The Cannae Tactic: How to Sell New Hampshire Self-Government

The Cannae Tactic: How to Sell New Hampshire Self-Government

I have titled this talk, The Cannae Tactic, after the Battle of Cannae, which was fought in 216 BC between the Carthaginians under Hannibal and the Romans. Hannibal's tactical innovation was to place his greenest troops in the center and his veterans on the flanks. The center advanced to engage the Roman army, then withdrew as if in retreat. The Romans pursued them, thinking the battle was a rout, but then the veterans on the flanks surrounded them. The Roman army was completely annihilated, losing some 60 to 70 thousand men. I think there's an analogous tactic that could work on the important issue of New Hampshire self-government. In a moment I'll describe what I mean by that term.

When I came up with the idea of the Free State Project, I assumed that most of the people who would be moving would be activists in a very weak sense of the term, maybe donating $50 a year to local libertarian causes but not necessarily doing much else. For that reason I thought we might need as many as 20,000 activists to build a permanent majority in a state of this size. As it turns out, though, the majority of the people moving are Super-Activists. They are spending hours each week writing letters, testifying before the legislature, putting out newspapers, engaging their fellow citizens. What we've found is that now, Free Staters are dominating the testimony at the state legislature on bills that matter most to us.

What we need now is a true grassroots movement that will hold elected officials accountable every time. Once we have 1,000 activists in state, I think we will have that. We don't need 20,000 if the people that move in are Super-Activists.

But another thing that will help us achieve more with fewer numbers is smart tactics. We need to know how to sell our ideas, both to the public and to elected officials.

When it comes to policy reforms, political scientists have found that a frontal assault almost never works, especially in a system like ours in which power is diffused through three branches of government. Instead, you need something like the Cannae Tactic. Rule Number One for any reformist leader is: You can never destroy an adversarial interest group, you can only hope to co-opt them. For us libertarians, potentially adversarial interest groups might include labor unions, certain government employees, big businesses that get corporate welfare, the more extreme environmentalist organizations, and those elements of law enforcement who are more concerned about the size of their payrolls than true reductions in crime. These interest groups will never go away, and they will always effectively pursue their interests.

But perhaps, by initiating a tactical retreat on certain issues, you can bring these interest groups in and give them a stake in something much more important that you want. Thus, you can beat a retreat from school vouchers to distract the teachers' unions and instead offer something more beguiling: fully private, for-profit, teacher-owned schools. Handing the government schools over to the teachers would be a big financial windfall for them. Maybe some of them deserve it, and some of them don't, but the point is that you get their political support for a reform that ends up creating hard budget constraints, competition, and choice in schooling – the three things needed to make a truly world-class, innovative educational system.

Let's turn now to the issue of New Hampshire self-government, one of the biggest issues. What I mean by New Hampshire self-government is "New Hampshire control over New Hampshire affairs." It means getting the federal government to stop deciding issues for us and to let us make our own decisions.

At one extreme, self-government could mean complete independence, in which New Hampshire has control of its own foreign policy and defense. I realize a few people are promoting this idea now, but we can expect the vast majority of Granite Staters to oppose it, and a fair number of Americans, perhaps even a majority, who would favor the use of military force to end such an experiment. Complete independence is the frontal assault tactic, using a vastly outnumbered force to attack a citadel. The outcome – a massacre.

Self-government is the Cannae Tactic. Not only does ‘self-government' sound softer and more positive than ‘independence,' it makes more sense politically because it can bring in the left. Self-government could be arranged ad hoc, allowing New Hampshire to opt out of various taxes and programs, such as an agreement to devolve Social Security to the state and stop withholding Social Security taxes from New Hampshire residents' paychecks. This reform alone would mean an average annual tax cut of $490 for every man, woman, and child in the state, without any loss of benefits. If we got New Hampshire the right to opt out of income and estate taxes as well, in exchange for which we gave up all block grants and federal programs other than defense, then there would be a per capita benefit of $1324 per year, even if all spending remained the same. The way to push for these changes in Congress might be to sell them as "pilot programs" for reforms the federal government is considering anyway (such as President Bush's Social Security choice plan).

Of course, we wouldn't want all spending to remain the same; we'd want to privatize our Social Security program, eliminate corporate welfare, and generally reduce spending. If we eliminated all federal and state welfare programs and instead consolidated those programs into a single cash payment, we could give $8600 to every adult individual in New Hampshire while still trimming overall spending levels by about 10%. (I'm also assuming here that the state is still funding education and all non-welfare programs at the same level as today. I would also note that we could spend more than $10,000 per year on the poorest individuals if we means-tested benefits slightly.) This is a variant of the plan proposed by Charles Murray in his new book In Our Hands. He advocates doing it on the federal level, but I think that having the states decide on it as they choose makes more sense.

It should be obvious how the left might support such a plan, sometimes called a basic minimum income. Welfare recipients benefit because they are no longer restricted in what they can spend: housing, food, and so on. But the program doesn't damage work incentives because every individual gets it, no matter his or her income. It isn't a "pure" libertarian solution by any means, but it does cut bureaucracy very significantly. But this is the kind of program that will work best only when New Hampshire gets self-government, that is, the right to opt out of federal income and FICA taxes. The first reason is that it could not be adequately funded under the current system. The feds spend a lot on transfer programs, and what they give to us in block grants is tightly hedged by restrictions. The second reason is that New Hampshire is a net loser from the federal fiscal game. Self-government means another $1324 per person per year that we can use as we see fit.

To the right we can sell self-government as an automatic – and very sizeable – tax cut. To the left we can sell self-government as the ticket to more spending on the poor. To everyone we can sell the idea that New Hampshire can take care of its own problems better than Washington, DC can. We can draw in a wide range of interest groups and give them a stake in a reform that is very important to all of us here.

While I think self-government can be achieved on an ad hoc basis, it could also be achieved with a change in legal status for New Hampshire. There is a jurisdiction in the United States where residents do not pay federal income taxes. That is Puerto Rico. They do pay payroll taxes and benefit from Medicare and Medicaid, but that is by their own choice. They apparently do have the right to opt out of those taxes and programs. New Hampshire could, with congressional approval, also become a Commonwealth or simply an unincorporated territory of the United States. We would lose our voting rights in Congress and the electoral college, but New Hampshire has very little influence on the federal government as it is. This kind of change in status is obviously a much more drastic change than working on individual programs ad hoc, and as I've argued, it may be unnecessary.

There are of course other federal policies we'd like to change, such as federal drug laws. I don't think self-government or even independence has an answer to this sticky issue. Look at what happened when Canada made timid moves toward legalizing marijuana. The U.S. government essentially threatened to shut down trade from Canada unless they fought the drug war the way the American government wants them to. I don't know what the answer to the federal drug war is, other than using our foothold here as a bully pulpit to proclaim the need for reform.

In my opinion, "dealing with the feds" should probably wait until we've privatized the schools, repealed business licensing, and made other necessary reforms at the state and local levels. But libertarians being what they are, my guess is that there will be different groups of people working on all kinds of different things, all at the same time. I predict that self-government will become the lynchpin of any successful New Hampshire autonomy project, and that in order to succeed, its supporters will have to sell it in a way that appeals to the vast majority of Granite Staters, regardless of ideology, party, class, race, creed…whatever. At that point self-government becomes a matter of simply doing what is in the interests of everyone in our state, rather than contested ground in an ideological war. The broader point that I hope I have supported is that, by using the Cannae Tactic, our First 1000 will leverage their numbers even more powerfully to create change in New Hampshire. Exciting things are already happening, but the best is yet to come. Sign up, and join the party.

A Line In The Sand

NOTE: The opinions and commentary expressed in this essay are those of the author and are an exercise of free speech. They do not necessarily represent the views of Free State Project Inc., its Directors, its Officers, or its Participants.

A Line In The Sand

by Ted Sares

Recently, someone told me that smoking cigars was a "disgusting" habit. I replied that I was quite aware of that but it should be my decision to engage it, not hers......that is, as long as I did not impose it upon her. Being an occasional cigar smoker, I go to certain places to enjoy my H. Uphmans with fellow cigar smokers and without fear of reprisal or finger pointing. Some places will not allow me to do this, and I don't go there if I feel the need to torch up. I am always careful not to bother others with this activity. It's called freedom of choice even if my choice has possible harmful consequences to myself. But once again, there are some who are trying to tell me what's best for me.

To wit, local smoking bans now rolling across the nation may have less to do with protecting people from the supposed threat of "second-hand" smoke than they do with spreading the insidious disease of unlimited government power. This particularly malady has now metastasized and spread to local governments throughout the country. These bans grease the skids for even more intrusive regulation and establish the precedent that the rights of an individual can be violated any time a board of selectmen or city council decides that the "public good" demands it. That it has spread to states like California and Massachusetts, is no great surprise, but when it rears its ugly head in the "Live Free Or Die" state of New Hampshire, it is truly alarming.

Anti-tobacco activists initially claimed these bans would impact only public places (God forbid if you are caught smoking in Conway's Schuler Park), but predictably they have zeroed in on restaurants, bars, emporiums, nightclubs and other places where the owners heretofore have been free to set anti-smoking rules or where customers have been free to go elsewhere if they didn't like the smoke. Again, this is called freedom of choice.

The decision to smoke, or to avoid "second-hand" smoke (and the evidence concerning the health effects of second-hand smoke is not nearly as conclusive as it is concerning the health effects of actual smoking), is a question to be answered by each individual person based on his or her own risk assessment. Heck, just about everyone knows there are health risks involved with smoking, but everyone should have the freedom to bear responsibility for the consequences of assuming those risks. That's what free people living in a free nation do. They make these kinds of decisions regarding all aspects of their lives and most of these decisions involve risks. Some have harmful and negative consequences. Some are not popular. Some invite disapproval from others. But the individual must be free to make these decisions. He or she must be free, because their life belongs to them, not to others---- and certainly not to posturing and approval-seeking politicians and bureaucrats who react in Pavlovian manner to the crusade de jour. So why then when it comes to smoking is this individual freedom under such tenacious attack?

The anti-smoking crusade seems to be part of a greater overall attack from both sides of the political spectrum. Those on the right traditionally have been inclined to override the individual's judgment on matters such sex and violence in entertainment, alternative lifestyles, divorce, and the family. The left, on the other hand, purports to be opposed to this trend, albeit nominally, denouncing attempts to "legislate morality" and family values. While the left crusades for the toleration of alternative lifestyles, it also seeks to override the individual's judgment on material matters imposing restrictions on business, attempting to introduce socialist style windfall profit taxes, regulating advertising and campaign financing, and now legislating behavior that is deemed heathy (The Hazards of a Smoke-Free Environment, May 23, 2003, Robert Tracinski). Neither seems a safe haven for those who believe in freedom of the individual and in freedom of choice.

Most importantly, though, anti-smoking activists should satisfy themselves with thoroughly educating people about the health risks and allow them to make their own decisions. They should not commander the power of government and force people to make the "right" decision, nor should politicians superimpose their judgment on free people, most particularly when businesses seem to be doing this on a voluntary basis in NH. Our state motto represents empty words if we are not free to make these choices for ourselves--even mistaken choices that may turn out to be harmful. What next? Seat belts? Helmets for motorcyclists? No guns? No meat because of the potential of Mad Cow disease? Since sunlight can cause skin cancer, why shouldn't our Board of Selectmen regulate sunbathing at Conway Lake? If our Government can justify this, what can it not justify? Where does it end?

The State legislators, in concessions to a certain few, voted in favor of banning smoking 189-156. The Senate, however, maintained the sanctity of our motto and rejected this proposal. But activists are armed with righteousness and "good" intentions so when do they really step up the pace? Individual freedom, choice, personal responsibility, property rights, mean nothing to them. When do we tell them that the underlying issue remains that no anti-individual crusade and no crusade to rid our air of of tobacco smoke can override a much more important human requirement; namely, the need for the protection of individual rights.

When do we draw a line in the sand and tell them this is New Hampshire and enough is enough?

"The conservatives see man as a body freely roaming the earth, building sand piles or factories--with an electronic computer inside his skull, controlled from Washington. The liberals see man as a soul free-wheeling to the farthest reaches of the universe--but wearing chains from nose to toes when he crosses the street to buy a loaf of bread"-- Ayn Rand, Philosopher and Novelist

Ted Sares lives and writes in North Conway. This article originally appeared at tedsares.com.

Back to Essays

Holding Effective Local Group meetings

Holding Effective Local Group meetings

Choosing the Location and Frequency

For many groups having one meeting in a central location once a month is the best course of action. This is always the best course of action for new local groups, as it begins to establish a pattern of doing something every month, and in the first two months there may not be a lot of outreach activities.

Some groups may find it necessary to alternate between two meeting locations if the Local Group has a large area of operations. The effect of this is that each sub-group has bi-monthly meetings. This course of action has not been widely tested yet, but it is expected that it may make more time for outreach activities, as most of our volunteers have a limited number of hours that they can commit to making the FSP work.

Possible locations for the Local Group meeting include Restaurants, Parks, Libraries, Coffeehouses, and even Firing Ranges. Restaurants have been the traditional meeting place for many clubs. Parks can be good in some locations. You should make sure that some covered areas are available in case of an outburst of nature. Firing Ranges often have classrooms that are available for around $10 an hour. In addition many members are gun enthusiasts, and being co-located with a range might encourage attendance. The number of people expected at the meeting should determine the size and type of the location.

Setting the Meeting Format

It is important to have a meeting agenda printed out to be given to all meeting attendees. It will help keep the meeting on track, and people will leave with a sense of accomplishment after all the points have been attended to. Have new attendees introduce themselves, and explain how they heard of the FSP, and what convinced them to join.

Try to get many people involved in the conversations in the meeting. We can always use new ideas. It also makes them feel more connected to the group.

Try to have a new speaker once every three months. Meetings that have noteworthy speakers tend to bring the members out of the woodwork. Some good sources for speakers are FSP officers (both past and present), Economics or Political professors from colleges, or other Liberty oriented groups in your area as part of a "speaker's exchange".

Try to keep the formal meeting to around 2 hours. We must always respect the member's time. If they want to stick around to chat after that (and many will) it should be at their discretion. My experience is that presidential politics should be one subject we avoid. We have all made up our minds, and the tone of debate quickly becomes very ugly.

Try to make sure that every member who is at the meeting gets to "own" some sort of activity. If there are many more people that tasks for large outreaches, do something like give the member ten index cards that have the Words "Looking for Liberty" across the top and our web site address across the bottom and have them placed on bulletin boards in supermarkets, laundries, etc.

Letting the members know about the meeting – David Mincin

Ok you have the list of members that the Local Group Coordinator sent you. Send each member a personal email; don't just take the easy way and lump out one email to all! Don't forget our success rests in the individual effort of each of our members. Ask for a response to your email. A week later when you get few responses, pick up the phone. Call every member in your area. (Editor's Note: this may be impractical in some areas) You will mostly get machines. Leave a message tell them who you are, and would recommend you leave your email address, and phone number, ask them to drop you a note, or give you a call.

Don't become discouraged if your first effort doesn't bare as much fruit as you would like. Remember many of the folks on your list may have never been contacted by the FSP, so your call may be a bit of a shock to them, but mostly it will be welcome. If you do happen to run across someone who does not want to be contacted, respect their wishes, and remove them from the list

You will be able to weed out the bad addresses and phone numbers because of this initial contact. Let members@www.freestateproject.org know which information is bad. Now you have your core group of potential activists. I use the 3 times rule. If the folks don't respond to my email, I call them monthly at least 3 times. I keep everyone on my mailing list unless they tell me they do not want to be on it, so they get an announcement of our monthly meeting.

I have been pleasantly surprised by the results of my persistence. I receive calls or notes monthly from folks; mostly they apologize for not getting back to me. The results have been that since we began having meeting in March, we have had new folks at every meeting, including non-FSP members, interested in learning more about us. Ask the attendees to bring a spouse, family member, or friend! Hey why not?

Don't forget to send a short thank you note to all who have RSVPed, or confirmed attendance by phone. This serves as a reminder, but more important lets the folks know that your really appreciate their attendance.

Remember the folks have real lives too, and perhaps the FSP is not at the top of their list. Your persistence will help get the FSP onto their real life list. Don't get discouraged. Hey it is your job as a local leader to help the folks understand how important our mission is. So bottom line, much of it is about your attitude, and you willingness to get it done. Be honest, be up front, and let the folks know that we are it! You want freedom or just feel cool about chatting on the Internet? Of course go with your feelings on this, don't play Mr. I know it all. Fact is none of us know it all or have all the answers!