President's Corner

Events, the LP, and Concentrated Activism – Part 2 of 2

In the last Corner, I asked 4 questions relating to concentrated activism that came out of the Porc Fest and the LP National Convention. I answered the first 2 of those questions. Here's my take on questions 3 and 4. If you missed the first 2, they're archived here. Now, on to the next two questions.

3: Does concentrated activism actually work in the LP or the FSP?

It's important to note that the FSP Organization doesn't do any of the things I mentioned, and they're merely representations of what has happened, not recommendations or endorsements. It's FSP participants themselves doing that work on their own or with other organizations in New Hampshire.

 

These are a few concrete examples of what FSP participants have accomplished in New Hampshire in a fairly short period of time:

 

• FSP participants campaigned and voted against a 7-figure spending measure in a New Hampshire town. The measure was narrowly defeated saving taxpayers all that money. The margin of defeat was smaller than the number of FSP participants lobbying against it.

• An FSP participant took the simple step of asking questions at a town meeting. The result was several spending items totaling thousands of dollars being removed from the town budget.

• A bill restricting the property rights of operators of certain establishments unexpectedly passed the State House. FSP participants lobbied heavily against the bill in the Senate and the bill was killed which maintained those rights.

• FSP participants have been elected and/or appointed to several town-level offices including school board, budget committee, town selectman, planning board, and probably several others.

• A bill reducing education regulation was written by an FSP participant, lobbied for by FSP participants, and was ultimately passed into law as a direct result of the work of those people.

• FSP Participants successfully defended themselves against criminal charges intended to intimidate those people as they exercised their right to free speech.

• On several occasions, FSP participants have been challenged by law enforcement while exercising a basic legal right in New Hampshire. On every occasion, the Participants were successful in exercising that right without being found guilty of committing any crime.

• FSP participants have engaged in several persuasive acts of civil disobedience which have publicly highlighted the injustice in several bad laws. Those acts have been widely reported on both in New Hampshire and elsewhere around the nation.

• FSP participants founded a charitable organization designed to help meet the educational needs of parents who desire more educational freedom but cannot afford it.

• FSP participants founded a lobbying organization which supports pro-freedom candidates, opposes anti-freedom candidates, rates all bills which go before the legislature for their stance and impact on liberty, lobbies accordingly on some of those bills, and rates all of the legislators based on their votes.

• FSP participants founded a free pro-freedom biweekly newspaper available online and in print with a print circulation of over 5,000 copies per issue.

• FSP participants, both individually and on behalf of pro-freedom groups, are gaining positive name recognition and respect within the government. At Porc Fest, activists from several organizations related many anecdotes about state representatives not only being well aware of Free Staters, but actively soliciting their opinions and assistance on issues. They know who we are, and are paying attention to this growing cadre of libertarian-minded activists.

These are a few examples of ways FSP participants have worked to promote freedom, many of which have brought an actual measurable increase in freedom for citizens in New Hampshire. In my answer to the next question, there are a couple of examples of concentrated activism within the LP.

4: Does either the FSP or the LP have a strategy to solve the concentrated activism problem? Is it working?

The problem faced by both groups is the problem the Free State Project seeks to solve by design: too few of “us” (freedom seekers), too many of “them” (everyone else).

As far as I'm aware, the LP has no concentrated activism plan. Having said that, concentrated activism does happen within the LP. In 2000, the Carla Howell campaign for U.S. Senate tested the concentrated activism theory. I don't know how many activists worked on that campaign but it spent more money than any non-Presidential campaign in party history. I believe the number of activists was similarly large in comparison to other LP Senate campaigns. The result was the only 3rd party U.S. Senate election return above 10% in a 3 (or more) way race – double the next nearest LP example and higher than the Republican candidate in the race. The incumbent did win the election by a solid margin and was never truly in jeopardy of losing.  There was significant synergy, though, between Howell's campaign and a ballot measure to end the Massachusetts state income tax.  That measure actually came close to passing, earning about 45% of the vote.  Without concentrated activism, it's unlikely it would have done so well.

This year, another campaign shows promise of returning record setting results. Michael Badnarik, an FSP participant, is running for U.S. House in a campaign that already appears to be setting records. With about 4 months to go, they have already raised more than any LP House campaign in history. When Michael told me how many volunteers they have working on the campaign, I predicted immediately they'll have returns well above the 2-4% that the usual inactive LP campaigns get. If I'm right, he will have demonstrated again the power of effective activism. It's unclear what his opponent will do, but so far it appears his campaign poses a very serious threat to the incumbent – probably more serious than any federal campaign in LP history. All of this is possible only because of concentrated activism.

Even given those examples of concentrated activism within the LP, there are simply not enough activists to accomplish the LP's overall national goal now. Both groups just had their largest annual gatherings with roughly comparable attendance. The LP's territory covers 300 Million, the FSP's just 1.2 Million.

Free State Project's bottom-up, start-small, realistic concentrated activism design is actually causing stable pro-freedom activism - activism not based on a single campaign - and it's already delivering successful results. The freedom movement's resources might possibly be enough to significantly influence one state, and that has already begun here in New Hampshire. Concentrated activism does work. The question is, will enough pro-freedom activists join this most realistic plan and make it work?

The answer to that question is unknown at this point. There's great news, though. Now with two options (the original 20,000 Statement Of Intent and the First 1000 pledge), people can decide how many activists they think it will take to achieve a level of success worthy of participation. And if we don't get enough commitments, nobody is committed to moving. Of course, there are some who are ready to go regardless and they have given us all the evidence we need that this plan can succeed. All we need now is your help.

V-

If you have any suggestions or ideas for this feature, please feel free to send them my way.   Email me at president@freestateproject.org for the best quality response.