Steve Trinward Steve Trinward is "Soul Proprietor" of Trinwords.Com (wordsmithing and editing services) and a contributing editor for Rational Review.
|
Is Jefferson Smith
Just a Myth? In the first two segments of this overview of libertarians, large-L and -small, running for Governor in 2002, we examined (a) the campaigns of Ed Thompson and Clyde Cleveland, two candidates considered to have a serious chance of challenging for the position in their respective states; and (b) the Carla Howell campaign in Massachusetts, which (on the surface at least) appears to be taking all the wrong steps to getting elected. Once more, to refresh your memory, here are the five paradigms for serious candidacy we have been examining: 1. Compete and win at the local level, climb to state house, then seek Congress; 2. Use small-town connections to jump start at Mayor, then go for Governor or Congress; 3. Build community name, use personal/political network to seek legislature, then Congressional seat; 4. Raise money, run big-media race, high-dollar 'pros from Dover' … on "imagine if..." promises; 5. Build from precincts, with a volunteer campaign army and a mass movement approach. Along with the three campaigns already covered in this series, there are at least SIXTEEN other states in which Libertarians are running for Governor. (Disclaimer: Folks, I'm a columnist, not a librarian; there may well be more. However, these are the ones with declared candidates, listed as such on the LP national website, or of whose campaigns I have personal knowledge.) To give each of these worthy souls the depth of treatment he probably deserves [Masculine pronoun used advisedly here; outside of Ms. Howell in Massachusetts, there are apparently NO WOMEN Libertarians running at this level in 2002] would turn this into a book about the size of the Congressional Record. (Fortunately, thanks to the wonders of hyperlinking, this can be remedied, and this columnist can confine himself to an overview of the field, and a little handicapping.) However, there are some basic matters of style and substance that may help to fill out this analysis. After all, the intended and stated purpose of this whole series is to help us figure out how to do this thing called "electoral politics" a whole lot better than we have been doing it. Or, so that we may, in the jargon of a personal-growth seminar I took years ago: "Find out what works, and do more of it; find out what doesn't work, and do less of it; and try new things…" (Contrary to opinion in some circles, this was not intended to be a monocular slam dance on one campaign out of the many -- See this article's epilogue for more discussion on this issue …) 1. If at first you don't succeed … One effective tactic, almost intuitively, is to run for the same office again: (1) you've already covered the territory, or at least some of it; (2) you've established some name recognition and media connections; and (3) you presumably already have a core cadre of supporters from the last time out. In the case of our Libertarian Gubernatorial candidates, there are four who are experiencing this déjà vu:, George Peabody in Hawaii, John Babiarz in New Hampshire, Ken Krawchuk in Pennsylvania and Jeff Daiell in Texas. In three of the four cases, external politics have shorted the odds a bit, offering a little more hope for the contenders. George "Major Candidate" Peabody < molokaiman@flex.com > is a 57-year-old Molokai, Hawaii, newspaper editor/publisher who has been here before, having run for Governor in 1998, where his vote total directly affected the result. This time around, he hopes to build on that 'balance of power" position, and is at very least, as he puts it, "running with a fair expectation of making a major impact on the election … seriously contending, but without the money. In 1998 I tipped the scale away from the Republican contender Linda Lingle by 4,500+ votes so the Democrat Ben Cayetano won." (He notes that his intention, then as now, was to be governor himself, not just tip the balance.) "Lingle is running again this year," he says, "and apparently has little to no competition within her party. I know her dirt, and she is already deeply involved in it, violating yet again the campaign laws prohibiting use of absentee forms!" (Note: Cayetano is term-limited from defending his seat, so Peabody is actually one of the better-known contenders this time around.) His campaign centers around tax relief, curbing police-state tyranny and affirming the right to self-defense. He is also soliciting campaign donations "of \$20 or less … because I believe the Office of Governor should not be for sale to highest bidders." He has previously been very active in a number of issue-based citizen campaigns, including public beach rights of way, "taxslavery," the War on Drugs, J.A.I.L. for Judges and education privatization. He has a ten-point program, outlined on his website, which presents his issues in more detail. Meanwhile, in Texas , Jeff Daiell < jeffdaiell@yahoo.com > has been campaigning pretty actively since last spring. He is also running in a relative void (the former Governor, as we are reminded daily, is now President); and in his last time around (way back in 1990), he gained more votes in that one state than any other statewide Libertarian campaign has managed, before or since! He also, with 129,000 votes, held a clear balance of power in a very close election, the difference between winner and runner-up was about two-thirds of that. It was also enough to win ballot status for the LPTexas for the next two election cycles. (Note: Jeff scorns the Postal Hindrance's enforced two-letter codes, and this writer pointed out that there are TWO "LPT" affiliates in the mix!) "If I repeat that this time," he notes, "it will allow the party to focus attention in 2004 on winnable local elections, rather than worrying about just saving our ballot status." If the party were to lose ballot status this time, regaining it in 2004 would require "literally tens of thousands of valid signatures, with voters who participate in the primaries being ineligible to sign ... at a cost probably exceeding a dollar per signature, possibly over \$1.50." For this election cycle, Daiell has been building a variety of coalitions -- from the gay and lesbian communities, to gun owners, to taxpayers, to Drug War opponents -- and has already delivered a number of public speeches, before some fairly sizable crowds. He has also spent some time walking the talk himself: as a charter member and first Treasurer, Coalition For Improved Transit; a charter member of the North Montrose Civic Association; a member of the Neartown Association; and as a charter member, former Secretary, Vice-Chair and Board member of the Greater Houston Tax Coalition. John Babiarz < http://www.babiarz.org/issues.html >, 46, last ran for Governor of New Hampshire only two years ago; the Granite State (along with its neighbor, Vermont) elects its figurehead twice as often as most. As a result, he is both fresh in minds of the voters who backed him then, and perhaps still a little tired from the last time out. New Hampshire is not only already a relative stronghold for Liberty, but has a small enough population so that the right combination of campaigning and issue recognition could make Babiarz a real contender up there. Unlike his neighbor to the South, however, he is not making any promises he probably can't keep. "I would like to see the people of New Hampshire be able to live their lives freely, independently, without the undue burden of government," he declares on his campaign site. "I take our state’s motto, 'Live Free or Die,' very seriously. It is a motto that is consistent with the principles of the Libertarian Party. Everything the state does affects its people. We need to be constantly vigilant to assure the state is doing the right things for people." Babiarz, a former Air Force electronics specialist, has worked in the computer industry for over 20 years, much of that as an independent businessman. He is currently president of Intergalactic Software, operates Endor Communications, an Internet Service Provider, and works entrepreneurially from his farm in Grafton. He has also been an active and concerned citizen of his community: He is Grafton Cemetery Trustee, a member of the Grafton Volunteer Fire Department, a board member of the Mascoma Regional School District and vice chairman of the Libertarian Party, Second District. Ken Krawchuk < www.KenK.org > is back on the line for Governor of Pennsylvania, as he was in 1998, after several rounds of contending for state and local office. And, since the Keystone State lost its Chief Executive when he became Bush's Heimatslandsicherheitsamt Czar in September (though Tom Ridge was due to be term-limited to the sidelines anyway), the door is pretty wide open this time. This 49-year-old entrepreneur and businessman has been a perpetual candidate during his years in the LP, running locally, for state house seats, statewide (Governor, '98) and even at the national level (LP Vice Presidential nomination, 2000, where he finished a fairly close second to Art Olivier). His 1998 campaign emphasized him as "the moderate choice" for Governor: "The Krawchuk voice is a voice for principle, for individual rights and individual responsibilities. The state is ready for fresh ideas, forthright honesty, and a respect for both civil liberties and the law of the land." His LP credentials are almost impeccable: A registered Libertarian since the early 90s, he's served at all levels of LP organization, from grassroots up to state Executive Board -- in addition to his many campaigns as a candidate. For this campaign, he is kicking off a statewide whistlestop tour as this piece is going to press (February 16-19). As the kickoff announcement puts it, " The ultimate goals are establishing (minor) party status for the Libertarian Party, media exposure and direct assistance to help all our candidates get elected, a professional statewide campaign, and to spread far and wide the Libertarian message of tolerance, freedom, and respect for the individual. Your life your way." Krawchuk considers this much less of a problem: "The big goal … is the minor-party status," he says. "For that, I need a whopping two percent. Last time I got 1.1% (as the first Libertarian to break one percent for Governor). I have great hopes this time." Achieving this goal would grant the LP of Pennsylvania: (1) Control over the Libertarian Party name and who runs under its banner; (2) A check-off box on the voter registration cards saying, "Libertarian" (a certain boost to registration efforts); (3) The ability to appoint candidates to special elections without petitioning; and (4) A "Libertarian" column printed on all general election ballots, whether or not they run candidates. As it now stands, everyone has to petition each time around in Pennsylvania; but third parties and independents need ten times as many signatures for Congress and statewide offices. However, once they have 15 percent of the registered voters, they become a "political party" eligible for the lower petitioning numbers and entitled to a primary. Krawchuk considers his campaign (which if successful would among other things make registering much more straightforward) to be a worthwhile component in that effort. Krawchuk's focus on these specific and attainable goals, like establishing the right to put "Libertarian" on the ballot for the next go-round, make his one of the campaigns worth supporting. His only opposition at the convention will be a small but determined campaign for None of the Above. The concern is that too much emphasis will be placed on the Governor's race, at the expense of local and legislative, more winnable contests, and that the "party-name" issue pales before the need for local grassroots campaigns. 2. With primary colors flying … Three states will hold intra-party primaries for the post. Libertarians in Colorado, Ohio and Wyoming (and until about two weeks ago, California; see below) will have not one but two contestants vying for their state party's nomination for Governor, with reasons ranging from ideological to strategic. In Colorado, the initial front-runner, Bob Glass (longtime activist for gun rights, unabashedly hardcore Libertarian), took a long look at what was in front of him and bowed out of the race in early January, citing "burnout" as one of the reasons. The former gun shop owner and founder of the activist group Tyranny Response Team had entered the race in September. "In my enthusiasm and desire to carry on the fight," Glass wrote, in an open letter to supporters, posted on his website, "I convinced myself that I could physically, emotionally and financially wage this campaign. I realize now that I cannot. I bit off more than I could chew." He was a strong critic of incumbent Republican Gov. Bill Owens, and had promised to end the War on Drugs and halt the stepped up background checks on Colorado gun buyers since the Columbine High murders. Glass's withdrawal leaves a newcomer to the LP of Colorado, former Reform Party activist James Vance < http://jamesvance.org >. This younger (31) rival hopes to make outreach overtures to his own Generation X peers, and their even younger 20something associates, a major part of his campaign effort. Vance only joined the LP ranks within the last year, and has spent little time building his credentials within the party. Furthermore, his article in a recent issue of Colorado Liberty angered many in the Colorado LP ranks, with what some considered its "anti-libertarian" statements. Meanwhile, his appeal to a more "consequentialist" approach to politics is seen by some as a betrayal of the Libertarian principles that have prevailed in Colorado since its founding back in 1972, as one of the charter members of the original Libertarian Party. He is quick to note that his campaign and message are not a "fundamentalist/hardcore libertarian platform or issue interpretation. We are selling this to the general public as a 'realist' interpretation of the libertarian philosophy, [about] the incremental removal of our rights and liberties over the years." He is "engaged in plans that would start a cycle of 'reverse incrementalism' to regain those rights and liberties. We've found this resonates well with a large percentage of the populace we've spoken to, especially those who view Libertarians as 'fringe' politicians, or fundamentalists. [Those people]," he declares, "do not understand that politics is the art of compromise - which is something I do understand very well." Vance is also "using my youth to our advantage," as well as targeting "niche groups that feel ignored or repressed by the current political system: gay/lesbian groups, 'freethinker' societies and non-Christian based religious organizations, the recreational but professional pro-legalization of marijuana crowd, and other socially liberal-minded organizations." His strategy is not geared to what he calls "the classic pro-Libertarian groups -- the 'gun' groups and the economic conservatives -- though that does not mean we are ignoring them. They simply are not the focus; they've been preached to for so long now, they understand the message and are either already onboard with it or have already rejected it." He is also building alliances with other parties who are not running candidates for Governor, but who have some common ground with Liberty and with particular candidates from other parties who are "running platforms that are inherently libertarian, or libertarian enough, to feel comfortable in supporting their candidacy. Naturally this is being done only where a LP candidate is not being run," he notes. The exit of Bob Glass has not left the field wide open for Mr. Vance, however. Ralph Shnelvar < ralphs@dos32.com >, a strong advocate for Glass, stepped up to fill the void, and intends to defeat Vance at the party's May convention, then carry on to November as the party standard-bearer. Shnelvar, 51, has been in the Colorado party since 1977. He freely admits he's "running an oddball campaign," and experimenting with unorthodox methods and strategies for getting elected. He was a reluctant candidate, who only declared after Glass dropped out, and admits he is "bitter" about Glass's decision, "because of all the work I put into the campaign." However, he feels "neither anger nor disrespect toward the man" for taking this course. Although initially a reluctant candidate, he now terms himself "a balls to the wall campaigner," pledging to devote "every spare moment I have" to his candidacy. He is also fortunate in being self-employed, with the flexibility to schedule events whenever necessary. Shnelvar intends to run close to the ground, essentially on a "zero budget" campaign -- at least until such time as he has attracted enough media attention and "buzz" to warrant going after funding. Although there are some 6,000 registered Libertarian voters in Colorado, he notes, the vast majority are neither contributors nor activists. "I see the incumbent Governor has already raised about four million dollars," he says. "If I were to go out and raise money right now, with 100 bucks average from each of about 300 activists, I could perhaps manage to find maybe \$30,000. The difference between thirty grand against four million, and NO money against four million … is basically insignificant." He would much rather see such monies going to local races and candidates with a greater likelihood of actually winning. This doesn't mean he won't try. "I have no illusions about how hard it will be for me to win," he admits, "but I'm going to try some high-risk things in order to get a shot at winning the governorship." His campaign team is already forming coalitions, including some sympathetic Democrats and Republicans. "If I'm going to raise money," he freely admits, "it will have to be from sources outside of the Party Regulars. What [they] can do, and are doing, is give me their time." Shnelvar plans a "guerilla marketing" campaign, building coalitions where possible and using as much free media as he can muster. Further details are still undisclosed; he is, after all, facing a challenge from another registered Libertarian, before he can legitimately take his effort directly to the voters of Colorado. His energies are thus largely focused on the Colorado LP's state convention in May, where he must win in order to run as the Libertarian Party's candidate for Governor. A 'coup' just waiting to happen? One more potential issue in this contested race involves the ease of eligibility standards for casting a ballot. To be eligible to vote in such an election, one must merely either (a) be registered to vote as a Libertarian (as of at least one day before the convention), or (b) pay a \$12 fee in lieu of such registration. The convention will be held in Leadville which, in spite of its recent electoral success (now a majority of the city council members are card-carrying Libertarians), is also several hours away from the major population centers of the state. As a result, attendance at this convention could be lower than usual. Thus, one possible concern of some of the Colorado old guard is that Vance might bring in a significant number of new faces, either registering them or paying their way into the convention. This could potentially result in a coup, similar to that attempted in Arizona (and perhaps other states), only this time it might be successful. With still another three months and change until that convention, there are some who are hoping to insulate against such an "undemocratic" outcome. Whether or not they succeed could determine a lot about the future direction of the Libertarian Party in Colorado. Head-to-head in Ohio Meanwhile in Ohio, Steven Linnabary < slinnab@gcfn.org > faces off against his much younger opponent, Ben Lyons < c/o http://www.lpo.org >, in part as an attempt to gain some publicity for the Libertarian Party: "My prime reason for running," says Linnabary. "was to attempt a party primary. It is my belief that while we as a party put much effort into losing statewide 'informational' campaigns, we never seem to do the same thing with primary races. If there is no excitement in the D's & R's, maybe some people will be attracted to a contested LP race." His activist resume (both within the LP and otherwise) is extensive: "I've served the LP in offices from local chair to state chair to three terms on NatCom. I am currently treasurer of the Franklin County LP. In other activities I have helped start a soup kitchen (and volunteered there for years), a homeless shelter, a group home for the developmentally disabled. In other political activity I have served as state coordinator for NORML, FIJA, and as Midwest coordinator for Veterans Against Foreign Wars." His issues are pretty straightforward: "Let's stop balancing the state budget on the backs of children," he intones, pledging to earmark both lottery money and state income tax revenue to fund education in Ohio. Linnabary also supports Vermont-style concealed carry, constitutional elections that include all political parties, marijuana legalization, and ending adult alcohol prohibition. He sees a chance to "piggyback" his campaign on a medical marijuana initiative petition, currently being circulated for the November ballot. His opponent, Ben Lyons, is a 24-year old radio talk show host, who plans to run a youth-oriented campaign, and advocates changing the legal drinking age back to 18. He also supports concealed carry and the re-legalization of marijuana. Despite his youth, Lyons notes that he will be 26 when elected and views his age as a positive attribute. "I work two jobs, I've paid my dues, and I won't sell out," he promises, "I owe nothing to anyone but the voters of Ohio." Lyons also supports a multi-state lottery and capital punishment. The two candidates are not that far apart on the issues, and seem to hold no animus toward each other, so this could be an interesting (if bloodless?) showdown. Meanwhile, party leaders say they expect at least one other candidate to jump into the race at a later date. "We're excited that our party has grown so much that we will be having contested primaries," says executive director Dena Bruedigam. "We're looking forward to the competition." Meanwhile, they face one of the toughest ballot access laws in the country: "Here's the rub," notes Linnabary. "The LP of Ohio might not have ballot access. It is in the state Supreme Court now. Ohio has some of the worst ballot access laws in the country. Even running as an independent is out of the question." As a result, "my campaign for Governor hasn't done anything yet, except circulate petitions." The fourth primary challenge is out in Wyoming, where the voters of that state will see either Dave Dawson < selfgovwyo@yahoo.com > or Mark Spungen as the Libertarian Gubernatorial challenger come November. Dawson, a longtime LP activist, best known as the founder of the Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA), was contacted for information, but had not responded at press time. Spungen has a less well-known name in Libertarian circles (and also has neither website, e-mail nor contact number, according to both the national and state websites). Further details are unknown at this point. 3. First time out of the blocks … Then there are the Gubernatorial hopefuls who, though they haven't been there before, and will only face real competition in the finals on Election Day, are nevertheless poised to make some waves, with some pretty specific goals in mind. Maryland's Spear Lancaster < www.spear2002.com > is a retired businessman, with a strong record of community involvement, who seeks the Governorship this year -- not because he necessarily wants the job, but because by capturing at least one percent of the vote in November he can maintain ballot-status for the Libertarian Party of Maryland for the next time around. Like Krawchuk in Pennsylvania and Daiell in Texas, he sees his purpose in broader terms than just winning an election this year. Lancaster has been active in the LP since the mid to late '90s. He served as Maryland Vice Chair for a couple of years, before resigning to pursue this race full-time. The campaign has three goals: (1) run to win the office, of course, but (failing that); (2) get over one percent of the vote (keeps ballot status); and (3) encourage more people to get involved and register to vote (one percent of the state's voters registered as Libertarian will achieve major party status for the LP of Maryland). He has the advantage of being a lifelong Marylander, and a successful businessman, with a record of involvement in various civic groups. According to those who have seen him in action, he connects well with a broad spectrum of voters, regardless of age, race, politics or other factors. His career in sales has given him great listening skills; he is also open to new ideas for solutions, and doesn't just parrot the platform with no sense of his audience, as some LP candidates tend to do. Lancaster was officially nominated at the state convention in late January. He is hopeful that a current court battle will be won, and the party can forego another petition drive. However, since that decision could go either way, there is an active petition drive in progress. The work is heavily volunteer, with only a couple of paid petitioners to fill out those efforts. A recent check showed the campaign with 16,000 signatures, aiming at a gross total of 40,000. With a late-summer deadline, the campaign is on track to meet the goal.
Playing the match game … or not? Meanwhile, out in Arizona, Barry Hess < http://www.HessforGovernor.Org > is chasing that desert rainbow, in a state whose Libertarian contingent was recently split down the middle, over issues both strategic and ideological. Most of the battles have circled around whether or not a Libertarian candidate should accept or apply for matching funds collected from the taxpaying public. Hess is one of the few people in the state who is still in touch with, and generally respected by, folks from both factions. His stance on the feud's major issue is more consequentialist than absolutist: As he pus it, in a response to a recent public forum, "while I would prefer to run my campaign totally with voluntary contributions rather than money taken from individuals against their will, I am also compelled to use every tool available to forward the cause of Freedom." He has been unbending on this question, agreeing with those who oppose the use of public funding for campaigns, but not considering it a "deal breaker" compared to other issues more pressing to the voters. He is also convinced that declaring absolute opposition to acceptance of matching funds right now, a full five months before such funds will be made available (and at a time when he has not even qualified for them), would be a waste of a great opportunity to publicize the issue. "If I have qualified for the funds in June, and then refuse to take them, that's news!" he declares. His perceived "waffling" has brought challenge from both sides of the divided libertarian contingent: The refusal to "just say no" has him pilloried by some among the hardcore old guard LP of Arizona cadre, while his unwillingness to say he would accept the funds (if he qualifies for them) have a similar effect on the "practical" folks in the ALP, Inc. camp. As a result, even his good-natured camaraderie has been looked askance upon by some on both sides. Hess says he's received contributions from a number of people who have successfully hedged their bets: "[They] simply wrote a little note (in most cases) and enclosed a check to the campaign that was in excess of the Clean Elections allowance of \$110.00 per individual. They did this, knowing it could not be cashed if I did choose to participate. Simple, and honest, right?" He cites others, who simply wrote in the memo field: _Do not cash unless CCEA is refused_. "Isn't that a more civilized approach," asks Hess, "than to say, 'blah, blah, blah … You'd better do it my way, or I won't vote for you -- but I would, I promise, if you did…'? Talk's cheap! I came here to DO something!" He notes there are about 14-16,000 registered Libertarians in Arizona, and says, "My 'base' is not divided, I'm just a guy trying to make a difference Statistically, it will take 35-37% to win the race, and my 'base' is the registered Independents and Libertarians." He also predicts, "We are all but certain to qualify [for the Clean Elections funds]. Then and only then will this become a real, viable issue. In the meantime, I'm after the exposure that no Libertarian has ever gotten in this State." It is here that Hess puts practical perspective on the issue, with its potential value as a public relations tool: "I am not unaware the Clean Elections Commission members view it as a feather in their collectivist caps to say a Libertarian is involved in this nonsense." They hope to use me to legitimize their deal, and that means they'll have to tout our campaign -- ever hear of free publicity? If they put the spotlight on me do you think my actions will have a greater, or lesser impact on the issue? My concern remains to do something, anything, all I can, to bring back at least a little Freedom. It is not now, and has never been, about money." Meanwhile, Barry Hess carries on, with the same optimism he had as a longshot contender for the Presidential nomination a couple of years ago, finishing a distant fourth. Many folks like the upbeat and positive "I can win" attitude, which is not presented as an "imagine if" pipe-dream, but as a real possibility with the right breaks and exposure of the ideas of Liberty. Since Governor Jane Dee Hull, the GOP incumbent in the Land of the Diamondbacks, has been term-limited out of office, there is as yet no clear-cut front-runner established. As a songwriter friend of mine has written, "The unsinkable Titanic / Outgrossed Star Wars and E.T. / Stranger things have happened…" That rebel yell … Down in Dixieland, three neighboring states from the Southeast are fielding Gubernatorial candidates this time around: John Sophocleus (Alabama), Garrett Michael Hayes (Georgia) and Ray Ledford, Jr. (Tennessee). Each in his own way has some specific targets in mind. John Sophocleus < sophocls@business.auburn.edu >, in Bear Bryant country, has some pretty realistic aspirations: "I think it is reasonable to say I have a sound chance at obtaining more votes than the margin of victory in the Nov. 5th election. There is no doubt that 'party building,' LP name recognition and getting out the Libertarian message are very important as well." He is an economics instructor at Auburn University, and recently expressed his opposition to a proposed rewrite of the state constitution, believing it would set off 20 years of litigation over every change. "The constitutional rewrite is going to be the full-employment act for politically connected attorneys," he says, noting that some advocates of a new constitution want to change existing amendments and state laws that set aside many state taxes for specific purposes, such as education or roads. Sophocleus likes having those restrictions on the Legislature: "Crazy people ought to be in straight jackets," he declares. "The folks in the Legislature has shown they are irresponsible even when most of the money is earmarked." Sophocleus would like to change one part of the constitution: the way the Legislature is elected. He would structure the Legislature more like the U.S. Congress, with one senator from each of Alabama's 67 counties and one representative for each 30,000 people within a county. This would increase the size of the Legislature from 140 members to 217 and would reduce individual members' power. Garrett Michael Hayes < www.HayesForGovernor.com >, whose Georgia state party will be hosting the LP 2004 Presidential nominating convention in Atlanta, has a vision for his campaign which is equal parts "going for the Gold" and building on the party's existing roots. Representing a state where Libertarians have made major strides forward in recent years, he challenges any contention that this is not a "winnable" race. "Historically," he notes, "Libertarians in Georgia have garnered about 4-6 percent of the vote, without a concerted effort. So, in order to win, I only need to increase that percentage by a factor of about 10. Barring a lottery win, I expect to be able to spend about 4 to 10 thousand dollars on the campaign. In other words, I have a pretty good shot at winning. Again, am I a serious candidate? Damn straight I'm serious! I've had enough, and I intend to gather around me all those who are similarly afflicted, and to ride to ultimate victory. "I reject out of hand the 'you can't win, so why are you running?' question, because it is meaningless. Any goal less than winning can be achieved by aiming to win, while aiming at ANY lower target only limits the possibilities. So don't bother me with facts, figures, charts and reports showing why it CAN'T be done. It takes 50% plus one [vote] to win, and I'm after that one … with all I can muster." He also questions the focus on strategizing and choosing specific attack-plans: "The simple fact that history shows to me is that those who have succeeded in effecting great changes did not do so by starting from a base of 'strategies.' Rather, they did it by starting with a powerful belief and a commitment to that belief, come what may." On the practical side, Hayes has focused on building press awareness prior to the party's nominating convention next month. "We have done a couple of press releases and one on-air interview so far, he says. "We have filed the proper papers for fundraising, and are starting the first round of calls for contributions this week. The plan for February will be to step up the press-calls as dramatically as possible, preparatory to a large splash when I take the nomination in March. From there," he declares confidently, "it's on to stomping on as many Republican and Democrat toes as possible, until victory in November. The "volunteer" approach Meanwhile, in Tennessee, LP state Vice Chair Ray Ledford, Jr. < rledford@mindspring.com > waged a credible campaign for State Assembly in 2000, gaining 17 percent of the vote, against an entrenched incumbent, his first time out. (He was far from satisfied with this performance, and refuses to excuse it with the fact that family health problems and other matters hampered the last month of his campaign effort.) He was initially planning to seek the State Senate seat in Bradley County, but when Charles Wilhoit, Jr. (the early favorite for the Gubernatorial nomination, nicknamed "the Admiral" by his LPTN colleagues, for his firm yet gentle leadership in previous years) withdrew his name for LPTN endorsement, Ledford decided there should still be a top-of-ticket LP candidate. He formally announced his candidacy only a few days ago, and will now be the lone contender (other than NOTA, of course) for the party's nomination at the upcoming March 23rd convention in Nashville. Ledford's major campaign focus is coalescing support from the various taxpayer groups who joined LPTN members on the protest-lines over the last three years. The friendships and mutual respect gained from that effort (which culminated in talkmaster Steve Gill declaring, "If it were not for the Libertarians, we'd have a state income tax today!" during the massive anti-tax rally last August) has many people primed and ready to support a candidate who will unequivocally oppose the state's profligate spending and tax increases. Between Democrat Phil Bredeson (a proven spendthrift as former Mayor of Nashville) and Van Hilleary (an incumbent conservative GOPer, with a history of fiscal responsibility in his Congressional voting record, but who has inexplicably been waffling on the issue back home), these latter-day Tea Party rebels see no real options. They are poised to help a Libertarian candidate with the backbone to stick to principles. As for the practicalities of his own campaign, Ledford is brief and to the point: "My reason for running is to bring libertarian ideas back to our state government," he declares. "My issues will focus on taxes, spending and the need to downsize that government." He will seek coalitions by emphasizing his unyielding anti-tax stand and his commitment to the Bill of Rights. "This has already brought some anti-tax groups on board," he says, " so I'm told." But why he is vying for office at this level? Ledford admits, "I really had no intention of doing this, but when Charles dropped out, it just seemed somebody had to step up to the plate. As Governor, I will do anything to protect the rest of us from higher taxes and other predatory actions by the government (including the constitutional violations), even if I have to take the General Assembly to court." The Wilhoit strategy, dubbed the "LPTN Plan for Growth," is elegant in its simplicity, though a challenge for those who would seek to change society without doing the footwork. It is designed to build the state party from the ground up, precinct by precinct, through personal one-to-one contact and volunteer shoe-leather. The theory is impeccable: (1) Get your county voter list, diskette or CD-ROM; (2) Parse it down to those who are registered to vote, but did not do so in the last Gubernatorial election (which featured a duplicitous and disliked incumbent with only token opposition); (3) Now break that list into precincts, and distribute that to as many Libertarians as are willing to do the legwork in their own neighborhoods. Given that among registered voters there are generally many more who do not vote at all, than the combined total of all those who DO cast a ballot, such a campaign (on paper at least) holds great potential for discovering a significant number of 'closet libertarians,' from among whom a serious precinct-level organization could be developed. Since nobody in the Libertarian Party has ever tried this before, there is no way to know for sure how it will work. However, Wilhoit says he used the same methods, with great success, in managing a local campaign back in San Diego about a decade ago. Starting with an almost unknown candidate, and doing a systematic process of presenting the basics of his platform and program (as well as with the candidate himself) to his neighbors, their neighbors, and so on, Charles built both name-recognition and polling levels to the point where the guy was making a serious run at the seat. "He would have won it, too," Charles declares, "if once he started getting some results, he hadn't insisted on throwing out everything that had worked so far, in favor of the same old timeworn political methods." On Election Day, a lot of people who had been ready to vote for this newcomer had reconsidered their support for yet another slick dealmaker. Wilhoit had three conditions for running for Governor as a Libertarian: (1) a clear statement from the state party disapproving the 'questionable' actions of the Browne campaign (which he got); (2) implementation of the LPTN Plan for Growth; and (3) enough Libertarian candidates running to at least prevent 'unopposed' races for State Assembly, if not to contend for every seat in the state. Neither of the last two goals was even close to being met by the end of 2001; the clincher was that the Plan for Growth process had only barely begun, after well more than a year of delays. Without this precinct-level organization driving the effort, Wilhoit knew any real campaign was out of the question; he withdrew his name from LPTN consideration, and left the party officially. (Note: He is every bit as much a libertarian as he ever was; he merely chose to remove the albatross from his campaign for Governor, now being pursued as an Independent -- which is what the ballot would have said anyway…) Ledford is more than a little distressed by the speed with which some Libertarians turned against the good Admiral. Indeed, the Wilhoit decision caused him a good deal of personal pain; along with his wife, Helen, has had a close personal friendship with the Captain and his wife, Tricia. "It pains me to see the negative reaction some LPTN members continue to have regarding what Charles did." Ray clearly understands the reasoning behind the decision: "Charles asked all of us to pursue an ideal, but the hard reality is that most of our county organizations are still too small to get the recommended precinct workers in place before the campaign season starts." As for building a campaign volunteer-force, Ray is a realist: "I recognize that there's an ideal (LPers all the way) and the reality, which is that I'm going to have to BUILD support from independents, non-voters, libertarian-leaning Demopubs and the assorted third-parties (Green, Reform, etc.). Frankly, I expect to be spending a lot of time in my car this year, traveling to and fro, and the goal is to hit all 95 counties at some point this year. I'm going to see Tennessee like I've never seen it before." Yes, and if this campaign gets off the ground with the potential it could have … the politicians up on the Hill in Nashville may wish they'd never given him reason to start traveling. However, given the late start, the relative anonymity of the candidate and the lack of a strong pre-existing base, the likelihood is that Ray Ledford should have stuck with his initial target … the State Senate. The howl of the Wolfpack … As noted above, California had until recently been a contested state vis a vis the LP Gubernatorial candidacy. Unfortunately, that contest was voided recently, when (thanks to an election-law technicality) former Bellflower Mayor and 2000 Libertarian Vice Presidential nominee Art Olivier was declared ineligible to run as a Libertarian this year. Details are sketchy, but apparently Olivier has been registered as "declined to state" for some time now, and even a court challenge could not secure a waiver. This leaves the somewhat unorthodox stylings of Gary Copeland < http://www.lpwolfpack.net/copeland/ > as the expected lone candidate to lead the 2002 LPC ticket. Copeland, best known as a year-2000 challenger for National Chair, describes himself on his campaign website as, "Gary Copeland. Libertarian. Druid. Existentialist." He is CEO of NextCure Corporation, a bio-information company dedicated to providing information on new cures that affect the human condition. His views are laid out, with a combination of cynicism and candor, on his website. (Note: Since no response from Copeland was forthcoming, this writer has no idea what the real purpose of this campaign might be, unless it is to show how a guerilla campaign from the ground up might be effective. If that is indeed the case, he might want to consider a variation on Wilhoit's Plan; since California already has the registered Libertarians for a talent pool, half of the work has already been done!) [ Disclaimer: I am fully aware there may be others who could be listed in this section, but as I have told many people already, I'm a writer, not a research librarian! I apologize for anyone I missed.] The independents movement There are at least three libertarians who began 2001 intending to run for a Gubernatorial slot, as Libertarians, but decided against that strategy, and are now exploring options running as Independents. In addition to the aforementioned Captain Wilhoit in Tennessee, there is Hollywood producer Aaron Russo in Nevada, and Indian and civil rights activist Russell Means in New Mexico. Each for one reason or the other has decided to forego his state's LP nomination; little is currently known about any of their Independent campaigns, except that: (a) they are apparently still functioning at some level, and (b) the candidates are still running on libertarian issues. Further digging into these three campaigns would serve no useful purpose for this article. However, Jonathan Zwickel, a California LP activist and once and current candidate, has asked the question this way, during a discussion on the LPUS-CAMP(aigns) list: "Why should a candidate run as a Libertarian party candidate? A politician running to win picks the party that: a) he can get, and b) he thinks will do him the most good toward winning his election. The Libertarian Party has very limited numbers of both registered libertarian voters and 'votes a candidate can count on.' "The LP has limited supporters and a limited fundraising base. Serious candidates look for votes and money, or more realistically money and votes, because they want to win. In order to get and keep these serious candidates, the LP must increase its clout with many, many more registered libertarians (although a few hundred thousand members would help), and show that the LP can influence and get large vote totals on a regular basis." CONCLUSIONS So what can we learn from all of this? The intention of this series was to offer an overview of what is working, and what is not; what is proven, and what is still speculation; and what new ideas may lie on the horizon for promoting the ideals and programs of Liberty to the general public. This is, after all, a cultural war, and not just a purely political one, and it is going to take a major paradigm shift, not just a change of the faces in office, to turn the train around! There are obviously some races for Governor this year which deserve some notice, and some support: the ones aimed at creating or restoring either party or ballot status should probably receive the most attention, since they will reduce the burden down the line for a lot of people: the less time and resources we have to spend repeatedly getting on the damned ballot, the more we have to use for actually presenting our ideas, electing our candidates … and changing the laws toward greater Liberty! Thus, the work of folks like Spear Lancaster in Maryland, Jeff Daiell (Texas) and Ken Krawchuk (Pennsylvania) should be commended and supported, perhaps above all the others. Right behind, or perhaps alongside those, there are the races where we have a better than even chance of affecting the outcome: George Peabody in Hawaii already did it once, as did Jeff Daiell (which makes two good reasons to support his campaign; add the fact that he has few if any delusions about getting elected, and this firm grasp on reality puts him even higher on the list!), and the likelihood is they might each repeat this feat. John Sophocleus in Alabama, perhaps Garrett Hayes in Georgia (running in a race that could be a close one, with the fastest-growing state party in the country behind him) and Barry Hess in Arizona, might be in a position to join them this time. John Babiarz (New Hampshire), in his second attempt at the office in three years, might also have a chance of affecting the outcome up there. A close third, at least in this writer's opinion, are the states (one, perhaps more) where it might be possible to actually win the election for Governor. There is no real indication that the Libertarian Party of any state is in a position to throw all its eggs into the Gubernatorial basket, but if there is one such, it could be Wisconsin. So far, only Ed Thompson's candidacy seems to be realistically in this category. A realistic game plan, a pre-existing base of support outside of LP confines, and a candidate with both name-recognition and electoral credibility gives the party a measurable chance of winning the election in November -- or at very least making a lot of Demopublicans sweat profusely. Any contribution intended to really make a difference this year should be directed there, in this writer's estimation. There may be others where it could happen (Iowa? Perhaps even Hawaii?), if the breaks fall properly into place, but the odds are strongly against it. Another possibly good reason for running for Governor are contested LP primaries, whether they is either a fight for the party "soul" (cf., Colorado), or as a low-budget experiment (as in the an attempt at generating some press "buzz" out of the prelim contest in Ohio). And finally, there are the candidates who, though well-meaning and sincere, are basically pushing the rock up the hill, and like Sisyphus, will probably see it roll right back down again. I honestly don't see why they are running for Governor, when the playing-field is so clearly slanted against them, and there are so many better places to put their energies and talents. Moreover, in none of these cases has the necessary groundwork been done to build a viable precinct-level organization Those in this category, at least in this writer's opinion, include my adopted home state (Tennessee) and my former one (Massachusetts). Neither state has yet done the local organizing to allow for a truly effective grassroots effort; neither candidate has established the credibility at the local level to warrant a vote for Governor. (If Ray Ledford was running seriously, for State Assembly (House or Senate), I would back him without question; if Carla Howell were running for a State House seat, as a realistic battle after her relative success at the U.S. Senate level, I might even recommend supporting that campaign.) The Libertarian Party spent its first 30 years in existence, first struggling for any recognition of the issues it could manage, then promoting itself as "America's third party" through 50-state ballot drives and a focus on national politics. Meanwhile, the individual states mostly crawled along, ramping up for Presidential campaigns and going dormant in between. It is now time (as some state affiliates have already come to realize) to put our energies into actually changing the face of government. This begins with the local level -- precincts, towns, cities and counties -- and not with the national, Federal or statewide one. Higher office campaigns should be cosmetic, educational, low-funded and focused on supporting local and state house races, at least until such time as there are enough Libertarians who have actually won a campaign race to come from a position of credibility. Those state parties running Gubernatorial races to serve their local candidates, by broadening awareness of a unified message on the principles and practicality of Liberty, are serving this newfound direction. Those seeking to influence election outcomes, and to show the LP has enough support to be reckoned with, are also helping the cause. And those with ballot or party status issues in the balance, where even a token vote result will save either time or money for the next round of candidates, these too deserve commendation (although probably not big-dollar support?). The rest seem to be about vanity, misguided zeal or some conception that leaving an empty seat at the debate table (assuming they invite us at all?) would somehow be a mistake. However, if there is nothing to be gained but frustration (and a feeling that the effort could have been better spent elsewhere?), there is no good reason to run for any office higher than your own state representative's job -- this year, or any other. I hope we figure this out soon…. EPILOGUE: A rebuttal of sorts … Already, due largely to Part Two of this series, there has been considerable fallout about this series. Some folks (who apparently read only Part Two, without the context of the overall thesis?), have declared the work "muckraking tripe" and found no value in the investigation. More significantly, the Executive Director of the Libertarian Party of Massachusetts found cause to shut down the General Discussion list on the party website, since the mere mention of criticism of that campaign is apparently considered out of bounds, and someone posted a link to the article on the list. In doing so, the director noted that there had already been, in just the first week since the article appeared, a major falling out in the Howell fundraising effort: At least two high-dollar contributors had announced they would no longer be donating as planned, and cited this article series (along with a relatively tame story on the fundraising peculiarities of the tax-repeal petition drive, published in a local suburban weekly) as the reason! But those who have looked at the overall picture should see something much greater here. The Howell campaign was used to make a series of points about how not to run a campaign, if one's intention is to win the election. That piece started out intending to only go so far, but the more data collected, the more indications of trouble (either poor decisionmaking or hidden agendas?) seemed to bob to the surface. As the information was sorted out, and the questions arose, the opportunity seemed one not to be missed, if only to discourage others from blindly following that model of campaign strategy and tactics. Meanwhile, targeting the Howell campaign in Massachusetts was no accident; the intention was also to hold under a microscope the Gubernatorial effort that has so far received by far the lion's share of publicity, credibility and promotion, from LP News to most of the individual state party organs (how many 2002 LP state conventions, even all the way across the country, have her slated as a keynote speaker?). Some balance for the almost one-note adulation for this campaign (even at the expense of ignoring others?) was necessary. After all, if this was indeed the Top Dog in the Kennel, it should be able to withstand an assault far more deadly than anything this writer could manage to present. If an admittedly opinion-driven commentary -- in a startup e-zine … bolstered only by a judicious use of facts and probabilities … and written by someone whose work is hardly famous, even in Libertarian circles -- can make even a dent in the armor of such an allegedly worthy and high-minded campaign … What happens if the campaign were to make real headway in the Governor's race, and the entrenched powers and their Boston media lackeys decided to dig for the dirt? (This writer used to live there, and has seen enough muckraking and destruction of life, liberty and property -- all in the name of electing some hack or another -- to last him several lifetimes' worth of political nightmares! Do a web-search under "Revere Sex Ring" for a horrifying example; look up "Willie Sanders" for another less well-known, and that one wasn't even about an election… or was it?) The Libertarian Party (of Massachusetts, or anywhere) cannot operate under the "politics as usual" banner which serves the Demoncraps and Republicants so well; we must rise above that standard, so that there is preferably no dirt to be dug, no skeletons. Because, if there are any secrets, questionable deeds or financial dealings, it will make Page One of both Globe and Herald; be the lead story on Channels 4, 5 and 7; and dominate discussion on every other media outlet and talk show … until the credibility of our ideas is buried so deep it will take at least another 30 years just to get back to where we are today! The proper response to the declarations in this series would have been a point-by-point rebuttal and explanation. In cases where the data had been misinterpreted, the correction would be welcome; where it had been selectively slanted to make a point, a fuller presentation of the dropped context could have been offered. Instead, we get censorship of discussion lists, complete silence from the campaign ... and vicious, ad hominem e-list postings, denigrating this writer's ancestry and integrity. What possible constructive good can this do, to further the cause of Liberty for which we are all allegedly fighting? |
