Steve Trinward Steve Trinward is "Soul Proprietor" of Trinwords.Com (wordsmithing and editing services) and a contributing editor for Rational Review. SUPPORT OUR
SPONSORS WHY AREN'T YOU A SPONSOR?
|
Election Scorecard Okay, now that Election Day has passed us by, it’s time for the scorecard. Back in January and February this writer attempted to use the various Gubernatorial races as a means of assessing what might realistically be expected out of the various Libertarian Party endorsed campaigns. Since then, some of those candidates have been “unendorsed,” and some new ones appeared on the scene since, but the overall field remained pretty stable. Meanwhile, some other races and campaigns turned out to be even more pivotal in the cause of Liberty. I took some major flak over the way I treated the various campaigns in Massachusetts, as compared to how I tried to analyze the value of other efforts around the country. I have tried since then to clarify my intentions, and most folks seem to understand the motives and meaning of my endeavors. Those who continue to fling dung on my attempts seem incapable of recognizing an honest effort at constructive criticism; I suspect that they have never wanted even their closest friends to let them know about an unfastened fly, mustard on the cheek or spinach in the teeth. Herewith, including a synopsis of the predictions, is how the runes played out: Most Likely to Succeed: Ed Thompson, Wisconsin Previously, in this space: “Ed Thompson begins with some measurable advantages: He has already been elected, and currently serves as Mayor of the town of Tomah. He is also the brother of former Wisconsin Governor, and current Bush Cabinet Secretary of Health & Human Services, Tommy Thompson, who served 14 years in the position Ed now seeks… a well-known businessman for many years, as well as a rather colorful character, from his ‘Toughman’ competition days to his other hobbies. He was also instrumental at the statewide level, battling to deregulate small-time gambling. (He owns a bar and restaurant, the Tee Pee Supper Club, raided several years ago with four nickel poker machines confiscated. [As] the only tavern owner… who refused to cut a deal and plead guilty, he ended up winning his case when the district attorney couldn't find enough unbiased jurors.) Thompson then turned to lobbying, until the legislature changed the law so that tavern owners with no more than five video gambling machines now face only misdemeanor, instead of felony, charges. This prompted some people to encourage him to run for Tomah mayor, where he defeated two-term incumbent Bud Johnson. He raised money, both inside and outside the LP, and built a campaign staff around non-libertarians as well as LP regulars. He got a former GOP state representative to join the LP, and then be his running-mate as Lt. Governor. Meanwhile, the fact that Wisconsin, like Minnesota, has same-day voter registration (a major factor in the Ventura victory), has a lot of people making some very rash predictions about Ed's chances. He presented strong libertarian positions on a wide variety of issues, from the Drug War to government in general (‘not so much leading as it is serving…’). He favored term limits, medical marijuana, local control of schools … and the need for definite limits on the War on Terrorism… and expressed a clear statement of the Non-Aggression Principle: “I don't think anybody has the right to instigate force against anybody else.’…” My prediction: Ed’s assets may give him the best chance of any of the libertarians, large- or small-L, who are seeking Gubernatorial colors. The result: Ed Thompson got a little over TEN percent of the vote, statewide, finishing a solid third out of eight ballot candidates, in a rather hotly contested race. He had clear “balance of power” in the race, which was closely contested throughout the state. He also WON the election in at least two counties, and by a handy margin in each case. Praxis, praxis, praxis … with an eye on the prize: Clyde Cleveland, Iowa Here we have a respected businessman, with broad support outside the LP, a cross-endorsement from the Natural Law Party, and similar support from the Greens as well. He called himself a "socially conscious venture capitalist," balancing his business credentials with his concern for the environment. He's a free market proponent who grows and eats organic food. Though personally pro-life, he was clear that the government should not be the arbiter over a woman's body. His opposition was fairly soft, compared to some years, with the incumbent, Democrat Tom Vilsack, considered quite vulnerable. Meanwhile, the only Republicans who announced were State Rep. Steve Sukup and Bob Vanderplaats of something called Opportunities Unlimited. Neither of them had established much statewide support before this. My prediction: Of all the other campaigns, Cleveland seems to be most serious about building coalitions and long-term activism around common goals and methods. The result: Clyde Cleveland managed only 24,512 votes (2.4%), coming in third of four candidates, but maybe laid the groundwork for some future coalition-based activity with other parties. He also published an excellent campaign book, which could be a major outreach tool for distinguishing Greens from “watermelons,” and for finding the kinds of street activists we need to add to our arsenal more and more, if we are ever to escape the charge of being either closet Republicans or “extreme right wingers.” But I suspect that most of you readers are waiting for my mea culpa about the harshness of my critique of a certain paradigm. So let’s assess the efforts in Massachusetts, where I predicted that the combination of Howell for Governor, Cloud for Senate and the Repeal the State Income Tax Referendum would basically raise and spend millions, lose all three elections and barely make a dent on the political horizon… In my February column, I made an assessment of these campaigns, focusing on the Howell effort, to use them/it as example(s) of how NOT to run a winning campaign for public office. The sections of the analysis were: Know little or nothing about the real issues Don't spend any time building a local power-base If you DO have an issue to campaign on, keep it closely guarded Let 'situation ethics' guide your every move Do NOT learn from the mistakes of others Answer your critics with disdain … or silence Since I have still not gotten even ONE WORD from either Howell or her supporters to contradict any of the FACTS I cited – or even to cogently contradict the conclusions I drew there – I see no reason to retract any of this. I suggest the curious go to the article and read it for themselves, and then judge accordingly. I closed by asking: So what can we expect? And we got: A bunch of full-page ads in LP News, another spate of direct mail and e-mail appeals (always raising money for what has already been done, not building a fund for future efforts), and promises, promises, promises -- most beginning with "Just imagine if…" The result(s): Carla Howell got a bare ONE percent of the vote, trailing not only the two Uniparty candidates, but being eclipsed (3 to 1) by the Green Party nominee… and barely nosing out an Independent candidate who was viewed by pretty much everyone who observed her as a “crackpot”. The election was never really all that close, so the “wasted vote” argument had little weight, and a seeming repudiation of her candidacy (in the face of the surprising success of what was allegedly her top issue, in the related income tax referendum, discussed below). Howell also made a point of rejecting eleventh hour press coverage as “degrading” (because it attempted to compare her with the very “minor” candidates with whom she ended up grappling in the end), and isolated herself from most other Libertarians running in the state. At most, her high-profile, high-dollar, constant fundraising campaign was just one more example of wheel spinning and wasted resources. But as long as I’m “talkin’ ‘bout Taxachusetts” I should mention the other races being waged up there, by the same pair of “Small Government is Beautiful” devotees. Michael Cloud had a seemingly impressive NINETEEN percent in his challenge to the incumbent U.S. Senator John Kerry… until we consider that: Cloud’s major thrust in his campaign was issuing faxed and e-mailed press releases to a general media list (can you say “round file”?), along with his usual push for more and more funding from the usual LP sources (through full-pager ads in LP News), and a last-gulp “hunger strike” in the waning days of the campaign (which was mostly laughed at by the media). Cloud then went out and secured less than one-fifth of those voting, with no other “protest” challengers for the Kerry opposition to support. If we compare the 25% of total opposition to Ted Kennedy in 2000 (12% to Howell, 13% for the party-repudiated GOP candidate Jack E. Robinson) to the 19% Cloud received, the case could be made that he actually did WORSE in this race than he should have. Whether or not one takes the view that 19% is a helluva showing, it is still too statistically insignificant to be more than a historical footnote. Another note: I GOT 15% of the vote, in a State Senate race, in the same state, in 1978, running against an entrenched incumbent, as the only opposition on the ballot. I was unknown and spent IIRC $275.00 on flyers and a few arty posters; I delivered exactly TWO public speeches; was interviewed by two newspapers; spent all of about 10 hours campaigning once I got on the ballot... and was running into people nearly a decade later who thought they recognized my name (not a common one, to be sure) ... and then realized they "must have voted for you" in that election ... (Another benchmark? Back in 2000, here in Tennessee, we had candidates with far less public name recognition, and a helluva lot less money… getting that kind of percentage in THREE way races.) That percentage is MEANINGLESS in this situation ... I got a copy a few days ago of an e-mail post by a Bay State Libertarian, one who is very concerned that the alleged success of Cloud’s campaign may lead to a continuation of the paradigm, and that steps must be taken to avoid this happening: “There seems to be a substantial difference between the full-time, high energy, high effort, media-rich outreach campaign sold to potential contributors by many slick full-page advertisements in our national newsletter (and sold to members in at least one fundraising letter sent to a LP mailing list), and the real life "campaign" LPMA members observed. If it is true that there is a major difference between what was sold, and what really was, most likely LP News readers (specially newer members) living in other states will not catch on unless one or more LPMA members act. If it is true that there is a major difference between what was sold, and what was, and then in two years and beyond we see similar Cloud campaigns, increasing numbers of knowing LPMA members will only grow more cynical and apathetic to the party. Should there be action? Is the feeble reality v. fantastic hype that was the Cloud 2002 Senate campaign just a one time innocent misjudgment, or is it one in a pattern? Does the difference seem severe enough to rise to the level of a minor fraud? Should a request be made to the National LP for an investigation, or should a formal complaint be made? Does the LP News or the National LP have the ability to consider this type of matter?” Concerns like this must be addressed – if not by Cloud himself, then by some other Libertarian Party members who can either explain the misconception, or acknowledge the error – before any further political action which follows this paradigm is taken and/or supported within the LP. Otherwise, we will just continue to work at cross purposes, and undercut each other’s good efforts. The income-tax repeal: This effort had a surprising result, as over 45 percent of the voters in the Commonwealth actually said, “YES, Dammit; I DO want to end this confiscatory program for fat bureaucrats…” Well, at least they voted to repeal the state’s income tax, which is still sending shockwaves around the nation. Carla and Michael and their cohorts are to be congratulated on their efforts, which came much closer than even they expected them to. The question remains, however, whether this campaign might actually have succeeded in overturning the tax, had the proponents chosen to put their campaign together with a little less exclusion, and a little more direct outreach to the voters, starting with the earliest parts of the battle. As I have noted recently on LPUS (responding to individual arrows, instead of remembering I had a column to write?): “I wonder how they would have done in repealing the income tax, by starting out as part of a coalition to DO SO... not as something which many of us were unable NOT to see as a continuation of a tightly held cabal whose primary function was to perpetuate an income-source for a handful of the same people as usual... I bring this up only to point out how much more effective the whole thing might have been had there been some attempt to answer the critics way back when, instead of seeming to confirm those perceptions ... and pretty much guarantee there would be no support forthcoming from those previously burned by trusting in the mushroom management approach ... Refusing to consider that -- if one's critics continue to make the same points, there might be a lot of potential supporters who would shy away from contributing, and that a few words of clarity might change all of that -- shows very little sense of how ‘politics’ might be run in a society based on liberty, responsibility and honesty ...” (Note: I have also reviewed the column I wrote on this subject (“Mickey and Judy? or Cleavon and Mel?: An analysis of the 'Massachusetts model' for activism” ), way back in December or January IIRC. I think the questions I asked then are still valid for those wishing to make a similar effort in the future; I also think that now that they are in debriefing mode, the proponents of Question One might benefit from some self-analysis as to what might have been if they had been less eager to discount outside suggestions on this matter.) In closing, for now at least, I freely admit that the work done in Massachusetts, once the petition had been certified and officially on the ballot, did a creditable job of building on the pre-existing 37% of voters who were (according to the polls?) considering voting for it anyway. Also, by bringing such a hardcore and radical libertarian measure to the forefront, they performed a valuable service for the cause of Liberty, and may have encouraged others in other states to stand up to the juggernaut and do the same, expecting even better results. I still can’t help wondering what might have been, if the entire project had been handled like the community-building process it could have been. Part Two, the conclusion of this piece, will attempt to sum up the other races around the country, including the non-Gubernatorial ones, and analyze their meaning on the overall issue of Liberty. |
