Ive [sic] been asked several times about the LNC removing Mr. Woods as a speaker at the national convention given new evidence showing he began courting his wife when she was 15 and he was the employer of her mom. I think such a motion should come forward but I will not introduce the motion because, quite frankly, I do not want to be the #1 fall man on this again. I will sponsor the motion, even second it immediately if asked. I have already spoken with someone who intends to put a motion out if they can get the votes. Talk to your reps and at larges, specifically.
I'm agin it, for a few reasons.
One of those reasons is very practical, but one that the LNC shouldn't really take account of in its calculations because that would be putting its finger on the scale of internal politics, namely the party "takeover" attempt by a Republican PAC / astroturf operation styling itself the "Mises Caucus," with which Mr. Woods is affiliated.
If his appearance at the national convention is canceled, the cancellation will just give the Mises PAC's Legion of Whine something to whine about (and raise money on). If the appearance isn't canceled, the reception he gets is likely to reduce the GOP takeover PAC's chances of success.
But, like I said, that reasoning shouldn't play a part in any LNC decision on the matter. Whether the Libertarian Party gets "taken over" and effectively dismantled as an electoral mechanism, for the benefit of Republican political candidates, is a matter for the convention delegates, not the LNC, to decide.
But there are other reasons.
One of them is that, frankly, I personally like Tom Woods. He's always been cordial with me, even -- heck, especially, since that's when he usually notices me -- when we disagree. I find the particulars of the matter a little creepy, but I'm not enjoying any moment of schadenfreude over it, or feeling inclined to pile on in a big way (I've made a couple of jokes at his expense, but I do that with people a lot closer to me than he is).
And just because I find the particulars (which do not, to my knowledge, include a sexual relationship while she was a minor) a little creepy, that doesn't necessarily mean anything illegal, or even immoral, happened. I grew up in rural southern Missouri in the 1970s, and most of the older ladies in our church hadn't started dating at 15 because they'd been married for a year or two by then (and were still married, or widowed, 50 or 60 years later). It's only fairly recently that drawing a number out of a hat and assuming that anyone below that number was incapable of consent (morally or legally) to anything more consequential than putting a penny in a gumball machine became a thing.
Could anything change my attitude about the matter? Well, if his ex-wife came out and said "yeah, in retrospect, I was groomed by a predator, and probably wasn't competent to consent to what went on," I'd give that some weight. Not total weight -- they were married for, IIRC, 13 years and ex-spouses can't always be expected to recall relationship history in a way that's fair to each other -- but weight.
As for those who feel more strongly about this, and have a more settled view of it, than I do, why de-platform him (to the benefit of the party's opponents) when you can confront him in public (to the benefit of the party)?
No comments:
Post a Comment