Jim Burns — A Libertarian for President

Hit'em Where They Ain't

By Jim Burns and Scott Kjar

An original series of advertisements that ran in Libertarian Party News and explained one of my original political concepts.

I. Winning and Losing

We're not gonna win the presidency in 1996. Trust me. Okay, so that's not exactly a news flash. Still, now may be a good time to stop and think about exactly what we mean when we say "win."

Take the recent presidential election as an example. Bill Clinton won. George Bush lost. Yet, Bush also WON! Bush won the popular vote in several states, and actually succeeded in denying to Clinton an outright popular mandate. In fact, when Clinton won, he had fewer total votes than Michael Dukakis had in 1988. Thus, winning and losing seem to be relative things.

As Libertarians, we've learned to take our wins in small doses. Very small doses. Eleven votes in Dixville Notch was wonderful, but the next day, we were still nowhere. At best, Andre Marrou's little victory there provided a momentary blip on the political radar screen. What we need to do is achieve a win that will last more than 15 minutes -- a win that will have an impact on the outcome!

II. "Hit'em Where They Ain't"

The Democrats and Republicans spend a lot of time during the primary election season going to many states. They visit Iowa for caucuses, and New Hampshire for the primaries. They visit the South, and they even spend a little time here in the Western states. However, when the general election season comes along, they focus their efforts in a fairly small number of states. You may see the Republicans and Democrats in New York, California, Florida, Ohio, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and a handful of other states. You WON'T see them very often in Alaska, North or South Dakota, Nevada and other low population states.

Thus, I suggest that we focus our presidential attack on a single state: New Hampshire. Think about this for a minute. If we put the bulk of our presidential resources into a single state, we could not only have an impact on that race, WE COULD WIN IT!

When you think about Dixville Notch, you must remember something: EVERY MAJOR CANDIDATE MET OR TALKED TO EVERY VOTER! That's right, all 33 voters met Andre Marrou but met or talked to George Bush, Pat Buchanan, Bill Clinton, Paul Tsongas, Douglas Wilder, and whoever else was still in the race back then. What happened surprised everyone but us -- put a libertarian on a level playing field with Republicans and Democrats, and we win.

Now imagine if our candidates for president and vice-president spent the bulk of their time and money in New Hampshire. There aren't that many people in New Hampshire. Our candidates could meet all of them! We could do the entire state what we did to Dixville Notch.

We could maintain a steady stream of TV commercials, radio spots, and newspaper advertisements to keep our candidates in front of the voters. We could have our candidates holding functions all over the state on a daily basis, meetings the citizens, addressing their problems, and articulating in complete detail the libertarian philosophy.

You see, right there is one of the biggest problems we have. Libertarianism makes sense once you think about it. ONCE YOU THINK ABOUT IT! Unfortunately, what little coverage we do get is limited to six second sound bites. You can't sum up 5,000 years of philosophy in a six second sound bite.

We need the chance to articulate our philosophy in greater detail. Show the doubters that our ideas not only work, but they will work. Reinforce the ideas again and again, so that people can start to see the entire picture. Let's face it, no matter what our books say about learning libertarianism in one lesson, it takes longer than that to really grasp the philosophy in its entirety. It requires some thought, and some good answers to important questions. By having our candidates there, repeatedly filling in the pieces of the puzzle, people can see the big picture, instead of just a fragment here and a fragment there. When the voters start to say, "What about ...?" we'll be ready to answer the questions, not just with the short answers, but with thorough, well reasoned, and well articulated answers. III. Why New Hampshire?

I have specifically chosen New Hampshire for several reasons. First of all, the citizens there are politically sophisticated. Every four years, every candidate troops into New Hampshire, hoping to win their first-in-the- nation primary, and thus be anointed the front-runner. Thus, nearly everyone in New Hampshire residents can even boast of having future presidents over for dinner and a chat. The libertarian message plays extremely well to a sophisticated audience. At the same time, New Hampshire is proud of its role in colonial America. New Hampshire sent many proud young men and women to battle against British tyranny and statism, and it still carries that pride today. That's libertarian pride -- after all, the revolutionary war was a libertarian challenge, and WE WON IT!

Second, its demographics are good for our goals. The state is fairly small in population; at the same time it is rather small in area. Thus, the population is somewhat contained, making it possible to reach everyone moderately easily. (Compare it, for example, to my home state of Nevada, which has about the same population, but has a huge land area. Getting from place to place in Nevada requires several days worth of preparations, plane tickets, housing, and so on. Getting from place to place in New Hampshire requires you to get in the car and go there.) Likewise, this reduces the number of media markets. A large state such as California has several major markets, each of which is expensive. A quick thought of New York or Florida brings to mind many media markets, each separate and exclusive from the others and all expensive. In New Hampshire, the media market is much smaller and less expensive. There are less TV stations we would need to run commercials on, fewer newspapers in which to buy ads, and smaller number of radio stations where we would need spots. In short, New Hampshire gives us the most bang for our buck.

A third reason to select New Hampshire is the recent success of the party there. This year alone the state has elected four Libertarians t the state House of Representatives, more than any other state. They have persuaded elected members of other parties and convincing them to switch, and they have won in elections in which the Republicans and Democrats vowed to stop them. The New Hampshire LP is a party on the move, and is clearly a leader that should look toward in the future.

Fourth, New Hampshire is a great vacation spot, if you go at the right time! If all of the libertarians in the country chose to take their vacations in New Hampshire in 1996, and spend a couple of days there volunteering for the campaign, we could have a steady stream of thousands of volunteers each and every day. (Hey, the republicans and Democrats ALWAYS bus in hundred of people to New Hampshire for the primary season, And THAT's THE WINTER! We want to go there during the Summer and Fall! We're much smarter than they are! Why can't we do the same thing for the general election season?

IV. Will This Really Work? And. So What If It Does?

Now think for a minute about the outcome. With a major effort in New Hampshire by the LP candidates, we could win the state! Granted winning New Hampshire only gives us 4 electoral votes. Still, a win is a win, and we would get national coverage for it. On election night, when the TV networks fill in all the colors on their maps indicating which party won which state, we would get a color! Since New Hampshire is on the East Coast, its returns are counted early, and reported early. Exit polls from New Hampshire would be broadcast all day long, increasing our last day election reporting.

Likewise, if it's a close race, those four electoral votes may become important. If there is one thing the news media hates, it's being wrong. Every time someone shows the photo of Harry Truman with the banner headline "Dewey Beats Truman," the news media flinch. They HATE being wrong about a projection such as that. If we really succeed, they won't be able to ignore us -- we'll be winning! If the national race is close enough that every electoral vote counts, then that's all the more reason for the media to recognize and report on our role in taking the race right to the wire.

Of course, we aren't talking about ignoring other states. Obviously, every state is important, and we will campaign in every state. After all, our presidential candidate does help us get media attention wherever the candidate goes. However, the bulk of the money should go toward New Hampshire campaign, with additional money spent elsewhere in support of party activities, but not on the presidential race. Likewise, given a choice between spending an extra couple of days in some state, and perhaps only improving the outcome there by a fraction of a percent, or spending the same time in New Hampshire and possibly winning, the choice is clear. New Hampshire in '96!

HIT'EM WHERE THEY AIN'T, PART 2

By Jim Burns and Scott Kjar

Year after year, libertarians complain that we can't get any coverage by the major media outlets. Dan Rather never leads off the evening news with a story about the LP candidate for president. The New York Times doesn't highlight us on their front page. Our candidates don't make the cover of Time or Newsweek. It's a giant conspiracy, we scream; the eastern liberal establishment that controls the media is biased against us.

What a bunch of hooey.

The fact of the matter is that we don't do much that deserves front page coverage. Sure, we have interesting ideas, and sure we go out and do the traditional campaign activities. But hey, there are always so many people out doing the traditional campaign actives, and they at least have a chance of affecting the outcome. So, why should the media bother with us?

Let's look at the recent Perot phenomenon. Perot got NO ELECTORAL VOTES! He didn't succeed at winning a single state. Yet, he got coverage, he got invited to the debates (and we didn't), he got all the media access that he wanted. Why?

It's because Perot was capable of affecting the outcome. Even without winning the entire race, Perot was capable of pulling enough swing votes and undecideds into his camp that could have, and indeed probably did, change the outcome of the election. Without Perot's presence, the entire dynamic would have been different.

II. "Hit'em Where They Ain't"

We should focus our presidential energies in one state: New Hampshire. We should move in after the Republicans and Democrats have left following the primary, and spent most of the election season there. Let every single voter in the state get to know our candidate, listen to a full articulation of our views, and ask questions with the exception of receiving thorough and in-depth responses, not just 6-second sound bites.

Because New Hampshire is small both in terms of population and geography, it allows for a complete market penetration. The media market is small, allowing us to target our funds and time very well.

In short, New Hampshire was selected because we not only have the opportunity to affect the out-come, we have the opportunity to win!

III. Tactics Versus Ideas

The biggest thing we need to do, though, is change our approach to the media. We have the ideas, we have solutions, and we have the evidence. Ten thousand years of human history showing that free people consistently outperform, out-produce, and outshine captive people is a wonderful testament to our beliefs about the human soul. However, the news media doesn't particularly care. It's not news!

What we need to do is shift from giving the media a steady stream of ideas to giving them a steady stream of tactics. When we look at the Republicans and Democrats, the stories are often about which states they well be focusing on, and when they will be going to those states, and how much time they will spend there. The stories talk about how the Democrats are targeting Republicans voters, or how Republican are talking with the disaffected Democrat voter. The shifting coalitions of the electoral politics always makes for a great story and is guaranteed coverage again and again throughout a campaign season.

IV. The Plan

We need to get serious about our paid media plan. Too often, the LP has taken its money and spent it as it has come in. This is backwards. Instead, as the money comes in, we should start by buying TV time for the week immediately before the election. As we gain additional funds, we should use them to buy additional media time for the second week before the election. Subsequent contributions will then be used to buy more TV time for the third week before the election, and so on. That way, we make sure that our message is on the air when most people are making up their minds -- just before the election. By squandering our resources too early, we may fight the good fight, but we will surely lose it.

In fact, we should limit the bulk of our TV time to a mere 45 days. By starting our big push in late September, we can be on the air far more often, and with a larger diversity of message, than we can if we try to stay on the air a little bit here and a little bit there.

Also, each week, we should have 10% more ads than did the previous week, so that we build to a crescendo just at election time. This is a tactic we can take from retailers. Let's face it, we see more beer commercials as we get closer to the Super Bowl, culminating in the Bud Bowl at the half time of the big game. Why? That's when people drink the most beer! The same is true of politics. The vote only comes once, and that's when we should be saturating the airwaves with our message.

Second, we should work to earn matching funds. However, we should not use them for our campaign. THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY SHOULD NOT GO ON WELFARE! Rather, we should earn the funds, accept the funds, and then turn the funds over to the Department of the Treasury, specifically earmarked toward reduction of the federal debt. We can then go on TV (because this is a great story!) and challenge the Republicans and Democrats to do the same thing. Of course, they'll refuse, and we'll have a ready made campaign story. We can use it to bash them at every junction along the way. After all, the Libertarians put our money where our mouth is, while the Republicans and Democrats put other people's money where their mouth is.

Third, we should make sure we select the right ticket. The ideal Libertarian ticket for 1996 will include a white female at the head of the ticket, and an African-American for the second slot. Let's face it, the LP has always been the party of diversity, and we have always had more non-traditional candidates than all other parties. The first woman to receive an electoral vote was the LP's Vice Presidential candidate Toni Nathan in 1972. Since then, we also had Nancy Lord, who holds degrees in both law and medicine, as our VP candidate. Likewise, through the years we have had a great deal of diversity in our choice for the party's standard-bearer, with such candidates as Richard Boddie, an African-American, law lecturer, and motivational speaker who was narrowly edged out in 1992 by Andre Marrou, and Russell Means, one of the modern leaders of the American Indian Movement and movie star. Along the way, there have been countless individuals coming from anything other than the traditional Republican and democrat good-old-boy club. That is a tradition we should maintain.

Furthermore, our ticket itself has the possibility of making history. When we win New Hampshire with a woman and an African-American, we become the first party to get electoral votes in both positions. We will have eclipsed the Democrats, who are willing to talk about diversity, but never really want to put it on the ticket. This year, for example, the Democrats talked a lot about diversity, but ended up with two rich white males on their ticket. We will certainly have outdistanced the Republicans, who HATE the mere idea of diversity, and cannot fathom ever having anything other than two rich white males on their ticket.

V. Build A Better Mousetrap

There is an old adage that says that if you build a better mousetrap, the world will beat a path to your door. Well, it's just not true. The Libertarian Party has been building better mousetraps in every election since our party was formed, and not only are they not beating a path to our door, they are walking right past without a second look.

A better mousetrap is only as good as its sales team. If you don't market your mousetrap correctly, no one will ever buy it. This is the problem that the LP has been facing for more than 20 years. We've built the damn mousetrap, now why doesn't anyone buy it?

In business, to be undercapitalized is to virtually guarantee failure. The LP is undercapitalized, at least as far as its ability to run a sustained, national campaign. We don't have the money, the man-power, or the resources to do it. However, we can take our capital and focus our energies. We can market our better mousetrap in a small market, with an eye toward capturing that market and then expanding.

By endorsing the "Hit'em Where They Ain't" plan the LP can go a long way on its short resources. By selecting the right ticket, we can guarantee coverage. and by using our federal matching funds as a weapon, we can generate more coverage than we could by accepting the money and using it directly in our campaign. This is the obvious and appropriate next step in the LP's development toward being a viable and effective political force.

If enough of us show support, we can "Hit'em Where They Ain't."

Hit'em Where They Ain't, Part 3

I. A Media Catch-22 and The Need to Be Perot-proof

We need media coverage to win, but we need to win in order to gain media coverage. It's a classic Catch-22.

The news media have many reasons to ignore us. In close races, we are ignored because we can have no impact on the final result. In landslides, we are ignored because we are not contenders. When a strong independent candidate runs, such as Ross Perot or John Anderson, we are ignored because people can cast their protest votes for other candidates. We need to make sure that we are not ignored.

The Hit'em Where They Ain't proposal handles all three of those situations. In a close race, a single state's electoral vote could be the difference. This would require the media to pay attention to our state and therefore, to us. In a landslide, the fact that we even take a state could make electoral history. If we're lucky, we might even be able to stress the possibility of our eclipsing the party that was trounced, and thus become the nation's second party. (That's how the Republicans become more popular than Whigs, and it's how the Progressive Party nearly took over during this century.)

Strong independent candidates generally rely on some type of personal appeal. For example, Ross Perot and George Wallace both garnered support from people who liked their personal leadership qualities and no-nonsense approaches to problems. Yet, the system is set up to prevent the independent candidate from winning By keeping our focus tight, we can prevent such candidate from stealing our thunder. After all, we will be right there, talking face-to-face with people, rather than simply mouthing platitudes and talking on television. Nothing beats a personal contact, and independent candidates just can't get enough personal contact to make themselves viable.

II. Hit'em Where They Ain't

Quite simple, Hit'em Where They Ain't calls for allocating the bulk of our presidential campaign resources into one state: New Hampshire. This is based on the belief that if we specifically target one key area, and put everything we've got into it, WE COULD WIN IT! New Hampshire was chosen because it has a strong and growing Libertarian Party, because it is a fairly small in population and area, and because it has a very politically sophisticated electorate.

A key component of the plan is to target New Hampshire AFTER the other parties have left. New Hampshire traditionally gets inundated with candidates for several months before their primary and then they get ignored for the remaining 10 months until election day. That's our target time: that's when we can Hit'em Where They Ain't. We can go in, give full explanations of our ideas instead of 6 second sound bites, and lay out all the details about our plans and programs.

III. Ballot Access

Of course, the Hit'em Where They Ain't plan is not just about New Hampshire, it is about the entire libertarian movement! Before you can have a second success, you need a first. Truly, it has been said that the longest journeys start with a single step. The time has come for us to take that first major step, to achieve that first major victory. One must crawl before walking, and walk before running. We envision ourselves in a sprint, but we are still preparing to take our first tentative steps. We have learned to crawl; our successes in Alaska, New Hampshire, and elsewhere have shown that we can crawl. It's time to grow up and start walking. Let's just do it!

After all, nothing succeeds like success. Our efforts in New Hampshire can pay off by increasing our vote totals everywhere if we have ballot access across the country. If we can demonstrate the ability to be successful in just one place -- especially if it has any potential impact on the national election -- we can get media coverage that we desire so much. With media coverage comes the opportunity to build and grow across the nation. And that, after all, is what we are seeking.

We all know that planning makes a big difference when it comes to ballot access. Perot is said to have spent as much as $15 million to get it. We spent about $500 thousand and were on all of the same ballots as Perot. The difference was that we set up plans, started working early, and followed through to fruition. The same thing is true of Mr. Ed Clark's Project 51-96, a drive get the LP on the ballot across the country. For people who are specifically interested in assisting that project, they can contribute to Project 51-96, 1600 43rd Avenue East #202, Seattle, WA 98112-3247.

IV. Hit'em Where They Are!

While we will be targeting voters that have been used and discarded by the major parties, that doesn't mean that we're going to ignore those major parties. In fact, we're going to spend our 10 months explaining everything that is wrong, illogical, and just plain dumb about their proposals. We'll tie the Republicans and Democrats together on the many issues in which they are equally wrong -- sometimes in the exact same way.

For example, The Democrats and Republicans are falling all over themselves on the health care issue. Hillary Clinton is proposing that we nationalize all doctors. The Republicans are countering with a plan whereby we only nationalize SOME doctors. Either way, the plan sucks. We can hit this issue, demonstrate clearly that it is government regulations which limit the number of health care providers and drives up the cost. We can stress ending monopoly, and show how freedom works.

Likewise, taxes and spending are another excellent example. The Democrats blame the federal debt and budget deficit on the last 12 years of Republican administrations. Yet, the Clinton budget plan calls for MORE SPENDING, particularly on those pesky transfer programs! Likewise, the Republicans are pointing fingers at the Democrats, but keep pushing for ever more military spending. Hey, spending is spending!

There are dozens of examples of programs where Democrats and Republicans claim to disagree, but in virtually every single instance, the only disagreement is over how big the increase in spending should be. We can nail them again and again on the issues.

V. The Tide of History

We all know that libertarianism has the tide of history on its side. Year after year, culture after culture, country after country, statist totalitarianism has been tried. There was ancient despotism, justified by Plato. There was middle age feudalism, supported by European aristocracy. There was monarchy, justified by Tudor-Stuart apologists. There was communism, espoused by Marx. There remains welfare statism as envisioned by Keynes.

Yet, despite their attempts to repackage it, state control is state control is state control; whether under the guise of a benevolent king, or controlled by a ruthless dictator, state control has yielded thousands of years of misery.

Of course, libertarianism can't make the lame walk, or the blind see. However, it can unleash human potential, thus opening the door for the technological advancements which, in fact, may indeed help the lame walk or the blind to see. After all, history has shown again and again that increases in living standards come almost exclusively from free people, and that captive people struggle simply to maintain their standard of living.

Compare the increases in the standard of living in the U.S. during the last 75 years with the standard of living in the Soviet Union between the Bolshevik revolution and the breakup of the empire. Here, capital was created: there capital was consumed.

These are issues we need to stress, but we need time and direction to do it. Putting our resources into a single target area allows us to make these points, and reinforce them, until the people begin to understand. By staying diffuse in our attack, we dilute our own message, until we spread ourselves so thin that we accomplish little.

VI. Opportunity Knocks

Answer the damn door!

We've built a great mousetrap now we must market it. Of course, now is the time to sell it, because the dissatisfaction with politics as-usual is reaching all-time highs. People are screaming for alternatives, and we have solutions they are seeking. All we have to do is show them our solutions, explain why they work, and then reap the rewards.

We have the opportunity to win a state. We have the opportunity to establish real credibility. We have the opportunity to develop our position papers into products that can be released for entire world to read. We have the opportunity to become a voice not only of idealism but of common sense. We have the opportunity to succeed.

It's time to stop looking for opportunity. After all, it's knocking at the door.

Hit'em Where They Ain't, Part 4

By: Jim Burns

I. Why a National LP?

The National Libertarian Party (NLP) is in the forefront of the battle of the libertarian cause. The NLP publishes the LP News which keeps members informed, has outreach on college campuses and elsewhere, speaks out on the issues of the day, prints issue papers, lobbies for better laws, helps to get ballot access; these are just some of the activities of the NLP. Of course, the NLP would do more if it had more to do it with. I am a big fan of the NLP!

Nevertheless, with the exception of one thing, everything that is done by the NLP could, should and must be done by the State LP's, and everything done by the State LP's could, should, and must be done by the local LP's. The one thing that cannot be done by local LP's and the major we have state LP's is to run candidates for state-wide offices. The one thing that cannot be done by State LP's and the major reason we have a NLP is to run a national ticket. The central mission of the NLP is to have a Presidential team.

There are those in the libertarian movement who offer the useless advice that the NLP should not run a national ticket. In effect, what they are saying is that we should give up on the NLP. The usual reason given for this is that the results have not been satisfactory. Give me a break!

The key to winning elections is to run a better campaign than your opponent. The LP does not have the resources of our opponents. What is amazing is not that the LP has done so poorly, rather that the LP has done so well! Most people have no idea of how large the task is that we are trying to accomplish and fewer have any idea how limited the resources are available to the NLP. Because the NLP has run candidates, we are now large enough to have an impact and may grow to a point where we will have a chance to win in the future if we use our heads. We have very limited resources. We must maximize our impact.

II. Hit'em Where They Ain't

If we were to put the bulk of our presidential campaign resources into one state (New Hampshire) after the primary, and if we run a better campaign than our opponents (we can because all the "big guys" will be elsewhere), we can win in New Hampshire. If we win or even give the appearance that we might win a state, it will cause the media to pay attention to us as they never have before and in so doing increase our vote totals, increase recruitment, and increase morale, not just in New Hampshire -- but everywhere. Bypass their strength. Focus our efforts. Hit'em Where They Ain't.

III. Ballot Access

Making a political party grow does not just happen, we must make it happen. Grow or retreat. The NLP has been the third largest political party for a long time. According to the "Ballot Access News", the Green Party now has more than two thousand registered voters nation-wide than does the LP. I don't know about you, but I don't want to be number four. Mr. Ed Clark and Project 51-'96, 1600 43rd Ave. East, Seattle, WA, 98112-3247, are working to get permanent ballot status in Arizona by getting people to register libertarian. If successful in Arizona, we should outdo the Green Party. Maybe, the competition will wake us up. I hope so.

How can you increase your vote totals if you are not on the ballot? We have proven we can get ballot access if we plan ahead, start early, and work hard. Ballot access is an unfair burden placed on non-democrat or non- republican candidates by Democrat and Republican politicians, but it is the first step and without it we are nowhere. We should not step back. We should move ahead!

IV. The Integrity Factor

Image is not everything, but it is important. Some months ago, there was a story in the media about a family. It seems that they had come on hard times. The husband had lost his job. The family had been kicked out of their home, and they were living in their car. Their car was soon to be repossessed. The wife went into a store. She saw a wallet on the floor. She picked it up and found inside the wallet about $2,000. She promptly turned it in. The media found out about the story and quickly it was national news. The husband soon had a job, the family a home, and they were able to pay their debts. I believe that the family had always been honest. What had changed was the family had their image improved and spot-lighted.

Our candidates for president may face a similar situation to the lady who found the wallet. The NLP has chosen to nominate our ticket in 1996 instead of our usual practice of the year before. Candidates of "minor" parties may receive matching (taxpayers) money before they get their parties' nomination. Because of the extra time before the nomination, there is a good chance that some of our candidates may qualify for (taxpayers') money.

Some of our candidates may ignore the matching (taxpayers') funds. We are under no obligation to do anything about the matching (taxpayers') money, but we still must follow the FEC rules. We gain nothing by not getting the cash because if they think about it at all, most people will assume that we did get it.

There are those in the LP who will rationalize that matching funds (they usually will not call it taxpayers' money) should be taken so that it can be used to fight the good cause. The irony of using government cash to fight the oppression of government is appealing to some. Some argue that the money is voluntary because of the check-off on the IRS forms. The IRS check-off is a Hobson's choice and does not make matching funds anything other than taxpayers' money taken by force. Some say that since the government steals from us, anything we get back is justified. I would point to Healing Our World SunStar Press, P.O. Box 342, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49005-0342, ($16.45), by Dr. Mary Ruwart. Dr. Ruwart argues that aggression does not bring a better world rather more calls for aggression (you know, they steal from me, so anything I get back is OK). The problem is that we are not getting our getting our money back from the people (government) who have stolen from us, but from innocent victims (taxpayers). The easy way out is not more aggression, rather to just say no to aggression. And let it begin with us. After all, we are the Libertarian Party. If not us -- who? If not now -- when?

Jimmy Clinton, I mean Bill Carter, you know, the current president has an office somewhere where they will accept money to help pay off the national debt. If our presidential candidate qualify for matching (taxpayers') money, if we get the checks and turn them into one dollar bills, hire security guards, call all of the media, and take the cash to that office and give it to the bureaucrat in charge, maybe, just maybe, the media will give us the same kind of coverage that they gave to the lady who found the wallet. Perhaps, our image would be improved and spot-lighted. But, even if they don't, aren't we the people who "...call for an end to any tax-financed subsidies to candidates..." Do we mean what we say or is it all bullshit! Isn't integrity important? Don't you think that we should do it because it is the right thing to do?

V. The Real Focus

The big debate in the NLP right now seems to be about the Pledge and the Platform. One group seems to say that we can't win unless we eliminate them. The other group seems to say that if we eliminate them, we will turn into Democrats and Republicans, and so what if we win?

Both sides have missed the point. The Pledge is NOT what is keeping us from winning: we are what is keeping us from winning. We have ineffective strategies and tactics. Likewise, modifying the Platform doesn't change what we believe, it changes how we say it.

What we really need to do is focus on WHOM we are saying it to, and WHEN we are saying it. Whether we want to be philosophers or political animals is NOT the important question. The important question is what we do to effect changes in public policy.

Mr. Richard Boddie is found of saying that if you do what you do you get what you got. We can do as we have done and the LP will grow slowly -- very slowly, or we can try something different. I do not say that we should change our strategies, nor do I say that a change in strategy will be easy or is sure to win. The NLP will have to run a better campaign than we have ever run before: raise more money, have more people work in the field, and so forth. And, we must realize that there is no NLP, only you and me, and if we do not make the effort and spend our money, then no strategy will work.

Hit'em Where They Ain't, The Map

By: Jim Burns and Ray Derryberry

DISCLAIMER

A map is merely a representation of a piece of territory. It may be a useful tool, help you to get from point A to point B, but you cannot reach your destination by merely looking at the map. You must look at the land around you as you travel, physically acting upon what you see, and using the map as a guide to help you make decisions.

STRATEGY

When faced by an opponent possessing superior force, you may overcome that opponent by finding his weakness, consolidating and focusing your resources at that point and attacking using superior technology and techniques.

If we were to allocate the bulk of our presidential campaign resources into one state (New Hampshire) after the primary, and if we were to run a better campaign than the Democrats, Republicans, and Perot, we can win, or at least do very well.

The color of political blood is green. Possessing large amounts of money does not guarantee a victory (look at Perot '92), but without money you are rarely considered a player. The LP has always had the problem of never being able to obtain enough money to be considered a player in the game. In order to achieve the victory we seek, we must raise a lot of money. We cannot be under-funded as we have been in the past.

TACTICS

1. We should begin the campaign no later than the spring of 1994.

2. We should run a team comprised of a Presidential Candidate (PC) and a vice-presidential Candidate (VP).

3. During the first year of the campaign, we should go on tour once a month for six days, alternating months between the PC and the VP.

4. In early spring of 1995, the campaign should increase the tours to twelve days per month. The PC touring for six days and the VP touring for six days.

5. Shortly after the Presidential Primary in New Hampshire, The PC should move to New Hampshire.

6. Once the PC is settled, the PC should campaign full time, spending three weeks in New Hampshire, and one week on tour.

7. In the Spring of 1996, the VP should campaign full time, touring for six days, and returning home for six days.

8. The campaign should attend as many LP conventions as possible, with either the PC or the VP in attendance. The larger conventions such as those held in California, Texas, Florida, and so forth, should be attended by both the PC and VP.

9. We should have two Assistants, one for the PC and one for the VP. The duties of the Assistants should include (a) being responsible for overseeing the tours, (b) going on tour with their candidate, (c) introducing the candidate, (d) at LP meeting, making the pitch for money, and seeking volunteers for the campaign, (e) recording to video the presentation of the candidate, and (f) all other things necessary and proper for a second in command.

10. We should have three field coordinators. The duties of the field coordinators should include (a) arranging the tours, including but not limited to setting up interviews with the media, arranging presentations before groups outside LP circles, and for local and state LP groups, (b) phoning local LP members to invite attendance at meetings, (c) seek help from volunteers to help the campaign locally, (d) record to video the audience at presentations by candidates, and (e) all other things necessary and proper to promote the campaign. 11. We should have a direct mail coordinator.

12. We should be "evangelical" in seeking potential LP members, concentrating in New England, and New Hampshire in particular. We should seek to perfect a system such as is used by the Advocates for Self Government in order to bring new people into the LP.

13. We should actively seek Federal Matching Funds, placing them in trust until all funds are received, then hire an armored truck with security guards, convert the money into one dollar bills, call the media, and deliver the money to that governmental office which accepts donations to help pay for the national debt, thereby returning that money to its rightful owners, the taxpayers. For an explanation of this tactic, please refer back to "Hit'em Where They Ain't, Part 4".

14. We should target a budget of $1.5 million: approximately five hundred thousand dollars for general campaign expenses, five hundred fifty thousand dollars for New Hampshire TV ads, one hundred fifty thousand each for direct mail and radio ads, and fifty thousand dollars each for newspaper ads, outdoor ads, and hand out pamphlets.

15. We should allocate an increasing percentage of revenue to advertising as the campaign builds, and revenue increases. For example: 10% of the first $100,000, and increasing to higher percentages as November, 1996 approaches.

16. We should only engage in paid political advertising for the last ten weeks of the campaign. Advertising spots should be purchased in advance, beginning on the last day before elections and continuing backward until all space is obtained. Furthermore, more money should be allocated to the end of the advertising campaign than the beginning.

17. We should divide New Hampshire into its smallest political units (precinct, ward, or borough) and work to cover the entire state in an organized fashion. The PC should do door-to-door work with a team of volunteers. We should have coffee clatches, barbecues, and town-hall type meetings. The PC should try to meet as many of the people of New Hampshire as is possible.

18. We should not rely on our own personal views as to the most important issues of the campaign, especially for advertisements, but use volunteers to determine through polling the issues that (a) are most important to the residents of New Hampshire, (b) concur with the beliefs of the LP, and (c) to which all of the major opponents stand opposed.

19. In dealing with volunteers we should try to follow what I will call Jim's Golden Rules: (a) always remember that they are not obligated to donate their time, (b) always listen to what they have to say, (c) show them through word and deed that we are happy and grateful for their support, (d) allow them to do as they please as much as is possible, (e) do not assume that they already know what needs to be done and how, and (f) say thank you often and give what rewards we have to give.

20. A newsletter should be developed (called "Thank You") to be sent to those individuals who contribute $25 or more to the campaign. The purpose of this newsletter will be to inform the individual of the campaign's progress and development, and invite continued support of the campaign.

STRATEGY AND TACTICS

The word 'strategy' implies long-term goals, while 'tactics' are individual maneuvers employed to achieve a short-term objectives. The strategy serves as a map, and the tactics are the physical exertions we use to get to where we are going. I will now submit some justifications for the tactics offered above.

A VP candidate is required, especially so early, in order to divide the tours between the two candidates, thus easing some of the pressure on the PC. After all, we will be asking the candidates to run a campaign from early 1994 until November 1996.

The purpose of the tours is to generate revenue. We should actively pursue media attention which lends credibility to a campaign, which in turn helps raise money. The tours should include groups outside LP circles, allowing the campaign to make more contacts and broaden the revenue base. I believe that most of the money raised for the campaign will be generated through direct mail. Direct mail is most effective when personal contact has been made before the letters are sent, and followed through with once the letter are received. In order for this campaign to be productive, we must raise a lot of money.

It has been my experience that successful meetings require three things: (a) an interesting speaker or subject matter, (b) an informative mailing before the meeting for notification, and (c) telephone follow-up inviting people to attend the meetings. Media interviews and outside meetings require contacts and follow-through in order to be successful. All of these things must be done, and must be done by people. I suggest that these, among other things, be done by field coordinators.

The short-term and long-term goals of the LP include increasing LP membership. We have not, as of yet, developed an adequate recruitment program. In doing so, we would not only benefit the campaign, but also the LP in general.

In the past, LP presidential campaign have run on budgets approximating $700,000, but this plan calls for just over twice that amount. That is why this plan suggests that the campaign begin early. It takes money to make money, and the money spent early in the campaign will help to generate larger revenues during the entire length of the campaign.

The largest chunk of the budget is allocated to TV advertising. While this is important, it is not the only element crucial to the success of the campaign. Radio and Newspaper ads, as well as handouts are also necessary. The budget breakdowns reflect what I feel to be the best proportions for carrying out a thorough campaign.

CONCLUSION

Knowing what needs to be done is not the same as doing it. A map, no matter how precisely accurate, will do you no good until you put one foot in front of the other and take that first step. The map outlined above does not require 100% participation from LP member, but it does require that many members do become involved. The early stages of the campaign are crucial. If you like the map, and you believe in what the LP stands for, then you are crucial to its success. Take that first step that will propel the LP to its desired destination: Victory in '96. Remember that Clinton lost New Hampshire, yet he claimed victory. If we were to win New Hampshire and get at least 1% of the national vote, we would be well on our way. Do we turn the LP around or stay as we are? It is up to you. What will you do?

FEEDBACK AND COMMENTS

Feedback and comments, pro and con, are greatly appreciated. If you think that the Hit'em Where They Ain't proposal is a good one, send me your pledge (no money, please) along with your name, address, 9-digit zip code, and phone number. If you think that the idea is flawed, tell me what's wrong with it, and I'll try to correct it. If you think that the idea is totally nuts, try to convince me. If I decide that you are correct, I'll stop writing, and quit spending my hard- earned money on it.

Jim Burns