Campaign messaging is tricky. Every candidate is looking for maximum impact while toeing the line of truthfulness.
That’s not easy to do when voters have the attention span of a caffeinated squirrel. Everyone crosses the line from time to time.
But that doesn’t come close to describing what happened this week. The Libertarians of Wyoming got so far across the line that they were in an alternate universe.
Their claim was about a 2023 bill to change marriage laws. Since territorial days, no one under the age of 18 was allowed to marry without explicit permission of his or her parents. And those under 16 also needed a “judge of a court of record” to agree with their parents.
HB 7 Underage marriage-amendments proposed to cut parental discretion out of the law and to strike the under-16 judicial discretion altogether. This was the third attempt to pass such a bill since the Globalist effort was launched in 2018. And like the first two attempts, advocates for local control and parental rights objected.
Underage marriage-exceptions repeal was defeated by a vote of (26-31) in 2019; and Child marriage restriction failed its introduction vote (31-28) in 2020. But in 2023, it passed by a vote of 36-25 in the House, and 40-21 in the Senate.
Now, the Libertarians of Wyoming - or at least one person claiming to speak for them - is characterizing those 105 nay-votes as “voting to allow adults to have s** with children!”
Did I say that it was over-the-top?
Some statements are so laughably false that they don’t deserve an answer. But hats off to my fellow columnist, Tom Lubnau, for patiently explaining the legalese. His column, “Fair Play Cuts Both Ways—the Truth about the 2023 Marriage Law,” competently demolishes the Libertarian libel as a grossly unfair distortion of the record.
Lubnau’s legal argument doesn’t need my help. I am writing for another reason. I want to know who in his right mind would publish such shameless drivel?
So, I messaged the “Libertarians for Wyoming” Facebook page to ask who took personal responsibility for posting that claim. Boy howdy! Did that draw fire!
The anonymous page immediately went ballistic. It protested that this is “a political party” - as if that justified total anonymity. Rather than give me the name of a person, I was told, “Our board takes full responsibility for what we post.” OK. “Who are the people who serve on your board?” I asked.
Crickets.
Weird. The only Libertarian whose email address I could find is running for U.S. House of Representatives. So, I reached out to him. Again, crickets.
That’s no way to run a party. How can you have a viable political party that has no publicly named leadership? How can you speak as a party without an accountable spokesperson? How can I even know that the “Libertarians for Wyoming” page is run by actual Libertarians?
Political parties are formed to amplify individual voices by uniting them into a coherent and coordinated body. So, when a party purports to speak as a party, I want to know if a vote was taken. And when obvious calumnies are launched into the ether, I want to know if the party will stand behind the speaker or distance itself from the stench.
On that level, I think we have our answer. The very fact that no person was willing to take responsibility for the post tells me all that I need to know. Lubnau’s legal analysis notwithstanding, some statements are so indefensible that no respectable person will own them.
This is one of the most powerful tools that Wyoming voters have. Over the next month you will continue to be inundated with social media ads, glossy brochures, telephone pollsters and canvassers paid to go door-to-door. Their claims and counter-claims swirl in a bewildering brew.
Your most powerful tool for cutting through the stew is to reject anonymity outright. Consider the source and make it personal.
Insist on a name. That, alone, can cull a lot of sick cattle from the herd. Any claim that is not championed by a specific real person, is obviously too embarrassing to be taken seriously.
And once you have a name, find someone who knows that person personally. One advantage of being the least populous state in the union is that everybody knows everybody. Find that connection and ask questions.
Has that person lied in the past? Has he stretched the truth? Has he backed anonymous claims? Don’t stop asking those questions until you are so convinced that you are willing to attach your own name to it.
Campaigns are about real people. Make sure that the campaigners are real people who are not ashamed to show their faces and you will go a long way toward knowing the truth.
Jonathan Lange is a Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod pastor in Evanston and Kemmerer and serves the Wyoming Pastors Network. Follow his blog at https://jonathanlange.substack.com/. Email: JLange64@protonmail.com
