates. I appreciate Mr Mapstead’s candor with what turned out to be wise advice. In these interviews I will attempt to include the entire answer where practical, however there will be a few answers where elipses (…) are placed where there was either a pause or a comment interjected by the interviewer, or braces ([ ]) ocasionally for editorial corrections. Question One What drove your decision to run for this office? I think that what it really comes down to is I was watching the 2020 election, and I was watching the George Floyd riots break out. I was watching us being locked down in covid, and then I was watching all the animosity around the January 6th stuff and I realized that everybody in America is pissed off…and all my friends were coming to me and telling me that they were suffering under economic hardship, [it was] hard to make ends meet, the health care system was breaking, and the education system was breaking. They were having run-ins with criminal justice…so there were a lot of things that were hardships for people. They kept saying, well why don’t you do something about it? You’re a smart guy, you know how to fix problems. You’ve been a business person and that’s what you do. I [had] watched Jo and Spike do their run, and I said I can do that. And I could bring a message thats different than the duopoly is delivering. All my life I felt I had to vote for Bush or Clinton, [as if] that was my only choices for most of my life… I voted for Ross Perot and then Ron Paul twice. And the reason I did that is because they were talking about the debt and the deficit and the Federal Reserve and I was big on monetary issues…the economy, and how people were able to get ahead — or not get ahead…my friends suffering…and then asking me for some help to aleviate the problem and I wanted to offer more choices and voices to the American People. Question Two What do you hope the primary impact of your run will be internally within the Libertarian Party and externally with the public if you get the nomination? I think internally, one of the the things I’ve really come to understand running for President is that there is no fundraising mechanism that’s easily available for all candidates running across the country, and if there’s anything we all know, what it takes to win elections — its money. I came into this thinking that I’d be plugged into this fundraising “machine” that was going to be able to raise money and run my campaign for me and I realized that just doesn’t exist. In fact, the Libertarian Party is having a hard time financially all across the board. States are, national is, candidates are. And the candidates I’ve talked to said I wish there was a way to raise funds, because I would have been able to win my election. So one one of the things I am working on is a thing called “go gold”, which is the equivalent of “act blue” or “win red”, which is what the republicans and democrats have…I’m going to make it happen, because that’s what I do as a business person. I think its a doable thing. I have a number of people that are interested in helping out with it… (Interviewer interjected: So you’re going to continue with that regardless of the nomination?) One hundred percent! That’s one thing…and the other thing that I have done is…the Libertarian Party stopped doing candidate training, and I believe that running candidates is the thing the party is supposed to do. Run candidates and win elections. If you don’t have candidate training, how are you going to have qualified candidates that can run? I have worked with Cara Shultz to return [to] candidate training. We’re doing online free candidate training for any candidate that wants to, and its not really associated necessarily with my campaign. I want to offer that to the Libertarian Party because I feel like…I’m very much a party person as far as wanting to have success across the board in all states — as many as we can. I would also add…that I’ve been working hard on ballot access…in Maine part of my plan for having success in my candidacy is to win electoral votes, and Maine and Nebraska split up their electoral votes…these are two, but there are eight or ten states that are very applicable to this. We need ballot access in Maine, and we don’t have it right now. I have been very active in fundraising for them. I went to Maine and campaigned in Maine and got signatures for them. I’m running ads on twitter right now to get more registered Libertarians, because we need five thousand of them before the end of the year or we’re not going to be on the ballot. All candidates should be focused on that and I don’t see that coming out of other campaigns.
On the Road: Libertarian Presidential Debate
On November 11, the South Carolina Libertarian Party held their 2023 State Convention to elect new officers and select delegates to the 2024 Libertarian Party National Convention. Following the convention, a debate was held between six candidates seeking their nomination next May in Washington DC. The candidates present in the debate were (as placed left to right at the podiums) Jacob Hornberger, Lars Mapstead, Chase Oliver, Michael Recktenwald, Joshua Smith and Mike ter Maat. The debate was moderated by Antony Davies and James Harrigan, the hosts of the Words & Numbers podcast. IPR was present to cover the debate, and was able to get sit-down interviews with each of the candidates during the day. These interviews totalled nearly three hours of discussion, covering questions selected by the author and included some submitted by our readers. While the interviews will take time tomorrow to prepare for publication, the debate was live streamed by the SCLP and is available for viewing on their official channel located here: https://www.youtube.com/@sclibertarianparty/streams In this author’s opinion, the debate was civil for the most part, however it did look slightly like a Republican debate at one point, with candidates speaking over each other a bit and challenging each other on the validity of their message and ability to win the nomination. The moderators sliced, diced and washed some of them down the drain on the issue of Social Security, and as one audience member said afterward, it all depends on who recovers from it. But overall, they all made good presentations of their message. Some of the same questions were covered in the IPR interviews, where we will give you the opportunity to read their responses made without the required short limits of the broadcast medium. Although there were a few minor audio issues, the production quality of the debate was far more professional and organized than many others in the past, and in this author’s opinion is clearly worth watching to help delegates and the general public form (or solidify) their opinion of the candidates. I do have my personal opinion of how the candidates did, but that will be reserved for post-interview analysis after the interviews are published over the next few days. The timing of interviews prevented any observation of the actual convention, although it appeared to be well organized and civil. South Carolina is not a recommended convention to watch if you want to see political food fights. Details on the convention will be reported later by another person in attendance.
Libertarian Presidential Candidate Interviews and Debate
Last Updated on Sunday November 12, 2023 12:49pm EST The 2023 South Carolina Libertarian Party Convention was held the weekend of November 10-12, 2023 in North Charleston, SC. The convention featured a debate between some of the (qualifying) presidential candidates. Interviews were scheduled with all of the candidates listed as attending as of October 22, 2023, and one of the two others since listed as attending. The interviews will be published on Independent Political Report and referenced on this page. It will be a ten question format, with several in multiple parts. I hope to conclude each interview in ten minutes or less of each candidate’s time. Followup political analysis of the candidates and the evening’s debate will be published on Third Party Watch. The best-laid plans of mice and men… As noted when this was first posted the day before the convention, I planned to interview five candidates. All six announced candidates appeared at the convention and I was able to get solid sit-down interviews with each of them. 160 minutes of recordings. Yup! Nearly three hours. Add in the analysis of the debate, and we (my ten fingers) are looking at possibly a day or two to sort all this out and produce a good article (or articles) covering each of the interviews. Fortunately as of this update it is Sunday and I hate football. To start, the following was published on IPR Saturday evening about 11pm. On the Road: Libertarian Presidential Debate Publication Order The anticipated publication order is: An Interview with Lars Mapstead Interview with Mike ter Maat Interview with Chase Oliver Interview with Joshua Smith Interview with Michael Recktenwald Interview with Jacob Hornberger
A case for a new Classical Liberal Party
Last Updated on Friday November 10, 2023 01:01pm EST This series began near the end of May 2023, when I felt the need to start writing about how I felt the Libertarian Party had failed, and a new Classical Liberal party – not the same as the current libertarian party – was needed. The series stalled in early July, with The Hunt for Red October having being written in July, but not actually sent for publication until October, after Leave the Party, take the Canolli. WordPress seems to like to put unrelated links as next, and previous at the bottom of each article (they like the term post, which reminds me of breakfast cereal), so until I figure that out and get it to go in the correct order, I recommend reading based on the order of the articles on this page. May 2023 Is “retaking” the LP really the best solution? Forming a New Party The Question of Political Purity Tent City June 2023 MacArthur Versus Hooverville How the West was Lost Robert’s, the Political Weapon of Mass Destruction October 2023 Leave the Party, take the Cannoli The Hunt for Red October The series will continue with Deliverance, currently being written.
The Hunt for Red October
SPOILER ALERT: Love it or hate it, if you never watched this movie then go watch it before reading this! What can I say? I had to find a way to bring one of my favorite movies into this. The premise of the movie is quite simple: The USSR builds a super sub, designed to silently approach, attack and destroy the US swiftly and cleanly, ending the cold war. The Captain does not like what they are planning to have the October do and decides to defect. He assembles a hand picked crew of officers he believes will follow his lead and the sub makes its exit from port. Russia tells the US the captain is a rogue madman to get them to help destroy the sub. The hero (of course!) figures out the captain is not mad, opens his big mouth, and ends up chasing the sub part way around the world. Classic Sean Connery, along with some young actor who clearly demonstrated that he actually does know how to use a prop gun, contrary to his recent statements made after causing the death…well…we don’t need to go there. So what’s the point? Spies, intrigue, escape! And in the end, the “good guys” appear to have won. The liberty movement is in the middle of its own Hunt for Red October. The bad guys, who I will identify shortly, built a weapon. It escaped from them, and for decades they have fought to chase it down and destroy it. But who are the bad guys and were they always bad? In the movie, one could argue that some of the concepts that became the USSR and led to the Russian revolution might have had good intent. They were, after all, living under harsh conditions and the rule of a series of nasty hereditary rulers – the Russian Czars. But the leadership after the revolution in Russia was quickly overtaken and devolved into a corrupt and evil regime, often suppressing their people worse than the government they overthrew. Sound familiar? Our bad guy for the sake of this discussion is the political system of the United States. It was not always bad, but this is not 1787. The government is run by the power brokers within the political system, so I believe they are the real “bad guys”. Our country built a weapon called freedom. It has gotten away, and the political system has been attempting to capture and destroy it for years. Oppressive election laws and cooperation from the media in their attempt to silence all of us who call ourselves “Third Parties” are one of their main weapons. Just the fact that our government was originally designed to not have political parties – certainly not just two – disputes the claim, by both the left and right media, that we have a “two party system”. Obviously many of us involved in partisan politics don’t agree with each other’s ideas and proposed solutions. There are parties that I think are full of absolute lunatics. Their ideas are insane – at least in my opinion. I am sure they think the same of me, along with others who have the same beliefs I have. A few of them are clearly enemies of the liberty movement, and support increased suppression by the government. But this discussion is not about people opposing liberty. It is about the stupidity and ignorance within the liberty movement itself at this point in time. Ignorance on the part of party leaders who don’t shoot at the enemy but at their own allies. Stupidity on the part of people who blindly follow them. Is that harsh enough? Some of this is on one side, some of this is on the other — or I should say others. Everyone in the liberty movement should be an ally. We should all be fighting to find the submarine called Freedom to rescue it. Instead, some of us are chasing after it underwater, where we should be, while others sit on the surface flying their party sanctioned flags and shooting at anything that surfaces or even moves. Just as they were not all in one vessel attempting rescue in the movie, we do not all need to be in the same party. Different arguments are needed. Did the “good guys” just send out one ship? No. So why do we have one 50 year old party that attempts to deal with every aspect and every question of liberty? It is the ship on the surface, flying flags and shooting at its own people. The bottom is covered in barnacles and rust, and its wake is full of leaking oil and people jumping overboard. The Libertarian party needs to go into dry dock and either be scrapped or rebuild itself. Some seem to want to rebuild. Some of us who jumped want a newer vessel. A party built to show the public a message they might listen to. One running candidates who do not look and act insane in the public’s eyes. Red October is still out there, and we need to rescue it. But how do we build a better party?