When the controversy surrounding Angela Keaton was at its frenzy pitch, Ms. Keaton (who brought much of it on herself) made the statement to me that "the members of the LNC (Libertarian National Committee) are not the party's brightest and best. Our greatest talents wouldn't touch the LNC."
You can say whatever you want about Ms. Keaton and whether or not she intended to or should have included herself in that categorization of the body she fought, then fought to belong to, then quit once she'd won, but it does seem to be a valid point, and not just about the LNC but the LSLA leadership as well. The dearth of talent at the top of the party and the dysfunctionality of party "insiders" that creates and perpetuates a leadership system that tends to split the party and fan the flames of division within its ranks rather than finding ways to unite the party and call it to a greater vision is the reason we have not gained any ground since the early years and in fact have probably lost ground over the past few years despite the potential opportunities of voter disillusionment with the ruling duoploy.
A year ago this month, I was at the center of an incident that illustrates the incompetence of party leadership and the penchant for creating division and derision rather than unity and vision. The incident in question has been cited, distorted, and blown way out of proportion by Aaron Starr and his cohorts as a means of blackballing my candidacy for an at large seat on the next Platform Committee as well as my application for the Executive Director position. Thanks to Aaron Starr and Alicia Mattson, you may have heard any number of things about that incident. Here are the facts.
The behavior of the Duensings, father, mother and son, as LSLA Chair, Nevada State Chair, and Convention Chairs in Las Vegas (their hometown) last February was Angela Keaton at her worst, on steroids, in a jock strap. The Duensings harrassed the Platform Committee (of which I was a member) incessantly leading up to the February meeting, because the Committee was unable to avoid meeting concurrently with some of the LSLA activities. The Duensings expected committee members to change flight reservations if necessary, and extend their stays for a Sunday meeting, in order to avoid competing with the Duensings' event on Saturday. This was not possible or practical for several members who stated they must leave late Saturday or early Sunday. Faced with the prospect of not having a quorum if waiting until Sunday to finish pre-convention business, PlatComm Chair Alicia Mattson refused to submit to the hosts' intimidation and brought down the venom of the Vegas Mafia on all Platform Committee members as a result, with behavior that even the more sedate members of the Platform Committe loudly described as "childish" and "passive aggressive."
As a result, the Platform Committee was evicted from meeting rooms at the event site that had been originally reserved for us, and forced to pay out of pocket for alternative space at nearby hotel, even when not in conflict with the LSLA schedule.
The last event on Saturday night of the LSLA meeting in February 2008 was a Presidential Candidates debate. After giving the party my time on the Platform Committee for two days and making the round trip from Chicago and the expensive hotel stay on my own dime, I simply wanted to hear the debate. I did not want or attempt to eat the dinner that was offered in conjunction with the debate. I did not attempt to take the last chair in the room. l simply wanted to hear the debate for the good of the party, at the end of an arduous two days of draining deliberations over the Platform. But Mr. and Mrs.Duensing met me at the door and refused to admit me, because I had not paid the $250 registration fee to attend the LSLA event.
I hadn't paid because I knew that because the Platform Committee would be in session throughout the weekend, there would be little if any opportunity to benefit from their programs. When I was confronted about my attempt to enter this one event without a ticket, I offered to pay a reasonable sum for the privilege of just listening. I asked how much I could pay to be admitted. I was told it was too late, and I couldn't pay. When I pressed the issue I was told I could pay $250. When I said that was ludicrous, and asked for a more reasonable number, my request was refused and I was ordered to leave. I offered $50 and again was derisively refused and ordered away.
That just seemed too much like Vegas thuggery and not at all like Libertarian values, and I'll admit, it made me angry. I fell into the two- wrongs-and-a-right trap, by refusing to be refused, and took a seat in the front of the room despite threats that security would be called. Within minutes, security was called and when asked, I quietly followed them out of the room. After a few minutes of reflection, I wrote a check for $50 and returned to the meeting room, offering the check to the Duensings. I apologized for my behavior and appealed to reason, common courtesy, and party unity. Again, I was derisively refused, and went away quietly, end of story.
That is not the way Mr. Starr tells it, or Ms. Mattson, or Mr. Sullentrup. Together they put the worst possible spin on my behavior in that incident and succeeded in poisoning the minds of LNC members who did not know me, and therefore didn't know any better than to belive Mr. Starr's version of the incident. Only Pat Dixon was objective enough to call me and get the other side of the story before making up his mind.
As a result I was not elected to the at large position at the December meeting of the LNC in San Diego, I will not be seriously considered for the Executive Director position, and in fact Ms. Mattson colluded with unsuspecting dupes in Illinois to ensure that although I was the sitting state representative on the.PlatComm and made it clear that I wished to continue, another party member would challenge me for the post, and was able to win by one vote.
I find it especially amusing that this has occurred, since when I was first appointed to the Platform Commitee, and I forwarded a position paper to Mr. Sullentrup, he suggested I run for the LNC and told me that my paper is evidence of a better mind and better grasp of the issues than that of "a large majority of the members of the LNC." I'm sure he will deny ever making such a statement, but I have it in my email archive.
So what is my point? And isn't this just sour grapes? No, it isn't just sour grapes. And my point is that Sullentrup told me the same thing Angela Keaton would later declare, that the vast majority of the LNC members do not represent the greatest minds or talents of the party. And obviously a majority of those who have fallen into positions of power within the party are either incompetent or intentionally divisive and obstructive and seem to inherently put their own personal agendas ahead of a broader vision of what is good for the party, hence the constant factionalism and bickering and backroom dealing worthy of Republicrats but certainly way below the standards we claim for ourselves as the party of principle.
Now, in fairness to those in party leadership who deserve to be there and have given their hides, hearts and the best years of their lives to the party, I will name those who do not deserve to be lumped together with the rest. Mary Ruwart, Lee Wrights, Pat Dixon, and Julia Fox represent all that is good about libertarianism. A few others, such as Michael Jingozian, bring much to the table. The majority of the LNC, and much of the past and current LSLA leadership, however, fall far short of the bar, and have led us into our current morass of financial and visionary bankruptcy.
Until recently I have believed that the very nature of our party, our principles, the power of liberty when featured and focused upon, the achievements of great libertarian lights of the past upon whose shoulders and in whose steps we have come to this juncture, would be sufficient, if channeled appropriately, to lead us to eventual electoral victory. As a candidate for the Executive Director position as well as in my writing at this site and many other sites on the web, I have stated my belief in our potential to succeed if we can only get our message out in a way that both captures the true essence of what we believe (rather than offering the watered down Republican lite version of ourselves, as the Reform Caucus is determined to do) in a practical and pragmatic means that emphasizes why soccer moms and NASCAR dads should support legalized drugs and prostitution and the elimination rather than the gradual and incremental reduction of taxes. I have challenged the party to unite behind a grand vision of potential rather than disintegrate behind an us versus them toxicity that not only pits L's against the rest, but pits L's against other L's, to be the kind of party that will entice the many libertarian celebrities, influentials and power players to join a comprehensive media campaign to educate the public about what we believe and who we are and why we offer something better than the duopoly. Instead our leadership is determined to run the party into the ground, to be the kind of party that no celebrity or influential in their right mind would admit any affinity with, say nothing about affiliation.
So because of the fact that our party continues to be hostage to the likes of Starr, Sullentrup, and the Duensings, it appears that not only are the brightest and best not part of the official leadership, they are not likely to be a part of the party in any respect in the near future. There comes a point in time when the hole in the hull is so big and the water intake so fast that the only reasonable course to take is to abandon ship.
WIth all due respect to David Nolan who co founded the party 35 years ago, and to Mary Ruwart who came so close and should have been our standard bearer instead of the carpetbagger, last time around, and many others including the late great Harry Browne, who brought me into the party, I'm sad to suggest that perhaps it is too late to save the ship.
I do believe that there must be a party. Our objectives will never be achieved to any significant degree without a political party as the means and force to achieve it. But the party that will return America to our founders' visions of liberty will be a healthy party, one that is not constantly fermenting in its own toxins, eating its young, sabotaging its best leaders, and imitating its worst enemies.
Given this, I understand more than anyone how ludicrous it seems to suggest that we further fractionalize the movement with another schism. And yet as much as splits off splits seem counterproductive, and other splits such as the Boston Tea Party will never be the answer, I can't help but believe that if the right people would come together and come with us, the type of leaders who are TOO bright and TOO talented to serve on the LNC or the LSLA, and the few who do serve there in spite of the odds against them, we might have a chance. I don't know. But isn't it worth considering?
There comes a time in battle when you leave the dying to their deaths. There comes a time in medicine when it is so obvious the patient is being consumed by the cancer within with no hope of recovery, that you pull the plug and start praying the rosary. I think we may have reached that point with our beloved Libertarian Party. The tumors are huge, numerous and inoperable. The toxins are too potent and too pervasive, metastatic, in the bloodstream. The ship is going down. The soldier is mortally wounded. The patient is terminal. But the cause is not lost, at least not if we recognize the inability of the current vessel to deliver us to our destination. We must gather the best, the brightest, and the willing into a lifeboat and set a course for a new party that will assume the role. I think its time. How about you?
©2009 John Wingspread Howell, all rights reserved. You must have written permission from the author in order to republish this work.
Published: Friday, February 13, 2009
Last modified: Friday, February 13, 2009
The views expressed in this article are those of John Wingspread Howell only and do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. John Wingspread Howell is solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Report violation by John Wingspread Howell of Nolan Chart LLC's terms of use policy.
| More Articles By John Wingspread Howell |
Reader Comments:
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2009-02-13 07:17:24
A new party! Yes, I'm SURE that will help...NOT!
Abandon sandbox! Every man for himself. We'll create a new sandbox...over there...in the far corner of the playground.
Thanks John for my morning chuckle.
Those Bullies! :-)
-Jahfre Fire Eater
Posted By: Gary
Date: 2009-02-13 10:04:52
I see things haven't changed in Vegas (except the names) since 1994 when I was asked to be the LP Congressional candidate. The LP should have and would have been a great party by now. (Oh how I miss Harry Browne and why I love his legacy at DownsizeDC.org.) Being new to the party in 1994 I was quite busy attempting to run an effective campaign. Then, as it appears now, there were so many involved in petty power plays within the party it was both embarassing and frustrating. I went from believing I had found the party to help build to understanding it would never grow as long as there were major power grabs for a minor party. It was pure silliness and sadness. Many of us who had flocked to the LP from the GOP were taken on a ride from excitement to utter frustration.
Another new party? We'll be discussing that very issue in a couple of weeks on our radio show. As a sneek peek I personally don't see that as an answer. The LP however has so many years of foolish power struggles and damaged reputation it may never grow the way it should have. Most of my focus is on non-partisan efforts in education and action. Voting is based on a candidates understanding of the oath of office and not what party they belong to. I support any who embrace our founding principles and don't care about their party. The only party efforts I remotely partake in these daze are with those associated with the Republican Liberty Caucus. I know, the GOP is reeling from decades of abuse by RINOs running the RNC. Maybe it will change, maybe not. It is party politics after all and even minor parties play the game instead of growing the effort. The LP is a shining example of what should have been and what is easily killed by small minds fighting for some illusive belief there's power to be had. There's over 50 third parties, another? No, not the answer. Fix where your at or focus on the non-partisan efforts.
Posted By: Christiana
Date: 2009-02-13 13:12:41
I understand that you're angry about what happened in Neveda. But where is the part that you take responsibility. You had no right to attend unless you had a ticket. It would have been nice just to sell tickets to the debate but they decided not to. You knew and decied to attend the debate anyway. How is that anyon'e fault but yours.
Posted By: Chris Baker
Date: 2009-02-13 13:23:48
LSLA--is that Libertarian State Leadership Alliance?
Posted By: dean cameron
Date: 2009-02-13 20:13:45
Were I a conspiracy nut, I wouldn't be surprised if there is a vast conspiracy by the u.s. gov't to destroy the libertarian party. It seemed as Libertarians, as a party, were being taken seriously when Harry Browne was our candidate.
At this point, Libertarian ideas are still discussed at the very least, but the Libertarian party has become a footnote at best and a joke at worst.
I know these things go on at Republicrat conventions and meetings, but we really need to remember what our purpose is and stick to that vision.
This stuff is tragic.
Posted By: John Howell- the author
Date: 2009-02-13 20:21:46
Replies to other comments:
Christiana, you are absolutely right and I admitted as much in my comment "and I'll admit, it made me angry. I fell into the two- wrongs-and-a-right trap.." in other words, yes, I screwed up also. But my purpose in telling the story is to illustrate the horrible stupidity and divisiveness of those who are supposed to be in leadership. Yes. I was also stupid and divisive. My stupidity was a knee-jerk reaction to theirs. Again, not an excuse but an explanation. But forget about me. This article is about bad leadership, and divisive behavior by those in leadership.
Chris, yes, I believe you are correct.
Gary: I'm still on the fence as to whether the "radical" half of the party should leave and start over, or whether we should try to organize to replace certain people in leadership with the likes of Drew Carey and Clint Eastwood, etc and take back the party for its original ideals and principles, or as you say, third parties are irrelevant and it is the movement, not a party, that will bring about change. But I keep coming back to the need for a party as a mechanism and a vehicle to promote liberty, to get candidates on the ballot, to be ready to take over and lead, should we ever win a major election. The irony is that as we are now, that will never happen. But I haven't left yet.
Posted By: John Howell - author
Date: 2009-02-14 16:19:03
In reply to the "New Party" comment I would say this, and as I said above, I'm still on the fence.
We either need to find a way to wrest control away from the current leadership within one year, or we need another party. The lack of a party is not a solution. A dysfunctional party has a negative value, so a new party would actually cancel it out, not further dilute.