Dear Current Members of BureauCrash:

Okay, mea culpa. I came in here as the new guy trying to hit the ground running and may have moved too quickly, so I’d like to address the concerns that you have about the future direction of BureauCrash. First, BureauCrash will be an open forum for debate and discussion about the intersection between liberty and politics. Moreover, it will continue to allow all types of pro-liberty political philosophy (and if socialists want to come in here to debate, I’m sure we’ll all be up for that). I am sensitive to the fact that many of you are worried that my personal political views are more from the traditional wing of the liberty movement, but I make no apologies for that. Liberty is a broad concept. I will not be revamping BureauCrash to turn into my own pet project. My goal is to broaden our discussion and activist base while maintaining current ideas and projects. While that task may be difficult, I am sure we can work together to accomplish this goal.

With that in mind, what I would like to do is to have your input on how I can successfully accomplish the following goals:

1) How can BureauCrash appeal to a wider audience of people who support liberty, while not alienating current members? BureauCrash has only 3000 members, but I am sure there are hundreds of thousands of classical liberals out there whom we could get on board. The Tea Parties demonstrated that;

2) We currently face the greatest threat to liberty in America in a generation, in the form of the Federal Government’s takeover of the economy. How can BureauCrash mobilize to oppose these disastrous initiatives, like the Bailouts, Energy Subsidies, Cap and Trade, and so on, while discussing workable solutions like FairTax / Flat Tax, School Choice, etc?

3) How can I be most available to you to hear your questions or comments? As I said before there are 3000 members but many are not as active as we would like. I’d love to hear from those who aren’t active about what I can do to get you involved?

4) What do members think about dividing our forums etc. into moderated and unmoderated boards? The fact is that some content can be off-putting to others, but banishing it could be in tension with our belief in free speech. How do we reconcile these ideas in practical fashion without being absolutist?

Overall, I know some of you - and many of the more active members -wanted another candidate for CIC, and regardless of who was chosen for the position, you would have felt more comfortable having someone you already knew. I promise you all that I will work with you to be sensitive to members’ concerns so that we can work through this transition together. The fact that I may disagree with many of you on specific political ideas does not mean that we have to together abandon the unified movement toward more liberty.

Best,

Lee