From: brokow@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Mike Brokowski)
Subject: Re: Why Marrou Lost
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 03:58:32 GMT

In article <1ejtd2INNfg@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> cb926@cleveland.Freenet.Edu 
(Edmund Joseph Ryan) writes:
>
>Greetings,
>
>I like many other libertarians brainwashed ourselves into
>believing that Marrou's media exposure would result in a 
>Perot-like groundswell and an eventual victory in the
>presidential race.

> [it didn't happen.]

>The reason why is that the average citizen rules out
>candidates who aspire to high positions and at the same
>time have no experience in working in a large 
>organization (usually govt.) Downticket positions are
>easy to win because not much experience is
>needed--only ideological resoluteness. Upticket, one 
>must show that one can work with other people, and 
>this only done by gaining a lot of experience down-
>ticket. 

While I don't disagree witht he poster that the
electorate would like an experienced candidate where
possible, I strongly disagree that experience is 
*the* reason that AM got such low support.

IMO, the *primary* reason that so many LP supporters
were disappointed was lack of exposure of the M/L
ticket on national media.  Let me be clear here:  
There may have been more commercial time purchased
than in '88, but primary media exposure comes from 
the news media (so-called "free exposure") rather
than simply purchased commercial time.  There was
very little media coverage of LP national office
candidates in the mainstream media (ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN)
and this more than anything else hurt M/L.

I speculate that the amount of coverage time that the
various newspeople normally devote to "alternative"
tickets was largely soaked up by the Perot ticket.

Also (and related), because of the wide support
Perot was getting, the pundits spent even more time
belittling the chances of n'th party candidates
than usual.  I recall Sam Donaldson saying on "This
Week with David Brinkley" that (this is a rough
quote) "Perot has no chance of winning and the 
American People [patent pending] are going to have
to make a choice between Bill Clinton and George 
Bush."  This was within two weeks of the election.
If this was the opinion that the media conveyed
about billionare Perot, you can imagine what the
folks at home were thinking about the other n'th
party tickets.  If they were thinking about them,
that is.

The fact is that people depend (too) largely on
the news media and pundits for an opinion as to
who is a "serious" candidate with "a chance to 
win."  I wish I had a buck for every time I heard
one of these characters use the term "throwing
your vote away."  I don't know what the LP (or
others for that matter) can do about this, but I
cannot imagine a strong showing by any future LP
candidate as long as news-types continue this sort
of cynical brainwashing.

>Too many people in the libertarian party start out
>very far downticket than make quantum leaps into
>running for governor or senator. This is an awful
>strategy if you're aiming for governor or senator.
>People want to see experience and will only elect
>a libertarian to governor, senator, congressman, or
>president if that candidate shows he work with others.
>I don't mean compromise but work with others to 
>push for libertarian government. 

I agree that these way-downticket candidates are 
low percentage shots for national office, but I 
think the reason is
different.  Once again, experience is important to
many, but the primary reason (IMO) that a state
rep or mayor has a better chance for a congressional
seat than an LP member of the school board is that
the state rep (or whatever) has had *more media
coverage* for the length of his/her term.  Believe
me, people in the news business consciously (for the
most part) *make a decision* as to what/who is news.
There is limited space or time for coverage and none
of the people making the decision want to become
known as "alternative press" so they stick to what
they consider to be "legitimate" candidates.  Most
of the time, this means demopublicans (who are sort 
automatically legitimate by virtue of their party
affiliation) or people in established offices who
are legitimate because they already have name
recognition and have proven they can win.

>In my opinion, Marrou should have turned down the 
>'88 VP nomination and stayed politically active in
>Alaska. There he could acquire ten of fifteen 
>years in the state legislatures and then try for
>a statewide position. Once elected governor,
>he could have gained national attention to the
>Libertarian Party and then after a good record
>as governor try for the presidency. Marrou's lack of
>experience is what turned voters off. 

I agree that a slow rise is a better policy, but
not mainly because of experience, rather because of
media coverage.  It would be harder for the media
to ignore a Marrou bid for governor since he had
already won the state office.  He would have been 
considered "legitimate".  But Libertarians are
kidding themselves if they think that voters even
considered Marrou long enough to make experience a
factor; they'd never heard of him.  If they had
heard of him, it was most likely on a Sunday morning
news show where he was mentioned several times as
an example of the nationally registered candidate 
who was not invited to the "bi-partisan" debates 
when Perot was.  

Remember, (this is according to George Will) most 
people would rather have 535 people randomly picked
from the phone book as the congress than the people
who run.  Experience is not much of a factor.

Frankly, I expect that there will have been two or
three Libertarian governors before the Presidential
ticket wins.

Mike "I speak only for myself" Brokowski
Newsgroups: alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,soc.history,sci.econ