LPedia

Document:LP News 1972 April Issue 5: Difference between revisions

Document Discussion

Document:LP News 1972 April Issue 5 (view source)

Revision as of 17:10, 1 March 2021

13,420 bytes added ,  1 March 2021
→‎NED NOLTE IS LP'S SECOND LIFE MEMBER
No edit summary
 
(22 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
[[File:Front Page LPNews 1972-4 N5.PNG|thumb]]
[[File:Front Page LPNews 1972-4 N5.PNG|thumb]]
The fifth issue of the LP News publication speaks about the First National Conference of Libertarian Political Activists. It details what will take place at the conference as well as inviting members to come. There is an article about the results from a poll on what media sources members read for the purpose of reaching out to potential new members. There is an article showing the influence of George McGovern and George Wallace in the selection of the Democratic Party Presidential Nomination.


[http://lpedia.org/w/images/f/f3/LPNews_1972-4_N5.pdf '''<big>VIEW ISSUE HERE</big>''']
[http://lpedia.org/w/images/f/f3/LPNews_1972-4_N5.pdf '''<big>VIEW ISSUE HERE</big>''']
Line 77: Line 75:
|-
|-
| Intellectual Digest || 13 || 4.0 || 3.3 || ***  
| Intellectual Digest || 13 || 4.0 || 3.3 || ***  
|-
| TV Guide || 12 || 153 || 0.08 || 
|-
| Reader's Digest || 11 || 178 || 0.06 || 
|-
| Business Week || 10 || 6.7 || 1.5 || 
|-
| Life || 10 || 85 || 0.1 || 
|-
| Wall St. Journal || 10 || 12 || 0.8 || 
|-
| National Observer || 9 || 5.2 || 1.7 ||
|-
| Fortune || 8 || 4.0 || 1.4 ||
|-
| National Lampoon || 8 || 2.5 || 3.2 || ***
|-
| American Opinion || 7 || 0.4 || 17 || ***
|-
| The Freeman || 7 || 0.5 || 14 ||  ***
|-
| Analog || 6 || 4.0 || 5.4 || ***
|-
| Road & Track || 6 || 3.3 || 1.8 ||
|-
| Stereo Review || 6 || 3.0 || 2.0 || 
|-
|}
Not surprisingly, the four publications with the highest proportion of readers of libertarian inclination are the four "conservative" standards.  Of these, Human Events to be the best bet for us.
Thus, we will run an ad in Human Events, as soon as we raise enough money to for an ad that's large enough to tell our story and also large enough to create an impression of strength.
A full-page ad in Human Events costs $900, which is very reasonable for a publication that reches 90,000 people.  a half-page ad costs $490, and a quarter-page costs $265.  Less than a quarter page would not be enough to do the job. 
Because we just plain don't have $900 to spare out of operating revenue, we are therefore asking every member to contribute whatever or or she can afford towards this project.  Every little bit helps; $2 from each of you will pay for a full-page ad, and even $1 will help.  If you can afford $5 or $10, or even $25, we would be extra appreciative, as larger amounts will offset the people who do not contribute.
So, please, contribute whatever you can -- and indicate that the money is designated for the Human Events ad specifically; we will use whatever we get to buy as large an ad as it will pay for.  The money will not be diverted to any other use.  We want to get the ad in by the third week in May, so as to get as many new members as possible before the National Conference, so we need the money by May 1.  Send whatever you can afford today, even if it's only a dollar.
Looking beyond Human Events to other publications, our best bets appear to be Analog, Barron's, Intellectual Digest, and the National Lampoon.  If all goes according to plan, we will be able to start advertising in one or more of these publications this summer. The results of this survey have been turned to our ad agency John Zeigler, Inc., for further analysis, and they should have some recommendations and ad ideas for us within a month or so. We want to break out of the old conservative sphere into new territory, so we will not be advertising in any other "right-wing" publications besides Human Events. The four magainzes mentioned above should enable us to reach new people.
=Platform poll shows most LP members are Objectivists, Isolationists=
The ideological poll which we conducted last month to serve as a guideline in putting the Platform Committee together, yielded the results below. The Platform Committee will be balanced accordingly.
{| class="wikitable"
! CIVIL LIBERTIES !! 
|-
| Minimal Restrictions || 50%
|-
| No Restrictions || 47%
|-
| Undecided || 3%
|-
|}
{| class="wikitable"
! ECONOMICS !! 
|-
| Conservative || 3%
|-
| Objectivist || 72%
|-
| Anarcho-Capitalist || 25%
|-
|}
{| class="wikitable"
! ECONOMICS !! 
|-
| Pacifist || 2%
|-
| Isolationist || 50%
|-
| SemiIsolationist || 35%
|-
| Containment || 4%
|-
| Rollback || 8%
|-
| Undecided || 1%
|-
|-
|}
|}


To assure that all planks in the Official Platform will have strong support, a two-thirds vote will be required for approval on the floor.  Planks will be reported out in order of degree of support (unanimous first, etc.).
=POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE=
==III. THE RISE OF TWO GEORGES==
In our last issue, we stated that, after the smoke clears, the Democratic Presidential candidate would probably be either "Humphrey, Muskie, or (possibly) Jackson" -- and went on to explain why the smart money would be on Hubert.
Now, with Minnesota's crucial primary over and done with, the picture has altered a bit.  Jackson is kaput.  Muskie has slipped even further -- probably fatally, unless he can win big in Massachusetts or Pennyslvania.  Indeed, Horrible Hubert would appear to have it bagged, were it not for the amazing squeeze play that ahs been executed by two men named George.
Poor Hubert!  Despite his having bested Ed Muskie twice, he has yet to win a primary.  There he is, Lord of the Democratic Center, and two upstarts on the Left and Right have stolen his thunder.  In the long run, he will probably still emerge the victor, but not iwhtout a long, hard fifth. And there is even the possibility that he may be beaten out by a strange coalition of the alienated.
For, much to the old politician's chagrin, it appears that alienation is the name of the game this year.  The people are out for the Establishment's blood, and George Wallace and George McGovern have struck responsive chords.
On the Left, McGovern has apparently captured the erstwhile supporters of McCarthy, Lindsay, Harris, and Chisholm -- emerging, after only four primaries, as the champion of the dispossessed ultra-liberals. This bloc makes up perhaps a third of the party, and, acting in concert, has a long-short chance at gaining the nomination for "one of their own."  (In many respects, the McGovern campaign is reminiscent of the Goldwater campaign in '64.)
On the Right, George Wallace has pushed Mills, Yorty, and Jackson in virtual oblivion, emerging as the hero of that 25% or so who are doomed to everlasting exclusion from the Seats of Power, but who often decide which of the orthodox receive the prize.
Thus, between them, the two Georges have m managed to siphon off a majority of Democratic voters -- leaving Big Ed and Hubie to fight over the 40% or so in the middle.  The victor in this fight will probably wind up the nominee, but not without making concessions to one or both of the dissidents' leaders.
This is a development to be welcomed, for any rebellion against the Establishment is to our benefit ... and the deeper the rifts between the various Democratic factions, the better our chances at picking up the supports of the losers, come September.
Of course, neither Wallce nor McGovern is a libertarian, by any means. But both of them have their libertarian aspects, and both are identifiably anti-status-quo, which is more than can be said for Nixon or HHH.  In fact, between them, you could put together one fairly decent candidate -- something that not even Merlin the Magician could do, given Nixon and Hubie as his sources of raw material.
Indeed, despite their differences (which are many and large), both Wallace and McGovern are cut from the same basic cloth; perhaps this is why surveys taken in Wisconsin showed that the second choice of Wallace voters was McGoern, and vice-versa.
Looking at them both from our viewpoint, what can be said? Is there any hope for libertarianism in either of these men?
To begin with McGovern, it must first be noted that he is by the far the worst of all the prospects -- including Nixon -- in the area of economics.  H e makes no bones about being in favor of massive income redistribution, and has voted in favor of sociialistic proposals even more consistently than Hubert Humprehy -- which takes some doing.
In the area of civil liberties, however, he is probably the best of the lot.  His long-standing opposition to the draft, and to Big Brotherism in the area of government surveillance of the citizenry, are particularly commendable.
In the area of foreign policy, McGoern deserves a "plus" for his basically isolationist views, but this is offset by his apparent willingness to disarm the United States unilaterally, leaving us open to nuclear attack by totalitarian aggressors.
On balance, then, Mc Goern rates only a low "fair" by our standards -- making him perhaps less odious than Nixon or Humphrey, and thus deserving of silent good wishes in his fight with Dick or Hubie, but hardly worth bleeding and dying for.
Wallace, on the other hand, is better than any of his competitors on economic issues -- although this is hardly a claim to fame. At most, he rates a "fair," in contract to everyone else's "poor" or "abysmal."
In the area of civil liberties, Wallace offers a strangely mixed bag.  His aversion to "hippies, punks and anarchists" iw well-known, and the thought of Wallces extending amnesty to draft resisters, or signing a bill repealing all laws against victimless crimes, stretches one's credibility beyond its limits.  On the other hand, Wallace has spokenout against government snooping, favors abolition of ht eFCC, and supports the right to bear arms.  And, unlike virtually all of his competitors, he opposes laws which ignore or eliminate distinctions between public and private property. Thus, overall, Wallace rates a "fair" on civil liberties, as well as on economics.  In the foren-policy sphere, Wallace is probably the best of all the major-party hopefuls.  Like McGovern, he is basically an isolationist; he has long said that the U.S. should not have gone into Vietnam, but should have accepted Chaing Kai-shek's offer to assume this tasks, for instance.  Yet, unlike McGovern, Wallace recognizes the need for a strong domestic defense system.  So, on balance, Wallace rates a "good" (although not "excellent") on foreign policy.
Thus, overall, Wallces rates perhaps a half notch above McGovern -- which is hardly good enough to send libertarians flocking to his banner, but which nonetheless makes him the best of a bad lot.
What does all this mean, from our viewpoint? Very little, actually, as the chances of the Democrats nominating a McGovern - Wallace or even Wallace-McGovern ticket are very remote (although not absolutely zero). And, even if this were to happen, it is doubtful that many libertarians would be willing to devote much energy to supporting such a ticket.
In sum, as we said regarding Ashbrook and McCloskey two months ago, any LP member who wishes to work or vote for Wallace or McGovern between now and June should certainly feel free to do so, for as was noted above, anything that serves to drive wedges between existing po.iltical factions is to our advantage.  Primary emphasis should be placed on building the Libertarian Party, however, to assure that the disaffected will have some place to go when the Democtas nominate Hubert Humphrey, as they are almost certain to do.
=BITS & PIECES=
==POLITICAL ACTION MANUAL COMING OUT NEXT MONTH==
With next month's Newsletter, all LP members will receive a copy of the new LP [[Political Action Manual]].  This concise guidebook will cover every aspect of organizing for political action, from recruiting to PR to fund-raising, and will be about 56 pages long.  Non-members who wish to purchase a copy, or members who want extra copies, can order as many as they wish.  $1.25 for one copy, $3/3, $5/6, $10/15.
==[[PAUL LEPANTO]] LEADS IN MEMBERSHIP CONTEST==
With six weeks left int he Membership Recruiting Context, [[Temporary Executive Committee (1972)|Temporary Executive Committee]] member [[Paul Lepando]] of New York is leading the pack, with 57 points.  This assures Paul of a minimum of $50 towards Conference expenses, and puts him well within hailing distance of the $100 First Prize.  If Paul can do this well, the rest of you can easily get at least 25 points, and rip off $25. Student Memberships are worth 1 point, Regulars 2 points, Sustaining Memberships 3 points, Life Members 25 points, and Life Sustaining Members 50 points. Be sure to put your name on any Membership Applications you hand out, to get credit.
==[[NED NOLTE]] IS LP'S SECOND LIFE MEMBER==
And speaking of Life Members, [[Ned Nolte]] of Lincoln, Nebraska, recently become our second Life Member.  Many thanks, Ned.
==SEND A CLIPPING, GET A BUCK==
A number of members have been taking advantage of our offer to pay $1 for any newspaper clipping of a story that mentions the Libertarian Party.  Keep your eyes open, because you could be next.  If you prefer, we'll send $2 worth of materials (your choice).  Specify which you prefer.
==[["1984" BY SPIRIT]] -- WE'LL PAY $2==
If you have a copy of the 45-rpm record [["1984" by Spirit]], we'll pay you $2 for it, assuming it's in good condition.  If you don't have a copy, check your local record stores; we can't find a copy in Denver.
==[[BRUCE BROCKWAY]] RUNNING FOR CONGRESS==
[[Bruce Brockway]], an Objectivist, is running for Congress in Mennesota.  His literature asks voters the question "Who owns your life?"  and suggests that if they think they should control their own destinies, they should vote for Bruce.  For more information about Bruce and his campaign, or to contribute financial support, write Brockway for Congree Committee, 1622 Sherburne, St. Paul, Minn.
==CHANGING YOUR ADDRESS?==
If so, be sure to notify us, giving both the old address and the new. And, whenever you write to us, be sure to include your Zip Code.  Our files are set up by Zip Code, so you'll get better service if you include your Zip.
=FORMULA FOR SUCCESS: "A MEMBER A MONTH"=
=3 Ways to get an attractive Libersign Pin=
[[File:Libersign-Pin-Ad 1972.png|thumb|right]]
Display your commitment to libertarianism; set yourself apart from the collectivist herd by wearing a solid 14K gold Libersign pin!  You can get one by any of the three following methods…
1. BUY ONE — for only $4.95, from Frantonia Specialties, Warren, R.I. 02885.
2. BECOME A LIFETIME MEMBER of the LP, and we’ll send you one in appreciation, or
3. ACCUMULATE 10 MEMBERSHIP POINTS, and rip off a freebie!
Act today; supply is unlimited!  No well-dressed libertarian should be without on of these attractive 3/8” doohickies; may be used as a tie-tac, lapel pin, scarf pin, thumbtack, or secret weapon (supply your own curare)!  Such a deal!




[[Category: LP News]]
[[Category: LP News|1972-04]]
[[Category: National Party Newsletters from the 1970s|1972-05]]
[[Category: National Party Newsletters from the 1970s|1972-04]]
Retrieved from "https://lpedia.mywikis.net/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1545940...1549667"