free.alive
Member
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2007
- Messages
- 1,217
Personnel is advantage. Rand's campaign staff brings him little advantage.
Follow me, if you will.
As someone pretty close to the leadership in Ron's '08 and '12 campaigns, and having seen operations in multiple states on both campaigns, I can instantly notice one major difference between those campaigns and this one: very, VERY few libertarians (or, true believers) on Rand's presidential campaign. To my knowledge of the staff this time around, you can count on one hand the number of staff that were on both Ron's campaigns that are on this one. On two hands you can count the staff that were on the 2012 campaign. Sure there are a couple people throughout that were hired out of YAL or Rand's senate office.
In '08 we had more of the "remnant" working for the campaign. Long-time Birchers, Constitution Party people, long-time libertarians, etc. The consultants after the big moneybombs were Ron's DC friends that came from the Right to Work organization. Yes, the campaign was a joke, organizationally speaking, because there was never any expectation of having a shot, and no one saw the millions of dollars raised online coming. But the emotion, belief and dedication to Ron and libertarian ideas was sincere among just about the entire campaign organization.
The same was true of the 2012 campaign, even moreso. While there weren't many who worked the '08 campaign on the 2012 staff, there were quite a few. The leadership came from the Right to Work organization. Even more exhilarating were the number of closet an/cap's on the campaign who had been trained politically. They were typically young, maybe having worked on Rand's senate campaign or worked campaigns elsewhere throughout the country. But they were all die-hard libertarians, committed long-time supporters and admirer's of Ron Paul, though very realistic in the need to engage in political action. At least in the states I was in, volunteers played significant roles in organizing and leadership, and in a few we were able to bring the most competent on staff in key positions to help the grassroots buy-in to the not-so-fun work of actual campaign work.
So in 2012 the experience was totally different than in '08. Operations were managed quite well. Yes, there were obvious problems, mostly due to the nature of paradoxical nature of trying to run a successful insurgent libertarian campaign in a Republican primary. The Benton hate was bullshit. He's a Philly guy, tough, nasty and raw at times. But as of 2012, he hadn't made the McConnell move yet. His baby was New Hampshire, and there Ron came in second. He was fairly hands-off the rest of the country, with Tate and Kesari running the show in the caucus states. But New Hampshire was his. Tate, honest to a fault and totally devoted to Ron, was great, just a little too removed from the staff. From a staff perspective, I would say one of the biggest disappointments was the disjointed feel of things. They tried with the caucus states, but at the state leadership level it was tough to really feel connected to what was going on in IA, NV and NH, especially NH. So what, though.
We had developed organizational efforts in more than a dozen states, and then quickly set up shop in lesser target states once early ones were finished. The grassroots was trained, activated and focused as best as could be done in almost have the states in the country. Pretty impressive what was done by the campaign and the grassroots if you really think about it and see the bigger picture and longer game.
I could go on, but at Leadership Institute, Morton Blackwell has long taught that "personnel is policy." What he means by this in the context of the political training given there is that when you as a candidate get elected, or when you as a campaign manger or staff member get your guy elected, possibly the MOST important thing at that point is to fill the legislative office staff with people who are AT LEAST as committed to liberty as the candidate, preferably more.
One of the big takeaways we should get from this campaign is that the same rule should apply to campaign staff, both leadership and field staff. Rand's campaign is filled with people at important positions who were "staffers" from Santorum, Huntsman, Romney, etc in the past. Very, very few - almost no - Ron "staffers." So while these people, of course want to do well - their reputation is on the line - there is no way they can be invested in Rand, the Paul family, the liberty movement the way that staff of previous Paul campaigns were. It's just another campaign to them. When the Rand campaign is over, they'll all begin to jump ship in time to get hired on either the presumptive nominee's campaign, or, more likely, state level campaigns somewhere. Get in before the jobs for this cycle are gone. Maybe at AFP, NRA or some other organization.
So ultimately, if we want to have liberty candidates running for office, we need to not only encourage those among the grassroots who would make good candidates to run for office, but we need to develop dozens, then hundreds, then thousands of trained staff who can work on campaigns and who are totally committed to libertarian ideas. (My take, and I hope I'm right, is that this is the entire point of YAL.) Some will even be anarchists who agree with Walter Block and Murray Rothbard that there is value in doing political action as government, politics, campaigns and elected officials do affect our prospects for moving the ball forward for liberty.
Another big takeaway for me is that, while it's necessary that those of us working in politics are always repackaging libertarian ideas in ways that match where voters are at mentally and emotionally in a given cycle and district, we cannot submit to the temptation to water the ideas down. This, and the fact that Cruz is literally paying so many of Ron's apparently fair-weather volunteer leaders from 2012 (who likely joined up via the teaparty, not the liberty movement,) is probably the main reason Rand's support is nowhere near as fervent as Ron's was.
My other takeaway is you need candidates who want to win. It's my view that Ron never really wanted to be President, Either he just couldn't see himself in that role, or really didn't want to do that. I have my reasons to think that, and I don't see that as a negative on him in any way. It's clear to me that it was the supporters alone that gave him enjoyment from the process. And it seems to me that Rand hates the whole experience. He's not a popularity contest kind of guy, and that's why he'll never yuck it up like a Huckabee or tele-evangelist Cruz, he'll never look truly comfortable in his own skin like a Trump or a Cristie. I'm glad he's willing to be our guy, but we need to keep this in mind when recruiting candidates in the future.
The staff part above is so important, though, because if the people actually recruiting and working with the volunteers are just clocking in and not fully invested in victory for the movement and the ideas, most of the unbelievable results and persistence like we saw down the stretch we saw in 2012 will ever happen. There was fire in that 2012 organization, and there was 10x that fire in the grassroots - partly because they believed that they had leadership that gave them a shot and believed in the cause just as much as they did. That fire doesn't exist on Rand's staff in this campaign. Maybe a few exceptions, but, especially considering the leadership, they are exceptions. The grassroots, not surprisingly, is a barely alive compared to the 2012 grassroots, even nonexistent in so many states we rocked in 2012. What is happening right now in Maine, Missouri, Minnesota, Louisiana, Colorado, Washington, Idaho, etc? Were the grassroots active across the country this time, would fundraising be up or down? Would moneybombs be embarrassing or not? Maybe it would've been wise to leverage those 2012 relationships for Rand, along with all the trust and experience that was developed in the trenches. You know, that "grassroots organization" Rand supposedy has that the media keeps touting. Alas, Chip Englander did win a governor's race, though...
So the constructive take to my seeming negativity here is that we need to get more libertarians working campaigns. Not just being candidates. We always have that, and it's easy to find people with an ego big enough to think they can win a popularity contest. You need to have those big egos, but more importantly you need organization. And to build that, you need talented, experienced libertarians who know how to build campaigns that win. If our candidates and organizations rely on mere conservative staff and organizations, they will always sell us out, stab us in the back or just drop off in the end. Our people also can't be pussies, and can't hold the delusions that politics isn't a blood sport. Kesari always did what he had to do, and if he did things has we hear in the media, he was right to do it in my opinion. Like it or not, he was totally devoted to winning. He possibly made some mistakes, but he was totally devoted and committed. There are no Tates, Kesaris, Bentons and Shelleys, et al on Rand's campaign.
Trust me when I say we have very few people of this sort on our side.
Follow me, if you will.
As someone pretty close to the leadership in Ron's '08 and '12 campaigns, and having seen operations in multiple states on both campaigns, I can instantly notice one major difference between those campaigns and this one: very, VERY few libertarians (or, true believers) on Rand's presidential campaign. To my knowledge of the staff this time around, you can count on one hand the number of staff that were on both Ron's campaigns that are on this one. On two hands you can count the staff that were on the 2012 campaign. Sure there are a couple people throughout that were hired out of YAL or Rand's senate office.
In '08 we had more of the "remnant" working for the campaign. Long-time Birchers, Constitution Party people, long-time libertarians, etc. The consultants after the big moneybombs were Ron's DC friends that came from the Right to Work organization. Yes, the campaign was a joke, organizationally speaking, because there was never any expectation of having a shot, and no one saw the millions of dollars raised online coming. But the emotion, belief and dedication to Ron and libertarian ideas was sincere among just about the entire campaign organization.
The same was true of the 2012 campaign, even moreso. While there weren't many who worked the '08 campaign on the 2012 staff, there were quite a few. The leadership came from the Right to Work organization. Even more exhilarating were the number of closet an/cap's on the campaign who had been trained politically. They were typically young, maybe having worked on Rand's senate campaign or worked campaigns elsewhere throughout the country. But they were all die-hard libertarians, committed long-time supporters and admirer's of Ron Paul, though very realistic in the need to engage in political action. At least in the states I was in, volunteers played significant roles in organizing and leadership, and in a few we were able to bring the most competent on staff in key positions to help the grassroots buy-in to the not-so-fun work of actual campaign work.
So in 2012 the experience was totally different than in '08. Operations were managed quite well. Yes, there were obvious problems, mostly due to the nature of paradoxical nature of trying to run a successful insurgent libertarian campaign in a Republican primary. The Benton hate was bullshit. He's a Philly guy, tough, nasty and raw at times. But as of 2012, he hadn't made the McConnell move yet. His baby was New Hampshire, and there Ron came in second. He was fairly hands-off the rest of the country, with Tate and Kesari running the show in the caucus states. But New Hampshire was his. Tate, honest to a fault and totally devoted to Ron, was great, just a little too removed from the staff. From a staff perspective, I would say one of the biggest disappointments was the disjointed feel of things. They tried with the caucus states, but at the state leadership level it was tough to really feel connected to what was going on in IA, NV and NH, especially NH. So what, though.
We had developed organizational efforts in more than a dozen states, and then quickly set up shop in lesser target states once early ones were finished. The grassroots was trained, activated and focused as best as could be done in almost have the states in the country. Pretty impressive what was done by the campaign and the grassroots if you really think about it and see the bigger picture and longer game.
I could go on, but at Leadership Institute, Morton Blackwell has long taught that "personnel is policy." What he means by this in the context of the political training given there is that when you as a candidate get elected, or when you as a campaign manger or staff member get your guy elected, possibly the MOST important thing at that point is to fill the legislative office staff with people who are AT LEAST as committed to liberty as the candidate, preferably more.
One of the big takeaways we should get from this campaign is that the same rule should apply to campaign staff, both leadership and field staff. Rand's campaign is filled with people at important positions who were "staffers" from Santorum, Huntsman, Romney, etc in the past. Very, very few - almost no - Ron "staffers." So while these people, of course want to do well - their reputation is on the line - there is no way they can be invested in Rand, the Paul family, the liberty movement the way that staff of previous Paul campaigns were. It's just another campaign to them. When the Rand campaign is over, they'll all begin to jump ship in time to get hired on either the presumptive nominee's campaign, or, more likely, state level campaigns somewhere. Get in before the jobs for this cycle are gone. Maybe at AFP, NRA or some other organization.
So ultimately, if we want to have liberty candidates running for office, we need to not only encourage those among the grassroots who would make good candidates to run for office, but we need to develop dozens, then hundreds, then thousands of trained staff who can work on campaigns and who are totally committed to libertarian ideas. (My take, and I hope I'm right, is that this is the entire point of YAL.) Some will even be anarchists who agree with Walter Block and Murray Rothbard that there is value in doing political action as government, politics, campaigns and elected officials do affect our prospects for moving the ball forward for liberty.
Another big takeaway for me is that, while it's necessary that those of us working in politics are always repackaging libertarian ideas in ways that match where voters are at mentally and emotionally in a given cycle and district, we cannot submit to the temptation to water the ideas down. This, and the fact that Cruz is literally paying so many of Ron's apparently fair-weather volunteer leaders from 2012 (who likely joined up via the teaparty, not the liberty movement,) is probably the main reason Rand's support is nowhere near as fervent as Ron's was.
My other takeaway is you need candidates who want to win. It's my view that Ron never really wanted to be President, Either he just couldn't see himself in that role, or really didn't want to do that. I have my reasons to think that, and I don't see that as a negative on him in any way. It's clear to me that it was the supporters alone that gave him enjoyment from the process. And it seems to me that Rand hates the whole experience. He's not a popularity contest kind of guy, and that's why he'll never yuck it up like a Huckabee or tele-evangelist Cruz, he'll never look truly comfortable in his own skin like a Trump or a Cristie. I'm glad he's willing to be our guy, but we need to keep this in mind when recruiting candidates in the future.
The staff part above is so important, though, because if the people actually recruiting and working with the volunteers are just clocking in and not fully invested in victory for the movement and the ideas, most of the unbelievable results and persistence like we saw down the stretch we saw in 2012 will ever happen. There was fire in that 2012 organization, and there was 10x that fire in the grassroots - partly because they believed that they had leadership that gave them a shot and believed in the cause just as much as they did. That fire doesn't exist on Rand's staff in this campaign. Maybe a few exceptions, but, especially considering the leadership, they are exceptions. The grassroots, not surprisingly, is a barely alive compared to the 2012 grassroots, even nonexistent in so many states we rocked in 2012. What is happening right now in Maine, Missouri, Minnesota, Louisiana, Colorado, Washington, Idaho, etc? Were the grassroots active across the country this time, would fundraising be up or down? Would moneybombs be embarrassing or not? Maybe it would've been wise to leverage those 2012 relationships for Rand, along with all the trust and experience that was developed in the trenches. You know, that "grassroots organization" Rand supposedy has that the media keeps touting. Alas, Chip Englander did win a governor's race, though...
So the constructive take to my seeming negativity here is that we need to get more libertarians working campaigns. Not just being candidates. We always have that, and it's easy to find people with an ego big enough to think they can win a popularity contest. You need to have those big egos, but more importantly you need organization. And to build that, you need talented, experienced libertarians who know how to build campaigns that win. If our candidates and organizations rely on mere conservative staff and organizations, they will always sell us out, stab us in the back or just drop off in the end. Our people also can't be pussies, and can't hold the delusions that politics isn't a blood sport. Kesari always did what he had to do, and if he did things has we hear in the media, he was right to do it in my opinion. Like it or not, he was totally devoted to winning. He possibly made some mistakes, but he was totally devoted and committed. There are no Tates, Kesaris, Bentons and Shelleys, et al on Rand's campaign.
Trust me when I say we have very few people of this sort on our side.
