LPQC
NewsLPQC
NewsThe official newsletter of the Libertarian Party of Queens County
LP Candidate Bests Half of Field in CityVote
Schulz Leader in Defeating Proposition 3
The Myth of Governmental Beneficence
John Procida Elected Acting Vice Chair
Harry Browne, who is seeking the Libertarian Party's nomination as its presidential candidate, finished 11th out of 21 candidates in the November 7 CityVote.
CityVote is a straw poll that was held in conjunction with last month's state and local elections in approximately 20 cities across the country. Developed by Larry Agran, a former mayor of Irvine, California, its purpose is to allow urban voters to express their presidential preferences before the first primaries, which take place in largely rural states.
Browne, with 0.9% of the total votes, finished ahead of well-known Republican candidates Lamar Alexander, Richard Lugar, Arlen Specter, Pete Wilson, and Bob Dornan.
Of some 210,000 votes cast, 10.5% went to independent and third-party candidates. Colin Powell, who has since withdrawn from the race, was listed as a Republican on the ballot even though he had not declared his candidacy for the GOP's nomination. He received 18.2% of the votes, leading Republican runner-up Bob Dole (11.9%) by a wide margin.
Together, Powell (whose political views are hardly well known by the public), the "minor" Republican candidates, and independents garnered 33.2% of the votes. Because many voters in these off-year elections were likely "party regulars," this figure could be an understatement of the public's dissatisfaction with the status quo.
This looks to me like a time of immense opportunity for the Libertarian Party. Let's make the most of it.
By Jim Strawhorn
New York State Comptroller H. Carl McCall's debt-reform proposal, which was on the ballot in the November elections as Proposition 3, was defeated in large measure due to the opposition led by former LP gubernatorial candidate Robert Schulz. Schulz and his political organization, the All County Taxpayers Association (ACTA), mounted a vigorous mail and media campaign to raise awareness of the issue. Without this effort, the proposal might well have slipped past voters in this off-year election and become law.
Proposition 3 would have amended the state constitution to change the rules under which the state incurs debt. "New York has O.D.'d on shoddy borrowing practices and it's time - way past time - for it to clean up its act," said McCall in defense of his reform. Critics charged that, rather than restraining the state's profligate borrowing patterns, the amendment would have expanded these dangerous habits by eliminating the requirement of voter approval for the state to incur long-term debt.
Despite the controversial nature of the amendment on such a basic fiscal issue, Proposition 3 drew little media attention until Schulz commenced his press-release and direct-mail blitz. His spirited effort to highlight the issue led to some defensive comments by McCall in the October 30 Legislative Gazette (a political paper published in Albany), in which he responded to Schulz by name. Then the New York Times and the Daily News carried articles on the proposal, but without mentioning Schulz's hand in raising the issue.
The LPQC aided in spreading the word against Proposition 3 before the elections by including a brief notice about the measure in its November meeting announcement. The LPQC is proud to have contributed to Proposition 3's defeat. For more information about Robert Schulz's organization, contact ACTA at (518) 656-3578.
By John Clifton
From the Chair
The LPQC is developing apace. We are now a solid affiliate of the LP and the LPNY. We have adopted bylaws, elected officers, held our first convention, established a schedule of monthly meetings and notices, and developed promotional materials.
But those are just the basics. In the coming election year, there is a tremendous amount of work to be done: We need to spread the libertarian message far and wide, and develop the political infrastructure for electing Libertarian Party candidates in New York City. Here is a rundown of projects which have been discussed by currently active members:
Formulation of marketing and public-relations campaigns: A presence on local TV and radio; hand-to-hand literature distribution; newspaper advertising; establishment of student groups at colleges; press releases; LPQC position papers; public forums on local issues.
Preparation for spring '96 LPQC convention, currently being planned as a combined Queens/ Nassau/Suffolk event.
Campaign '96: Signature drive for ballot access in New York State; provide local support for the LP and LP candidates.
Expansion of funding base: Hold first fund raiser (spring '96); develop materials for soliciting contributions.
We need to move forward on all of these fronts, and the sooner the better. At our December meeting, we will discuss our action plan and work on a timetable for implementing it. Please attend, and feel free to contact the LPQC at any time with your ideas. If we work together, we will get our philosophy before the voting public, and we will have an impact in the coming elections.
Until next time, peace and freedom,
By John Clifton
When the winter holiday season starts, I am reassured by incessant solicitations from charitable organizations that those in need will be given help with their basic needs. The clangor of the bells of Salvation Army Santas reminds me that my own life is somewhat comfortable and that, but for the frailties of human fortune, I too could be in dire need.
I believe that we all almost instinctively wish to offer assistance to those who need shelter, food, and succor. As a teacher, I am reminded daily of the devastating results of want by the angry faces in the classroom before me. As a New Yorker, it is nearly impossible to avoid witnessing the crushing results of homelessness. Few people are so callous that they cannot feel some empathy. Often we give up our small change in the knowledge of its futility but in the hope that it will grant some minor and temporary relief.
Charity is a great human virtue. It is also a personal responsibility. We as a nation have demanded that our government take on a veil of charity. We have come to believe that government programs can be a successful substitute for our own inability to personally eliminate the poverty, sickness, and hunger of our neighbors. It is comforting to think that passively paying our taxes is a genuine substitute for making personal, direct commitments to those in need in our communities. By asking the government to take on these responsibilities for us, we have sadly become less involved with our communities and more selfish and isolated. This result is extremely dangerous for our democracy.
Government is by its very nature corruptible, inefficient, and expensive. Its bureaucracies are inhumanly insensitive to personal dignity. Its taxations and regulations are so detrimental to the economy that it creates and exacerbates many of the very problems that we have naively demanded that it rectify.
Clearly, if a charitable government were truly feasible, we would not be constantly deluged with solicitations from food banks, children's aid societies, hospitals, meal delivery organizations, and a host of other honorable and worthwhile charities. If government charity were efficient, beggars would be a distant memory from the Great Depression, not a harsh present-day reality. We can demand that government become more efficient, less bureaucratic, less intrusive, and less expensive. Do we have the courage, however, to face the reality that government is a failure as an instrument of charity, that charity by its nature belongs in the private, voluntary sector of our society? Do we have the courage to get government out of the business of charity altogether?
Because food stamps have become a black-market currency, their meaningful effect on hunger and poverty has been seriously impaired. Welfare has created an underclass of dependent men, women, and children who have little hope of breaking the bonds of their slavery to government bureaucrats. Urban public schools often miserably fail to provide even the most rudimentary educational services to poor children. Homeless shelters have become as expensive to operate as prisons and are still dangerous and demeaning. Foster-care services are expensive, inadequate, and often harbor those who would abuse the children forced into their care. Can we dare to eliminate these "charitable" government services? What is the alternative? If the government can't do it, who can?
We can. We must free ourselves from the lie that our government is benign and benevolent. We must pull down the façade of beneficent government bureaucracies and take direct personal control of our own communities. We must rediscover the notion that when we give, we give freely, without considering whether our donations are tax deductible. And we must not complacently believe that our taxes are de facto charitable contributions. They are not. It is far better to volunteer to tutor the illiterate or make sandwiches for the hungry and to support local private efforts financially than it is to allow an indifferent government to continue to be the prime agent of our society's woeful decline.
The notion of governmental beneficence is the most dangerous of our modern myths. During this season of joy and giving, we must remember that we are personally responsible for the well-being of those who are in need. Remember, as Ebenezer Scrooge declined to make a donation to charity, he asked, "Are there no work houses?" Neither should we deny our responsibility to be charitable by asking, "Do they not have food stamps?"
By Bradford R. Arter
At the LPQC's meeting on October 14, Chair John Clifton noted that the office of Vice Chair was vacant. John Procida, our founder, agreed to accept the nomination as Acting Vice Chair (to serve until our convention in the spring of 1996). He was nominated and elected by a unanimous vote of the members present. Congratulations, John, and welcome aboard as an officer of the LPQC!
By Jim Strawhorn
The November 3-9 Queens Tribune carried an article on a curious effort underway to erect a statue of Queen Catherine of Braganza (for whom the Borough of Queens is named) in 1998. The plan is to install the 35-foot-high monument in the new Queens West development in the Hunters Point area, directly across the East River from the U.N. complex on the Manhattan side. The Portuguese queen would become the very symbol of Queens.
"The statue would be the second largest outdoor piece of sculpture in New York City - rivaled only by the Statue of Liberty's 151-foot height," writes the Tribune. What some of us are wondering is, Why? Why does Queens need this new landmark, or, more to the point, why should a member of Portugal's last royal family compete with our true Lady of Liberty?
This is mostly a symbolic issue, but the symbolism seems to be all wrong. Queen Catherine's 17th-century Portugal engaged in slave trading on a grand scale. The Statue of Liberty, by contrast, was conceived as a celebration of the abolition of slavery in America, and its pro-liberty message actually had to be toned down.
The Braganza statue project has been kept low profile by the civic leaders and politicians who support it; in fact, the Queens Tribune article marked the first time we had heard of it. By comparison, the Statue of Liberty was a very public enterprise from conception to unveiling. And the Lady in the Harbor is a democratic icon, whereas the proposed Queens statue honors a monarch and, by implication, monarchy.
"I fear the history this statue symbolizes betrays the highest values of this republic," stated Jeffrey Kroessler, a Long Island University historian. He has pointed out that in 1775 the Sons of Liberty tore down a statue of King George in Bowling Green, precisely because of its connection with monarchical tyranny and imperialism. Although most of the money to erect and maintain this new tribute has been raised through private sources, once the Queen of Braganza becomes the symbol of Queens, my bet is that it will become an obligation of Queens taxpayers to maintain this dubious icon.
Does Queens need an imperial mistress on the East River, pining across the water for the U.N., the international symbol of big government, as its biggest landmark? Isn't the Unisphere adequate? Does this have anything to do with honoring liberty, as our Lady in the Harbor does?
This matter needs much more discussion and review. Personally, I think even the Queen of Wonderland would be preferable to erecting a tribute to Portugal's Mistress of Non-Liberty.
By John Clifton
Jim Strawhorn, Editor
Bradford R. Arter, Associate Editor
John Clifton, Contributing Editor
Elliott Werner, Web Editor
LPQC News is published bimonthly by the Libertarian Party of Queens County (LPQC). Opinions expressed in LPQC News are not necessarily official positions of the membership or the officers of the LPQC. Please direct all correspondence to: LPQC News.
Upcoming Events | Newsletter Archive | Bylaws | Membership Application | Webmail | Home
For comments and suggestions, click here
URL: http://www.lpqc.org/Newsletter/V1N2.shtml
Last Modified: Saturday October 18 2003.
Copyright © 1995-2004 Libertarian Party of Queens County
Site provisioning by The Web Warren.