56,003
edits
National Convention 1975: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Steve Trinward
| Line 56: | Line 56: | ||
After one round of voting for the Vice-Presidential nomination, a guy names [[Jim Trotter]] was in the lead, although he lacked the majority needed to win. Trotter was a clear left-leaning radical, from his coverall jeans, work shirt and John Lennon spectacles and bushy beard, to his priority views within the libertarian spectrum. Jim was a gold smuggler, a tax resister, and a physical defender of draft and tax resisters on the West Coast, and made no bones about admitting it all. Many of us in the hall at the time thought he would be a perfect balance to the chubby Republican in the business-suit and tie who had been chosen to top the ticket. | After one round of voting for the Vice-Presidential nomination, a guy names [[Jim Trotter]] was in the lead, although he lacked the majority needed to win. Trotter was a clear left-leaning radical, from his coverall jeans, work shirt and John Lennon spectacles and bushy beard, to his priority views within the libertarian spectrum. Jim was a gold smuggler, a tax resister, and a physical defender of draft and tax resisters on the West Coast, and made no bones about admitting it all. Many of us in the hall at the time thought he would be a perfect balance to the chubby Republican in the business-suit and tie who had been chosen to top the ticket. | ||
As we were preparing for the second ballot, however, Roger asked to speak to the convention. He began by affirming his support for ALL issues of liberty, but he then went on to declare that if Trotter were nominated, the media would turn things into a “one-issue campaign” whereby all we would hear about was tax resistance and gold smuggling. Some of us took deep breaths over this, and a few even noted how almost anyone with specific pet issues might create this: a teacher would be seen as ”only about education”; a small-businessperson would be seen as only about lower business taxes; etc. But we regrouped, and sought out someone who might be a more acceptable fit for MacBride’s tastes. (Part of the problem at the time was the age-minimum to be elected to either of these offices; finding someone who was over 35 was a challenge. Not even party founder | As we were preparing for the second ballot, however, Roger asked to speak to the convention. He began by affirming his support for ALL issues of liberty, but he then went on to declare that if Trotter were nominated, the media would turn things into a “one-issue campaign” whereby all we would hear about was tax resistance and gold smuggling. Some of us took deep breaths over this, and a few even noted how almost anyone with specific pet issues might create this: a teacher would be seen as ”only about education”; a small-businessperson would be seen as only about lower business taxes; etc. But we regrouped, and sought out someone who might be a more acceptable fit for MacBride’s tastes. (Part of the problem at the time was the age-minimum to be elected to either of these offices; finding someone who was over 35 was a challenge. Not even party founder [[David Nolan]] had yet reached that age.) | ||
Then we discovered someone possible: [[John Vernon]], a restaurant owner from Oklahoma City, who had already almost won a seat on the City Council there, running as an independent with libertarian issues the year before. What’s more he was in his late thirties, so passed the age barrier. The fact that he was also a gay-rights activist, one who was openly “out” even in 1975, seemed a bonus, not a drawback. At long last, as we had been hoping to do with Trotter, we could dispel the calumny that the LP was just a “right-wing front” splintered off from the GOP. But Roger objected again, using his “one issue” charge, this time complaining how it would “all be about gay rights”—despite the fact that Vernon had been far better known for his free market economics efforts during his time in OKC. Those of us still in the fight reacted by calling for a recess until Sunday, so that we could consider our options. | Then we discovered someone possible: [[John Vernon]], a restaurant owner from Oklahoma City, who had already almost won a seat on the City Council there, running as an independent with libertarian issues the year before. What’s more he was in his late thirties, so passed the age barrier. The fact that he was also a gay-rights activist, one who was openly “out” even in 1975, seemed a bonus, not a drawback. At long last, as we had been hoping to do with Trotter, we could dispel the calumny that the LP was just a “right-wing front” splintered off from the GOP. But Roger objected again, using his “one issue” charge, this time complaining how it would “all be about gay rights”—despite the fact that Vernon had been far better known for his free market economics efforts during his time in OKC. Those of us still in the fight reacted by calling for a recess until Sunday, so that we could consider our options. | ||
| Line 62: | Line 62: | ||
That evening, and then well into the night and early morning hours, about 25 of us caucused in a meeting room, sending out for pizza and pretty much holing up for the duration. Within the first hour it became clear this was going to be a battleground, and there was even consideration that we might move to withdraw Roger from his perch, despite having gotten full network-news coverage only a few hours before upon his nomination. A series of people filtered in and then out of the room, including at least two of the others still in the VP race. (At one point, Murray Rothbard came in, hoping to sway us to support one of the other also-rans. When he discovered that we were actually considering raising a motion to oust MacBride, and not just weighing other VP options, he got very red in the face and stormed out.) | That evening, and then well into the night and early morning hours, about 25 of us caucused in a meeting room, sending out for pizza and pretty much holing up for the duration. Within the first hour it became clear this was going to be a battleground, and there was even consideration that we might move to withdraw Roger from his perch, despite having gotten full network-news coverage only a few hours before upon his nomination. A series of people filtered in and then out of the room, including at least two of the others still in the VP race. (At one point, Murray Rothbard came in, hoping to sway us to support one of the other also-rans. When he discovered that we were actually considering raising a motion to oust MacBride, and not just weighing other VP options, he got very red in the face and stormed out.) | ||
We were still there as the sun came up. We finally adjourned, having decided (by consensus or acclamation, I forget which, but it was pretty unified) to nominate [[John Vernon]] and let the chips fall as they might. We chose three from among us to do this: Harvard philosophy Professor [[Robert Nozick]] for the nomination speech, and Bill Howell of Texas (who actually knew Vernon personally) and [[Richard Kenney]], who was then Washington LP state-chair, but had had several years leading the Massachusetts LP before that. | We were still there as the sun came up. We finally adjourned, having decided (by consensus or acclamation, I forget which, but it was pretty unified) to nominate [[John Vernon]] and let the chips fall as they might. We chose three from among us to do this: Harvard philosophy Professor [[Robert Nozick]] for the nomination speech, and [[Bill Howell]] of Texas (who actually knew Vernon personally) and [[Richard Kenney]], who was then Washington LP state-chair, but had had several years leading the Massachusetts LP before that. | ||
When the session opened, Vernon’s name was placed on the list, and Nozick stepped to the podium. His first words were quite memorable: “I rise to place in nomination, a man I had never met before last evening . . .” He then proceeded to lay out the case for challenging Roger’s presumption that he should have veto power over the convention’s preference for a running-mate, noting that the Party’s own bylaws declared the delegates’ preemptive position the choice. He sat, and was followed by Kenny and then Howell, and the die was cast. | When the session opened, Vernon’s name was placed on the list, and Nozick stepped to the podium. His first words were quite memorable: “I rise to place in nomination, a man I had never met before last evening . . .” He then proceeded to lay out the case for challenging Roger’s presumption that he should have veto power over the convention’s preference for a running-mate, noting that the Party’s own bylaws declared the delegates’ preemptive position the choice. He sat, and was followed by Kenny and then Howell, and the die was cast. | ||