Would libertarians do better if we marketed ourselves as moderates?

[mediahasyou]

Generally, libertarians agree with Republicans on issues of free markets and with Democrats on issues of individual liberty.

If libertarians were to accept the political spectrum, libertarians would be in the middle because they would be agreeing with issues from both sides.

Many people accept the moderate political position as an undecided position. If libertarians were to associate themselves as moderates, these people may decide to research the moderate(libertarian) position themselves.

Moderates, like John McCain, compromise to "get stuff done". Theoretically, libertarians could compromise with the left and right but still have a sound philosophical position. An example would be putting a individual liberty aspects, to please the left, into free market bill, to please the right.

Compromise has always lead to more statism but it doesn't have to be that way.

[fr33domfightr]

Yes, make it the moderate American viewpoint. Not left, not Right, just right!!



FF

[Brassmouth]

I have never agreed with a Republican on free markets, or a Democrat on "individual liberty." You're obsessing over the rhetoric. There is no difference between the two, and neither care about individual or economic freedom.

[mediahasyou]

I have never agreed with a Republican on free markets, or a Democrat on "individual liberty." You're obsessing over the rhetoric. There is no difference between the two, and neither care about individual or economic freedom.

Agreed. Republicans and Democrats are not pure on these topics. However, rhetoric is powerful.

[heavenlyboy34]

I have never agreed with a Republican on free markets, or a Democrat on "individual liberty." You're obsessing over the rhetoric. There is no difference between the two, and neither care about individual or economic freedom.

+1

[trey4sports]

but were not moderates. we want drastic change

[LibertyEagle]

Libertarians would do better if they stopped leading with their desire to legalize child porn and recreational drugs. No matter how you cut it, as soon as most people hear that, they're going to run the other way and not listen to anything else you have to say.

I think we also should paint a picture of what life would look like, if we returned to a constitutional government. We spend way too much time talking about what everyone is doing wrong; instead of what should be done.

[micahnelson]

Libertarians would do better if they stopped leading with their desire to legalize child porn and recreational drugs.

You have a valid point. Things are illegal now because most people want them to be illegal. Saying that some libertarians want to roll back these laws doesnt help much.

But, frankly, 95% of the country voted for McCain or Obama for president and sat on their asses during the bailout. Conventional Political success is no longer possible, as far as I am concerned.

I just don't know where that leaves someone unwilling to give up- but realistic enough to see the writing on the wall.

[heavenlyboy34]

Libertarians would do better if they stopped leading with their desire to legalize child porn and recreational drugs. No matter how you cut it, as soon as most people hear that, they're going to run the other way and not listen to anything else you have to say.

I think we also should paint a picture of what life would look like, if we returned to a constitutional government. We spend way too much time talking about what everyone is doing wrong; instead of what should be done.

+1 These are rather "fringe" type issues, more for esoteric discussion and philosophical chat. Not a way to win anyone over, as far as I can see. :confused:

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

Libertarians would do better if they stopped leading with their desire to legalize child porn and recreational drugs. No matter how you cut it, as soon as most people hear that, they're going to run the other way and not listen to anything else you have to say.

I think we also should paint a picture of what life would look like, if we returned to a constitutional government. We spend way too much time talking about what everyone is doing wrong; instead of what should be done.I'll give you the child porn one, but...where has anyone really debated that in full force?:confused: Other than perhaps a tiny segment in a Mary Ruwart book, most know to steer clear of that. It's a moot point anyway, since most cases of child porn are simultaneously cases of human rights violations.

As for recreational drugs, hell no. Why should we compromise on that, when the war on drugs is by far one of the most rampantly destructive governmental actions we're faced with?

A whole lot of people covered their ears and shouted "la la la la" when Ron Paul took his intellectual wrecking ball to the republican "debates", but should that have stopped him?

And how can we promote liberty while cowering from its fundamental principle of free choice? Every time a debate about religion starts up here, you ask what we're doing to promote liberty. Well, then, what are YOU doing to promote liberty, if you're keeping your mouth shut around people who need to beaten over the head with the truth?

I'm beginning to think the only thing you conservatives care about is shaving off a little bit of the taxes you're required to pay.

[Athan]

We should market our movement as "American Revolution".
Not left, not right, but American.

We have no issue with democrats. Just with socialism and huge government.
We have no issue with republicans. Just with neo-conservative fascist.
We were right about the economy. So lets kick out the Keynesians and kill the fed.

[sevin]

When you want to reach someone, it's sometimes more effective to point out their positive traits. We could reach out to Democrats and Republicans by pointing out all the things we agree on, and just leave the hot topics (child porn, drugs, abortion) off the platform for now.

People are stuck on the spectrum. They always will be. Most schools in the U.S. teach this B.S. spectrum:
Communism -- Liberal -- Moderate -- Conservative -- Fascist

When I tell people about Libertarianism, it goes right over their heads. Most of them can't even conceive of something that's not on the standard political spectrum. The simply don't get it. Now that I think about it, why didn't the Libertarian party try this approach a long time ago? If you agree with the left on some things and you agree with the right on some things, you're a type of moderate.

I like this idea.

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

There are a number of Democrats who support drug decrim, so again, why cast that overboard?

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[sdczen]

I will not be calling myself a moderate.....ever. Labels are for beer & tyrants.

[Paulitician]

My views are rather radical and revolutionary...

[AggieforPaul]

Libertarians would do better if they stopped leading with their desire to legalize child porn and recreational drugs. No matter how you cut it, as soon as most people hear that, they're going to run the other way and not listen to anything else you have to say.

I think we also should paint a picture of what life would look like, if we returned to a constitutional government. We spend way too much time talking about what everyone is doing wrong; instead of what should be done.

This is true. I made a thread on another forum about how we should get rid of age of consent laws once, and all I got was ridicule and anger. Not that some people dont try the same tactic when i post about abolishing the Fed, but at least there I can win the debate with facts, and the large majority of people who dont have strong personal feelings about the Fed are able to be swayed. I'm against the drug laws, but honestly, its nowhere near as important as abolishing the Fed or ending our empire. And if focusing mainly on the latter two for marketing purposes is more effective, that's the route I think we should go.

I think a lot of it is about marketing your ideas. Wearing a shirt with cannabis on it that says "LEGALIZE POT" for instance is just asking to have your ideas marginalized. Instead, we should broach the subject with more caution. For instance I was discussing this with my evangelical extended family this summer, and the convo went something like this. (They agreed with me on a lot of the stuff I said about finance, but as soon as the subject turned to drugs, they got defensive)

Them: Marijuana is so BAD. The government has a responsibility to keep our children safe by prosecuting people who use this stuff.

Me: I agree that drug abuse is a nasty thing. That's why I'm so passionate about having our laws reformed so that families, friends, and churches can deal with these issues instead of the federal government.

Them: But how can families friends and churches make someone quit taking drugs?

Me: They can't always make them quit, but they can often provide the support and help they need to reform their lives. Look at alcoholism. Think about many lives God has turned around by providing alcoholics with support groups and prayer partners. I'm not "pro drugs". I agree that drug abuse is a problem. But it seems like our difference is how to deal with that problem. I favor reform, and you favor incarceration. Prohibition and incarceration never worked with alcohol, and its not working with drugs. Just as is true with the economy, more government is never the best solution to dealing with a social problem. And besides, its not Constitutional in this case either.

Them: What do you mean it isn't Constitutional?

Me: Prohibition required the 18th amendment because the federal government knew it didnt have the authority to ban the sale or purchase or alcohol given that such authority was never enumerated in the Constitution, and the 10th amendment gives all non enumerated power to the states and the people. Nothing has changed since then, but the government now just creates statutes outlawing drugs even though they have no Constitutional authority to do so.


I didn't have anyone turning to my side after the argument, but I was able to present my case without being told I was a hopeless heathen. I knew my audience, and I managed to appeal to their religious conviction and to the Constitution while arguing my case. So while they initially assumed my position was "radical", I marketed it in a way that carried their own conservative premises to a logical conclusion that contradicted the one they previously held.

Don't let people try and pin you as being on the fringe or being the radical in the room. Point out that our ideas all point back to the Constitution, and that following the Constitution is as pro liberty and pro American as it gets. Abrogating our responsibility to follow our own laws is what's radicall

[Zuras]

My views are rather radical and revolutionary...

Well, I hope you have an army of like-minded indviduals who can take take over the public education system and mass media. That's how the radical lefties have been able to effectively control the american government and the youth.

But note that the OP did not ask specifically what your views are, only what you market yourself as. Pepsi doesn't advertise itself as a "caffeinated, carbonated sugar water", even though that's plainly what it is. Instead, it's the "taste of a new generation".

Since children are now taught, by a variety of means, to hate anything "old", as anything old is invariably too white/racist/male and in the programming of their minds, so much so that these words often become synonyms. Pepsi has intelligently jumped on that "new" train. Take the neocons, for instance, or as I like to call them : liberals in thousand dollar suits. They have made successful inroads politically by pretending they are things they are not and getting people elected, though I do not think they have at all increased the base of "neoconian thought".

But I'm going to hold off on answering the OP, because I'd like him to clarify if he means to get more libertarian or libertarian-leaning people elected, or simply to increase the base of libertarian thinkers itself? At first blush, they seem highly related, but they really are not.

[AggieforPaul]

I'll give you the child porn one, but...where has anyone really debated that in full force?:confused: Other than perhaps a tiny segment in a Mary Ruwart book, most know to steer clear of that. It's a moot point anyway, since most cases of child porn are simultaneously cases of human rights violations.

As for recreational drugs, hell no. Why should we compromise on that, when the war on drugs is by far one of the most rampantly destructive governmental actions we're faced with?

A whole lot of people covered their ears and shouted "la la la la" when Ron Paul took his intellectual wrecking ball to the republican "debates", but should that have stopped him?

And how can we promote liberty while cowering from its fundamental principle of free choice? Every time a debate about religion starts up here, you ask what we're doing to promote liberty. Well, then, what are YOU doing to promote liberty, if you're keeping your mouth shut around people who need to beaten over the head with the truth?

I'm beginning to think the only thing you conservatives care about is shaving off a little bit of the taxes you're required to pay.

Its a matter of strategy. I dont like drug laws either, but obsessing over them makes us lose credibility with the general public. And given that there are far greater evils than drug laws (The Fed, fiat money, the american empire), I question the wisdom of bringing fringe issues to the forefront of attention when they aren;t even on our top 5 list of biggest government evils.

[Kalifornia]

It would also help if we didnt have 10% of every liberty oriented get together show up dressed as Ted Kaczinzky.

[speciallyblend]

they would do better if we didn't have 2 corrupt parties lying to everyone about what libertarians stand for.

the only thing stopping the LP is the dems and republicans tarnishing(lying about) the brandname. when in faCT THE 2 PARTIES THAT SUCK ARE THE GOP/DNC!!!

eventually we need a new brand name and a new party that cannot be tarnished(lied about) by the 2 corrupt parties(d&r)..

[speciallyblend]

Its a matter of strategy. I dont like drug laws either, but obsessing over them makes us lose credibility with the general public. And given that there are far greater evils than drug laws (The Fed, fiat money, the american empire), I question the wisdom of bringing fringe issues to the forefront of attention when they aren;t even on our top 5 list of biggest government evils.

supporting bad drug laws ,makes people lose even more credibility. anyone with a college degree that supports the FAILED DRUG WAR SHOULD BE DEPORTED FOR STUPIDITY and have their degree taken away!!!!

just some growing pains, we have to wait for the ignorant to die off,give it about 4-12 more yrs. then the Micheal steeles will be 10 ft under.

change happens slowly. so we have to continue to work. In Colorado we are changing the drug laws. A majority are with us in many counties,minus the lies from the corrupt power structure.

We demand change and have already changed alot of drug laws in Colorado. doesn't matter if the feds have not. WE HAVE and they will not use their resources to bust folks for 100 bucks. it is easier to write speeding tickets then pop folks for pot..... we have along way to go,but already paving the road and riding it here!!!


everyone can multi-task on issues and by the way we got 67%/52%/56% in my counties. that is a majority and not even counting the other %that support change but didn't vote. the people who voted against did vote and they still lost by a majority.


It's Catching on i tell ya


Note to any drug war lovers!!!!!!!
try researching alcohol prohibition then get back to me!!! what created the criminal element in alcohol prohibition?? ahhh prohibition itself!!!

[acptulsa]

This is the right idea, but won't work quite as presented. We aren't moderate and can't afford to be moderate. And we certainly don't occupy some magical middle ground in the current state of American political thought. Right now, we're nothing but the backseat driver warning, you're going the wrong way! Look at the good you're giving up for chimeral gain!

But, yes, we need to make ourselves less scary, and the only way to do that is to be reasonable. Because if they consider contemplating a return to the gold standard unreasonable, and we ask them why is it unreasonable that people have a safe way to save their money, what do they have to answer with? The Boob Toob said it can't be done so it can't be done--and now that you mention it, I don't know why not but I sure wish I had a safe way to save my money...

Time for another Will Rogers quote: "If a man wants to stand well socially, he can't afford to be seen with either the Democrats or the Republicans." This is where we need to get ourselves, right here. And this bailout--this atrocious gift to the rich for arrogantly screwing up big time--is all the proof positive we could ever need to pull that off. The only thing worse than the aristocracy we have devolved into is no rule of law at all in their minds, and so the MSM paints us as "anarchists". And only by refusing to withdraw, refusing to back down or 'moderate our positions', and absolutely refusing to play to their attempts to stereotype us can we overcome that resistance and emerge as bastions of what is right, what makes sense, and what is wholly and intrinsically American.

That is where we stand. It is a good, solid foundation. It will never leave us scrambling up a down elevator, or trying to climb a mudslide. So, what we need to do is refuse to let them put us on the defensive and stand on our firm foundation with the steadiness and confidence of people about whom you cannot say, "They don't have a leg to stand on." And that confidence will do more for us than a hundred tweaked labels and a thousand new strategies.

If I were to suggest a slogan for us for later this year, I would expand on the though LE had. I'd want to boil down a snappy version of this thought: Well, now, we've lived through the experimentation--or most of us have. Now all we need is a few students of history to tell us what is and isn't proven to actually work. And that's us.

[Andrew-Austin]

Its a matter of strategy. I dont like drug laws either, but obsessing over them makes us lose credibility with the general public. And given that there are far greater evils than drug laws (The Fed, fiat money, the american empire), I question the wisdom of bringing fringe issues to the forefront of attention when they aren;t even on our top 5 list of biggest government evils.

The only reason legalizing drugs might be considered "fringe" to some, is because they have thought little about the issue other than what a whiny politician or MSM talking head has told them.

Now I fully support people trying out different strategies, if being a "moderate Libertarian" gets a decent person in office then good. But its not like we all have to do this, or support this strategy over others.

[Truth Warrior]

Generally, libertarians agree with Republicans on issues of free markets and with Democrats on issues of individual liberty.

If libertarians were to accept the political spectrum, libertarians would be in the middle because they would be agreeing with issues from both sides.

Many people accept the moderate political position as an undecided position. If libertarians were to associate themselves as moderates, these people may decide to research the moderate(libertarian) position themselves.

Moderates, like John McCain, compromise to "get stuff done". Theoretically, libertarians could compromise with the left and right but still have a sound philosophical position. An example would be putting a individual liberty aspects, to please the left, into free market bill, to please the right.

Compromise has always lead to more statism but it doesn't have to be that way.

"Any compromise between good and evil, only works to the detriment of the good and to the benefit of the evil."

Sacrificing truth on the altar of marketing, compromise and popularity is a loser's game.<IMHO>

[acptulsa]

Sacrificing truth on the altar of marketing, compromise and popularity is a loser's game.

Yes and no. It works--as long as you, one, keep finding new groups of people of good conscience to help you tap into new veins of discontent, and two, have no compunctions about throwing the old group under the bus just as soon as they figure out you're not really going to help them get what they want after all. Just as the G.O.P. is currently doing (yet trying to appear not to be doing) to the Religious Right. The 'neocons' would be more than happy to use us this way.

I'd rather try out a new strategy, untried but theoretically effective. How about a group who delivers what they promise? Too weird for U.S. politics? Since time immemorial, the usual strategy has been, as Will Rogers put it, "Promise everything, deliver nothing."

[heavenlyboy34]

"Any compromise between good and evil, only works to the detriment of the good and to the benefit of the evil."

Sacrificing truth on the altar of marketing, compromise and popularity is a loser's game.<IMHO>

I like that! :) Well said, IMHO.

[heavenlyboy34]

they would do better if we didn't have 2 corrupt parties lying to everyone about what libertarians stand for.

the only thing stopping the LP is the dems and republicans tarnishing(lying about) the brandname. when in faCT THE 2 PARTIES THAT SUCK ARE THE GOP/DNC!!!

eventually we need a new brand name and a new party that cannot be tarnished(lied about) by the 2 corrupt parties(d&r)..

+1 I don't care to change the name, though. It would be more effective to explain the true nature of the 2 parties, IMHO. What thinks you? :confused:

[Truth Warrior]

Yes and no. It works--as long as you, one, keep finding new groups of people of good conscience to help you tap into new veins of discontent, and two, have no compunctions about throwing the old group under the bus just as soon as they figure out you're not really going to help them get what they want after all. Just as the G.O.P. is currently doing (yet trying to appear not to be doing) to the Religious Right. The 'neocons' would be more than happy to use us this way.

I'd rather try out a new strategy, untried but theoretically effective. How about a group who delivers what they promise? Too weird for U.S. politics? Since time immemorial, the usual strategy has been, as Will Rogers put it, "Promise everything, deliver nothing."

Explain that to Ron. ;)

In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock.
Thomas Jefferson (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/t/thomas_jefferson.html)

[ronpaulhawaii]

Generally, libertarians agree with Republicans on issues of free markets and with Democrats on issues of individual liberty.

If libertarians were to accept the political spectrum, libertarians would be in the middle because they would be agreeing with issues from both sides.

Many people accept the moderate political position as an undecided position. If libertarians were to associate themselves as moderates, these people may decide to research the moderate(libertarian) position themselves.

Moderates, like John McCain, compromise to "get stuff done". Theoretically, libertarians could compromise with the left and right but still have a sound philosophical position. An example would be putting a individual liberty aspects, to please the left, into free market bill, to please the right.

Compromise has always lead to more statism but it doesn't have to be that way.

I think the compromises we should be making involve tolerance and focus. The ability to tolerate distasteful aspects of an allies philosophy while promoting a common cause. The ability to target and focus efforts into winnable battles rather than getting bogged down in the affairs of the greater war. Regardless of the Party de jure, most voters like to consider themselves independent. I think we need to reach out with the things that make them feel that way. And that is targeting...


We should market our movement as "American Revolution".
Not left, not right, but American.

...

It's not about Right or Left
It's about Right and Wrong


Its a matter of strategy. I dont like drug laws either, but obsessing over them makes us lose credibility with the general public. And given that there are far greater evils than drug laws (The Fed, fiat money, the american empire), I question the wisdom of bringing fringe issues to the forefront of attention when they aren;t even on our top 5 list of biggest government evils.

Depends on the locale and audience. The drug issue is huge to some segments, most notably, the youth. The trick is to know your audience...


This is the right idea, but won't work quite as presented. We aren't moderate and can't afford to be moderate. And we certainly don't occupy some magical middle ground in the current state of American political thought. Right now, we're nothing but the backseat driver warning, you're going the wrong way! Look at the good you're giving up for chimeral gain!

But, yes, we need to make ourselves less scary, and the only way to do that is to be reasonable. Because if they consider contemplating a return to the gold standard unreasonable, and we ask them why is it unreasonable that people have a safe way to save their money, what do they have to answer with? The Boob Toob said it can't be done so it can't be done--and now that you mention it, I don't know why not but I sure wish I had a safe way to save my money...

Time for another Will Rogers quote: "If a man wants to stand well socially, he can't afford to be seen with either the Democrats or the Republicans." This is where we need to get ourselves, right here. And this bailout--this atrocious gift to the rich for arrogantly screwing up big time--is all the proof positive we could ever need to pull that off. The only thing worse than the aristocracy we have devolved into is no rule of law at all in their minds, and so the MSM paints us as "anarchists". And only by refusing to withdraw, refusing to back down or 'moderate our positions', and absolutely refusing to play to their attempts to stereotype us can we overcome that resistance and emerge as bastions of what is right, what makes sense, and what is wholly and intrinsically American.

That is where we stand. It is a good, solid foundation. It will never leave us scrambling up a down elevator, or trying to climb a mudslide. So, what we need to do is refuse to let them put us on the defensive and stand on our firm foundation with the steadiness and confidence of people about whom you cannot say, "They don't have a leg to stand on." And that confidence will do more for us than a hundred tweaked labels and a thousand new strategies.

If I were to suggest a slogan for us for later this year, I would expand on the though LE had. I'd want to boil down a snappy version of this thought: Well, now, we've lived through the experimentation--or most of us have. Now all we need is a few students of history to tell us what is and isn't proven to actually work. And that's us.

That is a keeper.

[Redmenace]

This whole economic crisis is nothing more than the long term effects of short term thinking. In my opinion we would do much better to market our selves as long term thinkers, which is true, libertarianism provides the most economic prosperity in the long term, socialism only provides short term prosperity.