Kill the libertarian label

[DjLoTi]

Here's a pretty fair article about Ron Paul:
http://politicsinminnesota.com/blog/2010/04/paulites-still-resent-2008-gop-covention-but-gop-leadership-vows-more-inclusive-process/#comment-12378

FTA: "The 2008 GOP state convention in Rochester was a rough affair in which the party leadership was assailed by backers of U.S. Rep. Ron Paul.

The libertarian presidential candidate from Texas developed an ardent bunch of followers in Minnesota..."

I left a comment:
"Ron Paul was a republican presidential candidate, unless you’re referring to his 1988 run, but I think that would be very out of context. He might be ‘libertarian leaning’, but he was a *REPUBLICAN* presidential candidate. I have talked to many people who actually thought Ron Paul was not a republican, because of the libertarian label that follows him around.

So I would just like to clarify and emphasize, he was a REPUBLICAN presidential candidate. Please get it right. Thank you"

I think the word 'libertarian' is going to be used to marginalize Ron Paul in a 2012 run. We need to stop the spin and get these people to understand, he is or was not a libertarian candidate. He was in 1988 but that's not anywhere near as currently relevant as 2008. Hell, I was 2 years old in 1988, and some of you wern't even alive.

Just sharing my thoughts

[dean.engelhardt]

Personally, I marginilize "Republicans". Those people are effed up.

[Vessol]

His libertarian stances will be key to winning the independents and the moderate Democrats. We already have the moderate Republicans.

There is no way we will win the far Right or Left. Those are the only ones who will cry about him being not being labeled a Republican.

[Southron]

Depends on what company I am in really.
I like using constitutionalist.

[Anti Federalist]

His libertarian stances will be key to winning the independents and the moderate Democrats. We already have the moderate Republicans.

There is no way we will win the far Right or Left. Those are the only ones who will cry about him being not being labeled a Republican.

I think it's just the opposite.

It's the "fringe" of both left and right that will be and is attracted to RPs message.

Always has been.

You think you're going to get Lindsey Graham or Joe Lieberman types voting for the Pauls?

[Vessol]

I've never viewed either of them as Moderates. My definition of Moderates is perhaps different then theirs in how they label themselves, both are Far Right/Left Statists.

[paulitics]

Glenn Beck has destroyed the word libertarian. RP is a constitutionalist.

[mikem317]

Glenn Beck has destroyed the word libertarian. RP is a constitutionalist.

Yeah, I think Sean Hannity even considers himself to be a libertarian (gasp!).

[.Tom]

It's interesting how terms get hijacked over time as they become more popular.

I now refer to myself as an anarcho-libertarian just so people know I'm not a moderate fuck like pseudotarian Glenn "I love the State" Beck.

[Stary Hickory]

Republitarian

[Brett]

Remind people that the Libertarians were afraid to nominate him in 1988 because he was too close to Reagan.

[MN Patriot]

Remind people that the Libertarians were afraid to nominate him in 1988 because he was too close to Reagan.

Just a bit of useless trivia: Russell Means was a nominee that year for presidential candidate for the LP. He got 31% of the vote.

Now Ron uses his ties to Reagan to get support from Republicans and they reject him.

The word "libertarian" is much more descriptive than "republican", at least to people who aren't ignorant about what a libertarian and a republican are.

I think humanity's hope is in the new philosophy of libertarianism. We shouldn't avoid the label, we need to get the word out. Most people still don't know what it means, but the term "Republican" has negative connotations for many people (most who will never agree with us, anyway).

[nayjevin]

google libertarian:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=libertarian

it's not all that scary. although I do understand the sentiment, I'm not all that afraid of the words anymore.

I think I've heard Ron say he has problems with the Libertarian party platform too. It's not quite right to call him a libertarian - and there are different shades anyway.

The libertarian tradition is a good one, and many of the good guys describe themselves that way (like stossel and napolitano) but there are some fakes (like Hannity, Beck, and Maher).

Harry Browne has the book 'the great libertarian offer'. A libertarian is a principled conservative. Republicans aren't conservative anymore (except Ron Paul). Democrats have been as ineffective against war and corporatism as Republicans have.

So to me, those two labels are out. The actual modern day definition of both (R)'s and (D)'s is essentially impossible to sell, except to the very, very sheltered. 4 years ago, the non-internet demographic was different than today. What do the youth think?

The internet has long been thought 'libertarian leaning'. Most will admit that libertarians have good ideas.

I recognize it needs a qualifier when used (if at all) to describe Paul, but I think the label is an asset in general. It gets me when the word is used as a smear, but I'm not sure how effective that is anyway, when the dictionary definition of the word is just advocating liberty.

[DjLoTi]

One of my thoughts is that people have it ingrained in their minds that 3rd parties do not win. So if people think RP is not a republican, they automatically think he can not win. So they kind of just dismiss him as 'not serious'.

Total pet peeve from 2008 ...

[Lord Xar]

His libertarian stances will be key to winning the independents and the moderate Democrats. We already have the moderate Republicans.

There is no way we will win the far Right or Left. Those are the only ones who will cry about him being not being labeled a Republican.

I believe you are incorrect. There was a reason most of his interviews always referred to him as a "libertarian". It was to marginalize him with the republican voters. It was a good tactic. It might be good for many libertarians to get so much attention for their party, but it will hinder him 2012, as it did in 2008.

You also assume most voters are informed. On the contrary, most aren't. They hear labels and abide by them. "Oh he is a libertarian, obviously, not a republican... I'll vote Mitt". etc...

Most libertarians will fight this because of a personal agenda that others get instep with their idealogy, and probably rightly so. But, again, its a label that is not a benign label for most voters..
Libertarian.. sounds like liberal.... understand?

Also, america is a fast food political nation - they have no time to 'get informed' on a mass level. I am not saying it is not possible, but when you have a few minutes to make an impression. We need to do it right.

We need to remove that label, asap.

[Lord Xar]

One of my thoughts is that people have it ingrained in their minds that 3rd parties do not win. So if people think RP is not a republican, they automatically think he can not win. So they kind of just dismiss him as 'not serious'.

Total pet peeve from 2008 ...

True. Like it or not, people want to pick winners. They make associations. They are still in the left/right paradigm and by 2012, that isn't gonna change.

[nayjevin]

I believe you are incorrect. There was a reason most of his interviews always referred to him as a "libertarian". It was to marginalize him with the republican voters. It was a good tactic. It might be good for many libertarians to get so much attention for their party, but it will hinder him 2012, as it did in 2008.

You also assume most voters are informed. On the contrary, most aren't. They hear labels and abide by them. "Oh he is a libertarian, obviously, not a republican... I'll vote Mitt". etc...

Most libertarians will fight this because of a personal agenda that others get instep with their idealogy, and probably rightly so. But, again, its a label that is not a benign label for most voters..
Libertarian.. sounds like liberal.... understand?

Also, america is a fast food political nation - they have no time to 'get informed' on a mass level. I am not saying it is not possible, but when you have a few minutes to make an impression. We need to do it right.

We need to remove that label, asap.

If voter turnout triples, do you believe that will still be the case? Would that be possible? This is a turning point election, I would think turnout would be high. Are there any predictions out?

I'm thinking whatever label gets pushed, will probably be seen, heard, googled, etc by millions and millions. And I think that generally the TV doesn't have the power to reinforce labels with young people as it thinks it does. Also thinking the disenfranchised Perot voters etc will be out in full force.


Libertarian.. sounds like liberal.... understand?

Also, america is a fast food political nation - they have no time to 'get informed' on a mass level. I am not saying it is not possible, but when you have a few minutes to make an impression. We need to do it right.

We need to remove that label, asap.

Also recognize you could be right here.

[DjLoTi]

Turnout will be higher and there's going to be tons of attention come 2012. I think RP has an amazing, amazing shot no matter what happens.

I'm just pointing out a hurdle from 2008, one that drove me crazy personally, that resurfaced in this article. I mean the article actually says 'libertarian presidential candidate'. Just flat out wrong.

But some of us don't care, or even like that reference. I think we all need to be on the same page. Libertarian-leaning, yes. Libertarian? Libertarian candidate? No. JMO

[Bman]

Ron's going to have to push the label he wants. Although I agree pointing out he is the most conservative candidate running, works more to his benefit than calling him a libertarian.

[nayjevin]

Libertarian-leaning, yes. Libertarian? Libertarian candidate? No. JMO

Yeah I'm with you there. The way I feel about this is that it is an attempt to cater to 'likely republican voters'. It's getting difficult for people to identify with Republicans with a straight face, because of the Daily Show, and, well, Republicans. Not that Democrats are better mind you...

[Bman]

Yeah I'm with you there. The way I feel about this is that it is an attempt to cater to 'likely republican voters'. It's getting difficult for people to identify with Republicans with a straight face, because of the Daily Show, and, well, Republicans. Not that Democrats are better mind you...

The great thing is that if Ron were to win the Republican nomination, shows like the Daily Show would have a hell of a time attacking Ron in the sense that they can attack the Republican establishment.

[nayjevin]

The great thing is that if Ron were to win the Republican nomination, shows like the Daily Show would have a hell of a time attacking Ron in the sense that they can attack the Republican establishment.

Ha, yeah, they just have Maddow call him the founding father of the Tea Party, then attack the Tea Party.

[Bman]

Ha, yeah, they just have Maddow call him the founding father of the Tea Party, then attack the Tea Party.

That may actually work to his favor.

[DjLoTi]

TDS is super nice to Ron. Ron is loved by pretty much everybody. I don't see RP being attacked except by both the far left and the far right. TDS seems more like a moderate liberal/independent to me

[stu2002]

Many people are turned off by the Libertarian label, since they see Libertarians as stuck-up elitists or whakcos.

Ron Paul is a Republican, NOT a Libertarian. He tried that in 1988 and saw that it is a losing cause. The mainstream media often labels Ron Paul a Libertarian since it knows that this will turn people away from his message.

[nayjevin]

Many people are turned off by the Libertarian label, since they see Libertarians as stuck-up elitists or whakcos.

You may be right, but you have to believe that these are the people that matter. It is obvious that 'Libertarians' are not that. So who are we worried about? People who cannot get past a reaction to that word? Or people like my Facebook buddy who knows very little about politics except that they are all full of shit, so he calls himself a libertarian (though he's probably never heard of rothbard or browne).


Ron Paul is a Republican, NOT a Libertarian. He tried that in 1988 and saw that it is a losing cause. The mainstream media often labels Ron Paul a Libertarian since it knows that this will turn people away from his message.

Well, being concerned about labeling Paul a libertarian in some contexts has merit, IMO. I mean, I'm not calling him a capitalist these days, because capitalist doesn't mean what it used to. I don't think 'libertarian' has been demonized to the same degree. I could be convinced otherwise with evidence I have yet seen.

Being in the L party is different. 1988 is also different.

But I have no doubt the word does mean weird things to some people. I just believe those people are dinosaurs with closed minds who will never vote for Ron anyway.

IMO, 'conservative' may be worse than 'libertarian' in a general election. It definitely would be to some people.

[peacepotpaul]

http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/6246/label201005010946026215.gif

do you like it?

[nayjevin]

http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/6246/label201005010946026215.gif

do you like it?

so the question is, does the person making that or enjoying it have any chance of being a likely Paul voter/supporter, if we just use a different word?

do we constantly run from the definition changers?

[peacepotpaul]

so the question is, does the person making that or enjoying it have any chance of being a likely Paul voter/supporter, if we just use a different word?

do we constantly run from the definition changers?

exactly!

running from definition changers, though may show your superior intelligence above the Orwellian Babel, it still means you're controlled by them if you're spending time running & hiding. If you know words have power, you're already defeated.

[Rylick]

What is the problem with libertarian ? He is a libertarian. There is no need to cover that.

[nayjevin]

Uh, I don't feel controlled and defeated, (or superior intelligenty). I guess I didn't understand your comment.

[peacepotpaul]

Uh, I don't feel controlled and defeated, (or superior intelligenty). I guess I didn't understand your comment.

My point is, don't allow yourself to be moved and worked up just because people throw words around, and that only happens if you waste time trying to say what you are NOT just because somebody doesn't know better.

I'm OK with labels as well as what people think, I can't help stupid people change their views about me, if I wanted to win them over, I can't blame people who embrace democracy where stupid people are allowed to vote.

[nayjevin]

That's cool, I'd like to hear some other opinions too.

[Jeros]

Or we can start calling ourselves liberals! I say we re-hijack the term.

[catdd]

I think the term will help him because so many people have become disillusioned with the two major parties. But he will still run on the Republican ticket and the status quo will still hate it.

[libertythor]

It will be impossible to lose the libertarian label because Ron Paul is a libertarian on the Nolan Chart. The only problem is that most people don't differentiate between a small "l" libertarian and a Libertarian.

Given that the label won't be able to come remotely close to being removed, it would serve the campaign well to promote an additional label, constitutionalist. Associating him with traditional individual liberty and the Constitution will help modify the libertarian label.

[DjLoTi]

Republicans think like this: "I'm proud to be a republican". Sort of like, "I'm proud to be an American". At least, as I was growing up in Texas, that's how I felt about republicans. We're just Americans.

I don't like labels anyway, but without a doubt he should never be called 'libertarian presidential candidate'.

I think the media and most other people as well have been pretty cool about libertarians. It kind of has a stigma about it that irks me. I'm totally cool with it, except for certain things can be so unrealistic. JMO. But this is how a republican thinks. Keep in mind, Ron Paul is a republican, so RPF is likely to attract republican voters (like myself).

We need to bring out the republican in America, and nobody else does that like Ron Paul. Ron Paul is the perfect leader for our movement.

[DjLoTi]

Imagine someone watching an interview with Ron Paul and they say "Libertarian presidential candidate, Ron Paul". Imagine how confusing that would be to an average voter who isn't a hard-core political follower. It sure would be confusing to me.

So I totally think he should be called a republican, since he's been a republican for how many years and ran as a republican in the 2008 presidential race. ;) :)

[libertythor]

Imagine someone watching an interview with Ron Paul and they say "Libertarian presidential candidate, Ron Paul". Imagine how confusing that would be to an average voter who isn't a hard-core political follower. It sure would be confusing to me.

So I totally think he should be called a republican, since he's been a republican for how many years and ran as a republican in the 2008 presidential race. ;) :)

Yes I do agree that his party affiliation should be mentioned in an article if they are going to also refer to his being a libertarian-leaning politician.

[silentshout]

His libertarian stances are what I like about him. He's libertarian-leaning, and that's a good thing. Sure, call him a Republican now, but that won't make a difference...when people hear "Republican" they think of someone who wants to continue the wars/start another war, etc. It will be obvious that he is not a "typical" Republican when these people hear his views, so I don't see how the phrase "libertarian-leaning" is really a big deal.

[DjLoTi]

I'm actually for 'libertarian leaning'. I just don't like him being called a libertarian. I mean, I guess he is to some degree, but I'd much rather him be called a republican.

I mean, if someone knows enough about politics to understand libertarianism, I hope they can understand that RP is the best candidate out there. I just think it's so much better to keep it consistent.

[libertythor]

I'm actually for 'libertarian leaning'. I just don't like him being called a libertarian. I mean, I guess he is to some degree, but I'd much rather him be called a republican.

I mean, if someone knows enough about politics to understand libertarianism, I hope they can understand that RP is the best candidate out there. I just think it's so much better to keep it consistent.

If Ron Paul had been on the ballot in all 50 states in the general election, he would have probably have received the vast majority of Bob Barr's votes. I base this on his performance in Montana and Louisiana along with the large number of people who went ahead and wrote him in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul


In the 2008 general election, Paul still received 41,905 votes despite not actively running for the seat.[135][136] He was listed on the ballot in Montana on the Constitution Party label, and in Louisiana on the "Louisiana Taxpayers Party" ticket, and received write-in votes in California (17,006),[137] Pennsylvania (3,527), New Hampshire (1,092), and other states. (Not all U.S. jurisdictions require the counting or reporting of write-in votes.)