Skip to main content

An Open Letter to Mr. Allan B. Head, Executive Director of the North Carolina Bar Association


Dear Mr. Head,

Recently, my blog--Delaware Libertarian--carried the story of the NC Barr Association's decision to exclude Dr. Michael Munger from the gubernatorial debate it will be sponsoring this year. I wrote to you at the time to encourage you to reverse this decision, and also asked readers to communicate their views to you and your colleagues. While I regret that you did not respond to my email, you did have the courtesy to reply to one of my readers with the following:

Months ago before any third candidate was qualified to be on the ballot we planned our forum for those who were announced candidates. Since then we have scripted our morning to the minute and even if we wanted to add another candidate we just do not have time now to do so. We are sorry that we cannot accommodate Dr. Munger's desire to participate and we hope you can understand our situation.


Given that your debate is now one week off, I suppose that your contention that "we have scripted our morning to the minute and even if we wanted to add another candidate we just do not have time now to do so," is one that you believe will ring true.

Likewise, you portray the NC Bar Association as blissfully unaware that the Libertarian Party (which ran a candidate for governor in 2004) had been at work for months to complete a successful petition drive for ballot access that was completed only in May 2008, and before which no candidate could have been considered.

Neither of these contentions will stand the slightest scrutiny. Ms. Perdue did not publicly announce her commitment to appear in your debate until 11 June 2008; the same is true of Mr. McCrory. By that time, not only had the Libertarian Party of North Carolina achieved ballot access, but Dr. Munger was already polling at 4% in the gubernatorial race.

It is difficult to examine these facts and not reach the conclusion that the North Carolina Bar Association is more committed to maintaining barriers around the two-party system than to providing the public a full and free debate among all ballot-qualified candidates from North Carolina's three largest political parties.

I refer you to what was said, upon the instance of your installation as NABE President, to be one of your favorite quotations, from Elihu Root: “It is only through the power of association that those of any calling exercise due influence in their community.”

Your organization has denied that "power of association" to a qualified candidate with an important message for North Carolina voters.

I also refer you to your own statement upon accepting the NABE Presidency: "I try to live what I say is important.”

Here is what your own website suggests is important to the NC Bar Association:

While the public interest was not mentioned in the first draft of the constitution, the proposition was very soon recognized, and incorporated into the by-laws of this Association, so that programs and activities will include and acknowledge the public interest. It is my firm belief that this must always be foremost in our minds. Otherwise, we are but another trade group organized for self-centered and often selfish and provincial purposes.


How is the public interest served by the association representing more than 80% of the attorneys in North Carolina choosing to exclude one of the three ballot-qualified candidates for governor?

There remains time, Mr. Head, to do what is right rather than what is easy.

Please contact the Munger campaign and invite the Libertarian Party candidate for governor to participate in your debate next Saturday.

Sincerely,

Steven H. Newton, PhD
Publisher, Delaware Libertarian

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...