I was somewhat intrigued when popular Libertarian blogger Tom Knapp started the Boston Tea Party soon after the 2006 Portland massacre. An online political party that hearkened to the radical sensibility with a savvy for the political seemed an interesting notion without any real threat to LP work and activities. A place where members could vent and fume within their own diaries and entries and perhaps still effect meaningful activism within the libertarian community in general. Fine. Sometimes a great notion . . .
The current self-flagellation from its members and current standard bearers for office is a greater reflection of petty narcissistic traits and ambitions that one finds within splinters of a small movement, than any real grassroots or political effort. To be sure, most of the current brouhaha is based on the success of reform elements within the LP and the eventual nomination of Bob Barr. But there has also been a disproportionate coverage of their activities within the small third party blogosphere and even some mention in the higher echelons of typical political coverage. I'm beginning to think about getting sixteen of my buddies together to form the American Anarchist Party so as not to be left out. At least there would be no compromise on real principles.
In my estimation the BTP became untenable, less credible and utterly ridiculous when the New York affiliate formed without my knowledge or possible input. I expressed my discontent about this to founder Tom Knapp and got a reply that membership wasn't tracked on geographical basis and thus any notification about formation of an affiliate wouldn't be forthcoming to members unless they kept abreast of the website and those postings. At the time I thought I had kept a current feed from BTP in my aggregator (Bloglines) and it was only another entry at the time that serendipitously showed up that brought me back to the site for a quick re-reference. It was at that time that I became knowledgeable of the NY affiliate startup.
Of course the elements forming that start up were no more radical in spirit than in truth ambitious for titles and accolades. In fact some of the players were in dispute with the LPNY about one of their affiliates and a factional shoot off from it in another arena wasn't all that surprising. Having also expressed some insider concern to Knapp about this, he just shrugged it off and said something about long ropes and the like.
In the course of 2007 one saw a gradual decline of the website and eventually spam took it over and the case for neglect made itself very obvious if one visited the site. Again Knapp was shrugging it off as not his baby anymore since the formation of a national committee and control being handed over to the new principles. Any other misgivings about Knapp and his organizational abilities were already being sent to me through my association of other notable activists and to some extent LNC connections. After he was almost completely rejected for the Platform Committee in Pittsburgh that summer I figured any possible radical ally in this figure was improbable. At the time he was flailing for Kubby as the official or non-official this or that and it was obvious where his pre-occupation was at. Once he started running Ron Paul up the racist flagpole based on a Suicide Girls post, I was done. After the Sean Haugh attack after Vegas, I was disgusted, despite reassurances from Angela Keaton and Paulie that he wasn't the drama queen I might have marked him as.
Enter the Independent Political Report. They started covering the mini-convention of the BTP in Denver and it seems like new life was born from it. Apparently that long rope came back to bite BTP and Knapp put the kibosh on any usurpation of his baby. Utilizing an administrative override on the former national vice-chair and asserting a violation of by-laws and original intent, he summarily dismissed the usurpers and rallied his original cabal and pressed ahead with their own convention online. I'm sure if I'm wrong about this and on any radar as such, I'll be corrected on a dozen counts by TK or the like.
But my general point is this. The BTP is an operational and philosophical mess. Great, a one line platform states that they want to reduce government on all counts. So what?! While it's not the contorted twistings of the Reformista's tired ruminations and redefinitions, its just annoying at this point. When some kiddie script hacker represents some percentage of the actual vote of their convention and all former users are told to sign up again because their database got trashed, you don't have to wonder. You just don't take it seriously. Radicals ought to stay in the LP and exert what influence they can in a franchise which has stood the test of time for at least thirty years. Getting all huffy over one candidate in an impossible race to win is not the solution. There is plenty of room for spirited protest candidacies and meaningful activism.
So don't get your panties in a wad because Brian Holtz won the platform or that Bob Barr said something about Fannie Mae on TV. Easy ballot access in Colorado and Louisiana may get you on the ballot there and might put you on a temporary pedestal amongst chortling colleagues, but seriously, get a life (or a sound card). Do what you can, where you can. Stop fantasizing about a greater liberty movement or party. Stay real. Stay radical. Stay LP.
Eric,
Interesting piece. I'll take my cue here:
That's not how it happened.
I did, in fact, assert a violation of the bylaws, and I appealed that alleged violation to the membership. Any member could have done so, given the support of a bylaws-set percentage of the members signing onto the complaint (and they did).
My "administrative override" on Dr. Stevens was not based on the assertion of a bylaws violation. It was based on the fact that he abusively intervened to shut down the bylaws-mandated poll of the aforementioned appeal. So, I took away his ability to exercise admin control of the web site (although not his ability to rant, etc. there).
The "usurpers" were not "dismissed," summarily or otherwise. They resigned of their own accord after the chair (not me, and in fact he and I had been at definite odds for some time before that) took notice of Dr. Stevens's peremptory behavior and started asking pointed questions about the state affiliates they purportedly represented (short version: Those affiliates apparently existed only on note cards in Dr. Stevens's filing cabinet).
You were right in your concerns about the New York affiliate, and about Dr. Stevens (you weren't the only person who had privately expressed such concerns to me). However, I couldn't act, as you say, "summarily." Dr. Stevens had to give me a sword first. It took awhile, but he eventually did so.
Other than that timeline/occurrence correction, I can't say I have any real beef with your opinions (although I disagree with them). You're right -- I'm not a great organizer. Fortunately, I'm no longer in charge of organizing. I'm not even on the party's national committee.
Drama queen, eh? Interestingly, I pride myself on my aplomb. Perhaps I should re-examine that self-image.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
Excellent piece, Eric. I had no idea the LP was organised in 1973. On the lp.org site they say 1971. But I've learned not to trust the LP.
You are completely correct, no one asked your permission for the formation of the New York state affiliate. You should be happy to hear that Dr. Stevens disaffiliated that group from the Boston Tea Party when he left in a huff. Curiously, Stevens had formed "The Objectivist Party" which is now on the ballot in Colorado, as far back as February 2008. Which presumably indicates some of the nature and extent of his conflict of interest while pretending to serve as vice chair.
All four of the state affiliates that Stevens helped to organise were either entirely shams, or immediately disaffiliated as soon as his ouster was permanent. His group of buddies resigned their positions on the national committee, and I think we're well shed of them.
Earlier this year, I took the job of chair for the Boston Tea Party. I did so reluctantly, because a friend had asked me to help, and for no other reason. I went to Denver expecting to have very little to do. It was my expectation that Mary Ruwart would win the LP nomination, the Boston Tea Party would endorse her candidacy, and we'd all go home happier and less burdened with work.
Within about a week, Stevens pulled his shenanigans, and I watched him take his ball, his players, and his state affiliates and go home. It was at this point that I got about as mad as a guy can be. My distaste for sham elections, about which I wrote frequently during my days with the National Space Society, had reached another nadir. And I decided that this time the travesty would not stand.
To my complete amazement, as soon as I had committed to making the Boston Tea Party an effective and ethical organisation, all kinds of people appeared from places and in ways I had no reason to expect them. Since the beginning of June, nine state affiliates have been organised and another twenty are in various stages of development. Hundreds of people have joined our Facebook presence, we're on more social networking sites than I knew existed, our candidates and officers have been interviewed on all kinds of media, and we've more than 160 members on our national site.
Perhaps of the greatest significance to this election year, we have begun to endorse candidates from other parties who are consistent in their positions and agree with our party's smaller government platform. It appears from our rate of growth in endorsements that we'll soon list more candidates for public office on our site than the national LP does on theirs. Since nearly all of the candidates we endorse are coming from the LP, it won't be much later that we'll have more LP candidates listed on our site than the national LP lists on theirs.
I left the LP in 1998 when I stopped renewing my national dues. I did not like the corruption evident in the 1996 campaign for Harry Browne. I was upset that the national headquarters staff began working for the Browne campaign before the nominee had been chosen. At the recent convention in Denver, David Nolan, a co-founder of the LP, circulated flyers complaining that the LP staff and national committee were once again showing bias favoring a particular candidate. He also noted that membership in the party was down substantially since 2000, by as much as 50% according to one report I read later.
But, I never stopped taking an interest in the LP, especially at the state level. I've worked with LP activists in Texas, in Wyoming, in North Carolina, and in Kansas. I'm interested in freedom, and LP members are interested in freedom. I'm not interested in corruption, I'm not excited about winning elections, and I am disgusted by the idea of dividing the spoils after such a victory. Like most other libertarian activists, had I wanted corruption and victory and the spoils of war, I could have chosen one of the two major parties where such things are commonplace.
Instead, I'm involved in a long struggle for freedom. I think the LP is a part of that struggle, but the national LP has sold out. The national LP has sold its soul, rejecting the efforts of good and decent people like Mary Ruwart and Angela Keaton. Attacking my friends is among the things that pisses me off and gets me worked into a frenzy, and the LP officers have done so.
The national LP is corrupt, it has betrayed its principles in 2006, and that illustrated that it was ripe for take over by unprincipled candidates like Bob Barr. But the state and local party organisations aren't corrupt, and there is nothing wrong with the principled members of the party. They just need to have better leadership at the national level.
Until they get some, the Boston Tea Party is a refuge for many. We are growing rapidly, gaining ballot access, and recruiting. I'm proud of what we've done in the last 45 days, and I expect to see more, soon.
After 24 October 2008, I won't be with the party in any official capacity. I'm not standing for election to the position I've held. I don't care for elective office. But I am really enjoying myself.
Jim
If it were formed in 1971 (or let's say 2006) wouldn't two years later be 1973 (2008) ? Ah . . but you got you're rhetorical device in, me too.
Permission ? Nah . . . but a note would have been nice . . . it might actually attract some quality players.
This piece was born from the frustration of the scurrying when things get a little tough. I'm sure it is exciting to have like minded folk work together for a common purpose or goal. It's what I was hoping for when I joined in 2001. It's so boring being an independent anarchist. Nothing to do but mind your own business and duck.
Effective and ethical ? Jury's still out on that one. Anecdotal membership claims and some MSM ain't the LP yet . . . but good luck with it all.
Dr. Tom Stevens didn't report to me at the time of the NY affiliate being formed. I came into the picture a little later, as I recall. Stevens got to be vice chair because he told Tom and me that the NY affiliate was still enthusiastic about the party. So, I'm sorry Stevens never contacted you.
Here's good news: we don't have a NY affiliate right now. I would be happy to let you know as soon as anyone expresses interest in forming one. I had written to Chuck Moulton about his interest in working with us to form an affiliate, and he wrote back to say he was going to be living in Virginia. So, he won't be forming a NY affiliate - our new vice chair doesn't go for out of staters forming affiliates the way our old one did. -grin-
Mind your own business and duck? Sure, but there's also a good bit of defensive and retaliatory force. The problem with the state is not that I won't leave it alone, but that as much as I mind my own business, it insists on minding mine, too.
Don't know if you go in for Facebook, but the membership there is visible to all who join the group.
Thank you for the well wishes. You are right in saying that we aren't the LP. If the luck holds, we never will be.
Let me also note that 1973 was a good year to party. I remember!
Jim,
As I choose not to 're-up' after the last database loss, you'll find that I am not a member of the organization. Thank you for the consideration this time around however.
I cannot disagree with your premise about the state and find my own involvement as LPNY chair sufficient to meet those challenges as outlined. I would likewise point you to the LPNY Facebook group. The LP is considered America's third largest party and enjoys considerable cache in regard to common ideas of Liberty, these would not be bad goals for a nascent organization to aspire to . . . not compromising principle and not accepting corruption is still a quality found with some of us who choose to stay - double grin.
Thank you for your inputs on this particular musing.
I was just about to jump on FB so I'll check out your group there, thanks!
You would be welcome to join BTP. Membership is still free. You probably agree with our very simple platform's ideas on smaller government at all levels, bigger gov't on no issues, since you agreed with it before the database was lost.
One of the guys I respect in this project is still a member of the LP. Tom Knapp is still campaigning as an LP candidate for Congress from Missouri. Staying in the LP is an option for many members of the BTP, including many candidates who have chosen to join our party and accept our endorsement.
Mind you, I think the LP national's behaviors have driven Angela Keaton away, and that she won't be with the party much longer. Chris Bennett has made the same decision, I gather from his statements. So has John Wayne Smith. So have I. It is unfortunate in some ways that the LP has driven away so many people who would otherwise be effective for it - but it is also clear that to fix the LP, there has to be some perceived cost to the headquarters staff and to the officers and national committee members who do go in for corruption and abuse of power.
If David Nolan is correct and membership in the LP is down substantially since 2000, which I think concurs with the data shown to people I know, by somewhere between one half and one third, then not paying membership dues to national is apparently not that big a deal to them - compared to whatever giant pool of money they think Bob Barr will let them swim in. So it may not really matter whether some LP members stay or go.
I'm not sure the Boston Tea Party is the best, or even an effective, strategy for fixing the LP. It may be that we'll be stuck with going our own way. And it may be that some other clever strategy will arise from some yet unknown source to make the LP work better, or make it irrelevant. To date, I've not seen any better alternative. Which is why I'm working very hard to make the most of the Boston Tea Party. It appears, from our new affiliates, our membership numbers, and the crowd of candidates seeking our endorsement, that nobody else has a better choice to offer, yet.
Eric, I appreciate your courtesy and your graciousness.
Jim,
I think any political party is bound to have it's series of problematics. My exposition on the BTP seems as relevant as your own misgivings about the LP. While I'm not one to go all Fabian when it comes to change within, I think the LP is small enough to do something along those lines anyway.
I personally think an emotional thirst for change is a more common problem than any 'corruption' per se. I've seen the practical basically liberty oriented folks dismiss 'radicals' as an impractical pie in the sky idealists without even examining their own course of improbability within the small franchise that is the LP. Sure there were some dirty tricks prior to the convention. I almost resigned from the LNC over the Ron Paul letter that Starr sent out. But in the end I decided to stay for very practical and prudent reasons. A good chess player knows there will be another match. A good general knows when to retreat.
It was people like Angela who urged me to stay in and run for chair in NY in order to maintain some reasoned balanced in this vicious cycle between reform and radical advocacy. I think in NY we recognize the painful imbalance between liberty and collectivism and labor on with our endeavor despite the odds or probabilities. There's a certain resignation coupled with political maturity that let's us maintain our little boat without all the hand wringing and crying that I see elsewhere.
That being said, I've got no reason to bash or rile up for what I believe to be the good people within the LP. Every time Jim Lark and I sit down, we have a wonderful conversation about all sorts of things. I spent the better part of an hour last February talking with Tony Ryan about police work in Denver. Dan Karlan and Hardy Machia have been great colleagues during my tenure with the LNC. Let's face it, a 1.7 million dollar budget and a membership of about 15K isn't even as strong as the MPP organizationally. But we try to run candidates and drive issues. I know this is lost by some who feel that victory is the only solution, but reality will stomp out this mentality eventually.
We've tried the Barr experiment in NY with Stern and Weld and it came home to bite us both times. I like Bob on a personal level and don't expect that an old conservative dog can learn new libertarian tricks. I agree with Knapp that he'll probably pull in about 700K votes. That being said, I'm fine with you guys running out and running your own candidate on easy ballot lines. But does the majority of that campaign need to spend so much of it's time complaining about the LP nominees ? Why not go at all the issues Barr and Root won't and do it in a high minded and spirited manner ? Splitting the minuscule libertarian vote with mudslinging tactics commonly found in the big party camps is unbecoming and unnecessary considering how few ballots you'll be on.
I appreciate your persistence with your cause and I normally don't enjoy the constant rounds of tit for tat that these hit pieces (mine on yours that is) entail. It's also why I don't post much when I see them elsewhere. But I did start this one, so . . .
I have no argument with your view that there are many good people in the LP.
The Charles Jay campaign is not my project. I think Charles is in charge, and gets advice from Darcy, Chris, and Tom. I have my hands full building the party. So, your recommendation about how the Jay campaign could be issues-directed and positive seems fine with me, but I'm not in a position to make changes.
At the same time, with a candidate like Barr, you have to expect criticism. Like the easy ballot access states, it is low hanging fruit.
Couldn't influence be considered wholly different than control over something ? Thus making building a party, a key element based on quality candidacies ? No need to claim clean hands while a decent effort is being put forward to build a foundation. Otherwise it might be considered stilt construction in a veritable lagoon. I'm looking through binoculars of course.
Criticism about a Barr candidacy ? You don't say . . .
I feel confident that I could find out exactly how much influence I have over the Jay/Knapp campaign by trying to influence how they run the campaign. I have not done so because I'm really not interested. I have confidence that Charles and Tom are getting good advice from Darcy and Chris. By not bothering the campaign, I don't have to be disappointed in case the influence I have proves to be minor. -grin-
You make an interesting analogy about stilt construction in a lagoon. I think it is more virtual than veritable, this lagoon. But, I think you are making an analogy with which I am very comfortable, which Jesus is reported making in Matthew 7:24-29. The basic point is: if you build your house upon sand - say, the shifting sands of political expedience - and the winds come and the storm blows in and the flood waters rise, you have to expect the house to fall. Whereas if you build your house upon a solid foundation of rock, you might be able to build to a great height and withstand all kinds of stormy weather, howling winds, etc.
Since my own personal goal is to build a staircase to the planets, I have long felt the need for an extremely solid foundation. I believe that the basic difference between the consistently ethical principles of the Boston Tea Party and the political expedience of the current national LP is analogous to the solid foundation of bedrock versus the shifting sands of a tidal pool. My intention is not to blow with the prevailing wind.
In one of my essays on the subject, I noted that there was a great huge light mural behind the podium in Denver. It showed a windmill. How fitting. A device for pointing into the strongest wind.
I believe it is possible for the LP national to get back to a solid foundation, but they are clearly not anchored at present. In order for that return to principle to occur, it is necessary to bring some force or some influence to bear on those with the power to drop anchor, or replace them.
The power that each individual LP member, past or present, has over the national LP is the membership dues. If you pay in the dues to an organisation that does not do what you want, you are rewarding it for bad behavior while seeking good behavior. That won't ever work.