[Lnc-votes] [Lnc-business] Suggestions regarding LP outreach literature

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Dear colleagues:

I hope all is well with you. As usual it was nice to see you in
Orlando last weekend. I have enclosed below some suggestions regarding
topics for LP outreach literature. I hope you find these suggestions
worthy of your consideration. I apologize that I was unable to send my
suggestions sooner; during the past week I have been swamped with
faculty duties, along with my duties to other libertarian organizations.

As always, thanks for your work for liberty. Best wishes to you
and your loved ones for a wonderful Thanksgiving.

Take care,
Jim

James W. Lark, III
Dept. of Systems and Information Engineering
Applied Mathematics Program, Dept. of Engineering and Society
University of Virginia

Advisor, The Liberty Coalition
University of Virginia

Region 5 Representative, Libertarian National Committee
-----

Suggestions regarding topics for LP outreach literature:

I believe we should develop material (including flyers/pamphlets)
concerning the following topics (listed in no particular order of
importance):

1) American foreign policy (ending activities which are hideously
immoral, horribly counterproductive, extraordinarily expensive, and/or
blatantly unconstitutional)

2) Health care and insurance (moving to a truly free market in both
health care and insurance)

3) "Crony capitalism" (ending the ability of governments to play
favorites in various ways)

4) The increasingly predatory nature of the law enforcement/judicial
system (e.g., police brutality, generating revenue for the state via
heavy fines for minor offenses, civil asset forfeiture, pre-trial
seizure of defendant assets)


There are many other topics about which we should develop outreach
material. My gut feeling (based upon a fair amount of seat-of-the-pants
empiricism) is that outreach material concerning the topics listed above
would give us the best return on investment over the near term. One
topic about which I may be able to offer specific suggestions for
outreach material concerns what I view as the increasing pettiness of
government involvement in our lives.


_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

_______________________________________________
Lnc-votes mailing list
Lnc-...@hq.lp.org
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-votes_hq.lp.org

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

My suggestions:

1. A broad economic liberty piece.
2. A broad civil liberties piece.
3. A broad piece regarding freedom "across the board."
4. 2nd Amendment piece (for gun show outreach)
5. Campus freedom piece (for on-campus outreach)
6. An "open for business" piece tailored toward the issues faced by small business owners.
7. A Spanish language piece (possibly just a translation of #3 above)
8. A Spanish language piece specific to issues important in the Hispanic community (immigration/freedom of movement, economic opportunity, "flex your rights")
9. A "No Cronies" piece in opposition to cronyism

I'm sure I could come up with more, but I think these would be a good start, covering many topics and offering some literature specific to some of our most popular outreach activities.

Brett C. Bittner

Region 3 Alternate
Libertarian National Committee

**This message sent from my phone. Please excuse any typos.

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Hello All . . .

 

A review of the political climate as established by the presidential debates indicates what the hot issues are.  Selecting those hot issues which will survive the 2016 Presidential election I get:

 

1>     Government irresponsibility is destroying the economic fabric of our nation.

2>     Immigration Reform:  Individual Freedom vs Economic & Personal Security

3>     War on Terror: How do we provide security without sacrificing our liberties and economic future.

4>     Government involvement in education (Common Core and Every Student Succeeds?).

 

If others on this list would convey to me (either directly or on this list) what your four (an arbitrary number I have just picked) topics are your choices for new outreach literature, I will try to compile a list from which we can choose five via some variation of approval voting using e-mail.  This process is about making some choices.  Please deliberate carefully and limit your suggestions to a reasonable number.

 

One of our goals, indeed the easiest to achieve of our six goals, is “Updated issue-based outreach literature”.  If we fail to meet this relatively easy goal, the only excuse is neglect.  Let’s get busy on this.  Staff has suggested that they can do the heavy lifting; all we need to do is provide some direction.

 

Norm

 

PS> I apologize for my delay in making my choices.  My family’s holiday get-together was over the Thanksgiving weekend, and this item fell in the crack during my travels.

--

Norman T Olsen

Regional Representative, Region 1

Libertarian National Committee

7931 South Broadway, PMB 102

Littleton, CO  80122-2710

303-263-4995

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I don't yet have my final recommendations, but I want to make an observation.  It seems to me that there are at least 3 approaches to this, and likely more:

1.  Choose current "hot button" issues - that is, what people are already interested in and talking about.

2.  Choose "wedge" issues - things people are interested in, perhaps not their highest priority, but topics on which the LP has something unique to say that will likely be more popular than what comes from others.

3.  Look to our own past messaging and consider which topics have been most successful.  In its simplest form, this would mean looking at a bunch of FB posts and measuring likes.

I would suggest that, while 1 is the most obvious answer, 2 might be position us in a stronger way.  I don't know if it helps us all that much to message on a really popular hot-button issue if our position is likely to not be the most popular, or to be so unpopular as to chase people away.  Of course, maybe a 1-issue can become a 2-issue with clever enough packaging.

The counter-argument, of course, is that if we have a 1-issue where our position is unpopular, and which is critically important for freedom is this land, we should message it hard in order to change the dialogue.  I don't find that a particularly viable answer, though, for at least 3 reasons.  First, I don't think we're loud enough to succeed in that.  Second, we can do the most to move policy by being persuasive, not shocking for its own sake - our job is to build support for our candidates, not to actively push people away from their campaigns.  Third, we'd be trying to change the dialogue against high leverage.  In a 2-issue situation, on the other hand, we still have the opportunity to reshape the dialogue on an issue, but to do so with the benefit of high leverage.  Messaging hard on 2-issues is like, in my mind, having a runaway truck heading downhill at high speed, and trying to change the angle at which it goes down the hill, while 1-issues is like trying to turn it all the way around and have it fall uphill.  

Disclaimer:  That isn't to say we have to treat 1-issues where our position is unpopular as poison, just a suggestion as to where they sit in the hierarchy of priorities.  

PS:  Of course, I also prefer to message on issues that translate well to races where our candidates are strongest.  Some national issues can be easily made to "drip down" to any race, some cannot, and if we focus on the ones that can, we gain the advantages of a symbiotic relationship, so to speak.

Joshua A. Katz

Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Thanks all for your fine suggestions. I'm working on several of these now. 

I will present them in the form of Libertarian solutions, which includes:

1. what government is doing now, enacted by Ds and Rs, that is causing the problem.

2. the Libertarian solution and specific actions we can take to correct them (repeal, withdraw, dereg, dismantle, reduce, etc). This is where we differentiate ourselves from the Ds and Rs.

3. the copious, attractive benefits to voters that will result

I note that almost all Libertarian issues are wedge issues. Even where we appear to be aligned with Ds and Rs, they not only refuse to implement our shared goals, they usually vote and act against them.

I plan to add a talking point on government financial transparency, but this again needs to be presented as a wedge issue. While Ds and Rs frequently claim to support transparency, they refuse to do anything meaningful about it, and therefore encourage it. It's not the very most urgent voter issue. But the fact that our opponents regularly give it lip service suggests their polling tells them it's a concern of many voters.

Carla

Carla Howell

"The (government) designed (by our Founding Fathers) has turned into a congealed ball of lard that eats money and excretes red tape."
- Scott Adams

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I agree that, with sufficient creativity, we can find a unique angle or way to "slice" into an issue and make it one that differentiates us.  

It doesn't follow, I don't think, that all issues are wedge issues, at least not if by wedge issue we mean something where we have something to say that is unique and that people want to hear.  Maybe I'm using the word incorrectly.  Here's the concept I'm getting at: I can think of three marketing approaches:

1.  Selling a product everyone already wants and knows they want, and which is widely available

2.  Selling a product everyone already wants and knows they want, and which is hard to find (good position)

3.  Selling a product people don't want - then your marketing needs to be centered around convincing people that they should want your product.

3 is a high-risk/high-reward proposition.  If you can create a demand no one would have ever thought of (say, Topsy-Tail) you'll do very well.  But it's very hard, and certainly not the kind of thing you do by handing someone a rack card or bumper sticker.  It's a long-term sales approach.  In general, telling people they should want what you're selling, despite the fact that they don't, doesn't work out well.  Of course, the way to do it might be to show that the product meets some demand that they know about in a non-obvious way: no one knew they wanted this loop of metal, but they knew they wanted a fast, easy way to make their hair look nice.  Maybe we can give an angle on an issue that suddenly changes the mind of someone who looks at our rack cards - in which case, fantastic!  However, short of that, what we'd get is a rack card that doesn't sell anything in particular.

I repeat my other criteria - our products should be useful to our candidates, meaning they should "work" on a number of levels.

I'm trying to stay on topic, but to touch briefly on Mr. Olsen's point in this connection:  one issue we run into is the credibility of our claims.  That is, even when someone likes what we have to say, it's not obvious that our candidates can achieve it once in office.  Sometimes, the fact that others don't just tells someone "that's really hard to do - and that Libertarian has even less support to achieve it!"  We are in the unique position of having to convince voters not only that they like what we're selling, but that we can actually deliver the product where others have, to their minds, tried and failed.  In that sense, even in the races Dr. Lieberman mentions, people often vote for a party rather than a candidate.  Yes, you can get around that by doing things like knocking on every door (in a small enough race, of course) and having a plan that makes you at least appear credible.  For higher office, you can establish your credibility by having run for, and won, a lower office, and achieved the things you set out to achieve - hence my comment last week about a "bench."

Joshua A. Katz

Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/dec/13/dnc-craves-tax-dollars-for-convention/

Here's an issue people might get upset about if they knew about it.  The Libertarian Party - we don't want your money to pay for our convention!

Joshua A. Katz

Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)