Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 10:14:18 -0500 From: steve@trinwords.com (Steve Trinward) Subject: [lpaz-discuss] [Fwd: [TnLP] [Fwd: Two sides of the same coin]] To: lpaz-discuss@yahoogroups.com (Arizona) Reply-To: lpaz-discuss@yahoogroups.com
forwarded FYI - not EVERYONE on the LNC is either hopelessly corrupted or in total denial ... (In fact, the tide is turning as we speak ...) - ST
***** Subject: Two sides of the same coin Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 23:45:56 EDT From: DiazVivar@aol.com To: lnc-discuss@hq.lp.org, [et al.]
Dear Chair, LNC and SPT colleagues, members of the National Staff, and regular observers of LNC meetings:
Ladies and gentlemen, for some months in private conversations with ou National Chair, Mr. Lark, I have been pointing out that we cannot allow, tolerate, or encourage any plan or scheme that would be a money maker for Mr. Perry Willis.
Before Mr. Willis' self-laudatory "I am right by the pound" opus, which confirmed the worst of my suspicions, I considered Mr. Willis responsible for selling (and unfortunately, finding buyers for) his tragic strategy of recruiting someone famous and articulate as a presidential candidate and trying to build the party by concentrating ALL EFFORTS around that.
Harry Browne was the candidate in this case; I wonder who else might have been in Willis' sights after this run. This plan was disconnected from the real needs of our party and our rank and file, which is to come to grips with the reality that we will only have political success (the only rational alternative) from the grassroots up.
A number of things have jumped out at me from the Willis document.
Page 2, at the very top: He offers "Solution 1," that he could have resigned as National Director. If he had been that committed and convinced that his presidential strategy was so great, the choice was obvious--resign as National Director. No need to risk conflict of interest. No need to bring this down on anybody. His character obviously prevented this.
On Page 6, first complete paragraph: He complains that it had been asserted that he should have helped all candidates if he was helping one. Oh my! That was because he WAS National Director-- that's why. So he had to resign, period.
Page 13, last section, titled "Hurt Feelings":
"Some people have hurt feelings because I concealed my actions from them or lied to them. I understand. I sympathize. I feel badly about that. But this goes only so far."
I closed my eyes after I read this, and I concluded: Willis' mind is brilliant, but corrupt as well. In his 20 pages, he clearly attempts to sound like the hero of The Fountainhead in his trial. But the above quote is not Roark, it's Bill Clinton.
He says, "...only I have suffered for it." This quote is truly putrid. There are many people who have been damaged, and who potentially may be damaged by all of this. Let's consider one important reason why Mr. Willis probably could not resign when he should have. He had just been implicated in a palace revolt ousting a person who at the time was a recently scouted and hired National Director--Gene Cisewski, a man with a much better understanding of how to build grassroots than Willis, with Willis' strategy of putting everything on the presidential candidate.
As things are now, Willis may end up implicating and hurting members of our national staff. Willis' actions and the actions of those who allowed it to happen have given rise to the extremist call for absurd and phony ethics codes that would effectively paralyze anyone interested in carrying out political activity.
This latter point is at the heart of what I see as a parallel between Perry Willis and Jacob Hornberger. I hope that the following clarifies to friends, colleagues, and people I regard greatly who, on the one hand, can't understand why I can't go along with what Hornberger is doing, or to whom, on the other hand, I have had to make it clear that I am not involved with the Hornberger crusade, and why.
On the one hand, Willis embodies, in my opinion, the phony pragmatist, i.e., "I have discovered a grand plan that will rectify all. All will benefit, and I'll do whatever it takes to get it done. Ain't I swell?" Of course, where is the pragmatism in stalling the growth of the grassroots? Where is the pragmatism in being a catalyst for dissension, division, and more internal strife, that he has the audacity to complain about?
Hornberger, of course, is totally different. No, pragmatism is not for him. It's only the highest ideals, the purist ethics--THE MORE DISEMBODIED THE BETTER. This is not anywhere near ethical, any more than the Willis approach is anywhere near pragmatic. Hornberger would have rules for potential candidates to be stymied at every turn by their own party and their own supporters. This is not ethical, because it lacks truth in advertising. A political party is supposed to elect candidates to office--something Hornberger does not seem to grasp or accept, as vividly demonstrated by his Ross Perot act of dropping out of the race for the presidential nomination in 2000 and then coming back again.
Not only has he come back, he has begun acting like some kind of avenging angel divinely appointed to root out corruption within the party.
>From where I stand, both Willis and Hornberger put aside the whole
picture for the picture that each one wishes to sell. Willis rather masterfully covered up the entire issue of our absent grassroots to pursue his presidential master plan, to the point of moving in on a duly hired national director.Hornberger, in order to push his vision, doesn't seem to mind or apparently care whether or not the guilty take the innocent down with them. Hmmm... This latter point is yet another parallel between the two.
Fortunately, Hornberger is out there shouting, and we don't have to answer and face the music for adopting a so-called ethics package that effectively negates the political function of our party.
That's the good news. Now the bad news. I think we all know the bad news at the LNC. It's that, yes, we're going to have to face the fact that individuals whom we trust and respect in a collegiate manner may end up implicated in the Willis self-styled "CAUDILLO" act, and quickly we need to urge anyone potentially implicated to come forth, be transparent, and understand that things no one wants to happen could happen. --And don't do the willy-willy that "I am so important that without me, the party and/or the movement will go down."
We have to ask ourselves a question. How can otherwise visionary, rational, reasonable, dedicated individuals fall for the styles and machinations of self-centered, self-appointed saviors? The brilliance of these "saviors" alone is not a sufficient answer. Perhaps it's charisma. Can we afford to be snookered into little spots of bright light, missing the real picture? Can we afford to look for leaders to get us out of the jams we get ourselves into? We're libertarians, we have to do that ourselves. We ARE the grassroots.
Thank you for your patience in reading this rather lengthy text.
Respectfully, in liberty,
Lorenzo Gaztaaga LNC, SPT, etc.
P.S.: This is an open document, and I will copy state chairs, alternates, and others. I believe that the Cone of Silence is best left to Maxwell Smat. He's the expert.