Results 1 to 27 of 27

Thread: Perspective

  1. #1

    Perspective

    I am confused that so many people turn against Medina so quickly. To those that criticize her for not bending to the national phenomenon of structured discourse, while not perfectly responding to explicit schemes to sabotage her character, I say congratulations, you discovered she is human.

    I doubt any other person in the country could have accomplished what she did in Texas. I know she had a lot of help, but even others with a lot of help wouldn't have been able to make such a strong connection to Texas citizens or would have been able to skillfully articulate the philosophy of liberty on a national stage next to the two biggest politicians in Texas.

    Medina is a treasure. On many levels, I now trust her more than other leaders within the movement. This is not the end of her political career. Saying so would be equivalent to declaring that the foreign policy debate between Ron Paul and Rudy Giuliani was the end of Ron Paul's political career. Many people claimed as much. Ron Paul continues because we are here. Medina will continue for the same reason.

    The national dialogue is shifting in our favor. Any attempt to limit the dialogue to what is perceived as safe by us, and declared as safe by the powers that be, is another type of compromise that will only damage the intellectual and moral integrity the movement. If such politically motivated attempts at maintaining "safety" are successful, I will congratulate again those responsible for transforming an honest, effective, and growing liberty movement into the next TeaParty.

    My intuition tells me that in the long run, this incident will work out in our favor.
    Last edited by Jeros; 02-11-2010 at 06:48 PM.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Good post. I say don't worry about those who are loudest around here, just take note of their usernames as people who just couldn't wait to bash her, and see what they do in the future.
    I'm a moderator, and I'm glad to help. But I'm an individual -- my words come from me. Any idiocy within should reflect on me, not Ron Paul, and not Ron Paul Forums.

  4. #3
    I think she answered the questions very well.

    It baffles me that people here are getting angry with her instead of Beck/Perry/Etc

  5. #4
    this place is full of sleeper agents.....

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by sofia View Post
    this place is full of sleeper agents.....
    They're morons though.

    Ya Medina's fine, I hope her campaign can generate some blowback press. When some fake poll comes out to spin her as dropping, be ready to counter.

    I heard Debra talking about the various groups that aren't represented by polls, they really think they have the demographics on this. I hope there's some independent polling press releases or some such. I know she's got the talking point down.
    I'm a moderator, and I'm glad to help. But I'm an individual -- my words come from me. Any idiocy within should reflect on me, not Ron Paul, and not Ron Paul Forums.

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by brandonyates View Post
    I think she answered the questions very well.

    It baffles me that people here are getting angry with her instead of Beck/Perry/Etc
    I'm with you. I very much appreciate how clear and honest she was. I'm VERY upset with GB, but then that was a fool-me-twice moment for me. I'm done with him, done with hoping he'll come around.

    On the KLIF interview she said how odd it was that GB just kept letting her talk without stopping her. This is what GB does when he wants to talk down to whomever is speaking. It's totally unprofessional. This guy should not be in this kind of position.
    "Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain, and most fools do." - Ben Franklin

    "I submit to you that if a man hasn't discovered something he will die for, he isn't fit to live." - Martin Luther King Jr.

    "The purpose of all political action should be the preservation of Liberty!" - Ron Paul

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Meiun View Post
    I'm with you. I very much appreciate how clear and honest she was. I'm VERY upset with GB, but then that was a fool-me-twice moment for me. I'm done with him, done with hoping he'll come around.

    On the KLIF interview she said how odd it was that GB just kept letting her talk without stopping her. This is what GB does when he wants to talk down to whomever is speaking. It's totally unprofessional. This guy should not be in this kind of position.
    Take note of the long akward pauses after Medina finishes talking. On any radio show, they do this to make someone appear kooky, or out there. Sometimes they will play crickets chriping for full effect.

    Beck did this after every answer, even when she was sounding like Thomas Jefferson, talking about ending property taxes and returning power back to the states.
    "It is our true policy to steer clear of entangling alliances with any portion of the foreign world. "
    George Washington

    "Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations"
    James Madison

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Meiun View Post
    I'm with you. I very much appreciate how clear and honest she was. I'm VERY upset with GB, but then that was a fool-me-twice moment for me. I'm done with him, done with hoping he'll come around.

    On the KLIF interview she said how odd it was that GB just kept letting her talk without stopping her. This is what GB does when he wants to talk down to whomever is speaking. It's totally unprofessional. This guy should not be in this kind of position.

    I was actually beginning to hear "don't worry, Beck will come around, he's starting to understand us" so often, that I started to believe it was a possibility, however remote. I think he bit off a little more than he intended to today. Anybody that wasn't around for the whole "Ron Paul's supporters are terrorists" episodes now get a glimpse of his true nature. Anybody that was around for those got a healthy dose of neocon confirmation.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Exactly, Jeros. That was my fool-me-once moment with Glenn
    "Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain, and most fools do." - Ben Franklin

    "I submit to you that if a man hasn't discovered something he will die for, he isn't fit to live." - Martin Luther King Jr.

    "The purpose of all political action should be the preservation of Liberty!" - Ron Paul

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeros View Post

    The national dialogue is shifting in our favor. Any attempt to limit the dialogue to what is perceived as safe by us, and declared as safe by the powers that be, is another type of compromise that will only damage the intellectual and moral integrity the movement. If such politically motivated attempts at maintaining "safety" are successful, I will congratulate again those responsible for transforming an honest, effective, and growing liberty movement into the next TeaParty.
    I disagree. Politics, even for "tea party" candidates, is a fine dance between political philosophy and populism. Look at Rand Paul. He speaks his philosophy, but he speaks it in such a way that he addresses what is politically workable during his coming term of office. Moderation is what made this movement stand out. Ron Paul in 2007 was drastically more moderate than Ron Paul in 1988, and in 2010 liberty candidates are taking note and moderating appropriately to draw larger support bases. We're a political force today because we learned to play the political game. If you ask for 100% of our moral philosophy tomorrow, you'll end up with nothing. Our job is to move society in the direction of our philosophical endgame, and that happens one step at a time.

    Sure, talk behind the anonymity of these internet boards is frenzied and radical. But when we meet with candidates in strategy sessions, the consensus is, for the most part, that balance must be found between philosophical endgame and practical politics.

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Nathan Hale View Post
    Moderation is what made this movement stand out.
    Not at all. It was hearing fresh ideas. You are defining nuanced speech as being moderate, which is an unfair characterization. A liberal doesn't say, I want to tax you more! She says, I want to promote the general welfare! It is still, however, an extreme position.

    Principles.
    I'm a moderator, and I'm glad to help. But I'm an individual -- my words come from me. Any idiocy within should reflect on me, not Ron Paul, and not Ron Paul Forums.

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Nathan Hale View Post
    I disagree. Politics, even for "tea party" candidates, is a fine dance between political philosophy and populism. Look at Rand Paul. He speaks his philosophy, but he speaks it in such a way that he addresses what is politically workable during his coming term of office. Moderation is what made this movement stand out. Ron Paul in 2007 was drastically more moderate than Ron Paul in 1988, and in 2010 liberty candidates are taking note and moderating appropriately to draw larger support bases. We're a political force today because we learned to play the political game. If you ask for 100% of our moral philosophy tomorrow, you'll end up with nothing. Our job is to move society in the direction of our philosophical endgame, and that happens one step at a time.

    Sure, talk behind the anonymity of these internet boards is frenzied and radical. But when we meet with candidates in strategy sessions, the consensus is, for the most part, that balance must be found between philosophical endgame and practical politics.
    They game you described has been played for decades with disastrous results. We are no where near a majority, so "Political workable" is compromise. Compromise always works in favor of those seeking more power because the middle ground between more power and no power is more power. The middle ground between government and no government is government. In other words, if I say I don't want you to take my freedom away, and you counter with an offer of taking some freedom away, we then compromise and take less freedom away then you intended, but it is still some freedom. This incrementalism is the result of "political shrewdness" that moderates are so happy to employ. No thanks. This is what Reason/Cato has been trying to accomplish for decades. They are now irrelevant.

    Ron Paul 1988/2008 is apples/oranges. The Republican debates are the major difference. He has been saying the same thing for 30 years. He hasn't moderated his language and we shouldn't either. Why do you think all those neocons (that you seem to be an apologist for) are so keen on describing him as crazy? The only way to reverse government expansion is to make the discussion of "unsafe" ideas a political reality. Abolish institutions, bring troops home, close military bases, re-legalize victimless crimes, auction off federal land, abolish the income tax, allow freedom of movement, dissolve the supreme court and so on. All crazy. All politically unpalatable. All relevant. All important. All uncompromisable.

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by nayjevin View Post
    Not at all. It was hearing fresh ideas. You are defining nuanced speech as being moderate, which is an unfair characterization. A liberal doesn't say, I want to tax you more! She says, I want to promote the general welfare! It is still, however, an extreme position.

    Principles.
    I disagree. We've heard the ideas of Constitutionalism and Libertarianism for 30 years. What gave this movement traction was the fact that those ideas were presented in such a way that they were made palatable to the general population via moderation.

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Nathan Hale View Post
    ...If you ask for 100% of our moral philosophy tomorrow, you'll end up with nothing. Our job is to move society in the direction of our philosophical endgame, and that happens one step at a time...
    Well said.
    Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety - Benjamin Franklin

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeros View Post
    They game you described has been played for decades with disastrous results. We are no where near a majority, so "Political workable" is compromise. Compromise always works in favor of those seeking more power because the middle ground between more power and no power is more power. The middle ground between government and no government is government. In other words, if I say I don't want you to take my freedom away, and you counter with an offer of taking some freedom away, we then compromise and take less freedom away then you intended, but it is still some freedom. This incrementalism is the result of "political shrewdness" that moderates are so happy to employ. No thanks. This is what Reason/Cato has been trying to accomplish for decades. They are now irrelevant.
    I disagree. What you describe is the act of pandering, not compromise. Politics is, practically by definition, the art of compromise. It's not as though the only options are a) state your philosophical endgame as your legislative agenda, or b) base your legislative agenda on what 51% of the population wants. Those are two extremes with a huge gray area in between. The successful political movement takes those two poles and finds the magic spot where their philosophy merges with what's possible. That is precisely what gave Paul the traction he needed in 2008 to take off.

    Ron Paul 1988/2008 is apples/oranges. The Republican debates are the major difference. He has been saying the same thing for 30 years. He hasn't moderated his language and we shouldn't either.
    I profoundly disagree. Ron Paul in 2008 did not run on his 1988 platform. His platform in 2008 was incredibly moderate compared to his platform in 1988. If you haven't forgotten, some debate panelists even tried tripping him up by holding him to his 1988 platform.

    Why do you think all those neocons (that you seem to be an apologist for) are so keen on describing him as crazy?
    I don't see how I'm a neocon apologist. And they describe him as crazy because he has found the magic spot where his vision and practical politics meet, and that's a threat. Before, it was safe to ignore him.

    The only way to reverse government expansion is to make the discussion of "unsafe" ideas a political reality.
    I agree. But it's a fine art, making the discussion of unsafe ideas a political reality. And it takes time. The plan shouldn't be to just say anything when you're running for office. Even Gary Johnson knew this - he brought up and got passed the unsafe idea of decriminalizing possession of marijuana, but he waited until his second term to do so. As with military strategy, you take a sector and secure it before moving on to the next.

    Abolish institutions, bring troops home, close military bases, re-legalize victimless crimes, auction off federal land, abolish the income tax, allow freedom of movement, dissolve the supreme court and so on. All crazy. All politically unpalatable. All relevant. All important. All uncompromisable.
    I would agree that some of those ideas have reached the point where a candidate can run on them and stand a realistic chance of winning. But not all. And by no stretch of the imagination should we hold our candidates to all of those positions to make their run morally acceptable. Bring right is great, but being right isn't worth a damn if you spend your life on the political sidelines. You have to also make the acquisition of power a priority, even if sometimes it means deferring absolute moral vindication.

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Nathan Hale View Post
    I disagree. We've heard the ideas of Constitutionalism and Libertarianism for 30 years. What gave this movement traction was the fact that those ideas were presented in such a way that they were made palatable to the general population via moderation.
    Libertarianism was in its infancy 30 years ago. Liberalism had been irreversibly hijacked. Rothbard might as well have been publishing in a closet. The philosophy was for all intensive purposes starting at zero. What we are experiencing today is not some miracle of moderation. It is the product consistent ideological perseverance. Any shift to compromise will lead libertarianism down the same path as Liberalism. Rothbard, Paul, and Rockwell never changed their rhetoric for good reason. Thanks for the suggestions, but no thanks.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeros View Post
    Libertarianism was in its infancy 30 years ago. Liberalism had been irreversibly hijacked. Rothbard might as well have been publishing in a closet. The philosophy was for all intensive purposes starting at zero. What we are experiencing today is not some miracle of moderation. It is the product consistent ideological perseverance. Any shift to compromise will lead libertarianism down the same path as Liberalism. Rothbard, Paul, and Rockwell never changed their rhetoric for good reason. Thanks for the suggestions, but no thanks.
    "Consistant ideological perseverance"? I don't think so. The libertarian party has shown consistent ideological perseverance, and they still languish at 1% in the polls (and that fact, while partly a fault of the system, is also the fault of the ideological and educational approach that libertarians take to electoral campaigns). What Ron Paul did was appeal to more than the ZAP Randroids at the tip of the Nolan chart's diamond - he broadened the tent.

    I think we're going to just have to agree to disagree, but I hope you realize that this is not a movement of ZAP libertarians, but a movement of people from all corners of the libertarian quadrant of the Nolan Chart's political spectrum who awakened to their political options because a candidate came out with both a palatable message and the viability to be worth supporting.

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Nathan Hale View Post
    "Consistant ideological perseverance"? I don't think so. The libertarian party has shown consistent ideological perseverance, and they still languish at 1% in the polls (and that fact, while partly a fault of the system, is also the fault of the ideological and educational approach that libertarians take to electoral campaigns). What Ron Paul did was appeal to more than the ZAP Randroids at the tip of the Nolan chart's diamond - he broadened the tent.

    I think we're going to just have to agree to disagree, but I hope you realize that this is not a movement of ZAP libertarians, but a movement of people from all corners of the libertarian quadrant of the Nolan Chart's political spectrum who awakened to their political options because a candidate came out with both a palatable message and the viability to be worth supporting.
    "Former Congressman Ron Paul of Texas began his campaign for the 1988 presidential election after leaving the Republican Party and joining the Libertarian Party in early 1987 with a platform that included non-interventionism, decriminalization of illegal drugs, a return to the gold standard, the abolition of the Federal Reserve and the cutting of all government spending."

    Ron Paul's rhetoric has hardly changed over decades. If you can show me transcripts and such of him proposing anarchy or similar, I might believe you, but virtually all historical media or literature I am aware of does not demonstrate any significant difference compared to today.

    The general rhetoric emanating form the Libertarian party has varied greatly though. What you propose is basically a rerun of Bob Barr. Bob Barr may not have been genuine, but his platform didn't exactly excite the grass roots either. As Rand Paul and Peter Schiff have moderated their rhetoric, many, if not the majority of grassroots have shown concern about the deviation. Without a philosophically consistent platform, philosophically consistent supporters bail. At which point, the candidate might as well be a centrist.

    The consistency I speak of emanates from the austrian non-political philosophical quarters. Some may dispute this, but a great deal of credit of the resurgence of libertarianism should be given to the Mises Institute and all of its supporters.

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeros View Post
    I am confused that so many people turn against Medina so quickly.
    I don't think anyone is turning against her. The only people criticizing her are fake conservative talk show hosts with throbbing mancrushes on Rick Perry that didn't like her in the first place.
    Don't taze me bro. Don't touch my junk. Don't tread on me.

    Maybe you need a friend not into politics... http://saveadogrescue.com/ http://www.petfinder.com/pet-search?shelter_id=TX1472

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by james1906 View Post
    I don't think anyone is turning against her. The only people criticizing her are fake conservative talk show hosts with throbbing mancrushes on Rick Perry that didn't like her in the first place.
    turning against, maybe not, but having some questions about her handling of unknowns, is a good question.
    Just as she has questions about the govt (as do all of us), we should have some questions about her handling of matters in these interviews.

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by steph3n View Post
    turning against, maybe not, but having some questions about her handling of unknowns, is a good question.
    Just as she has questions about the govt (as do all of us), we should have some questions about her handling of matters in these interviews.
    Worst case scenario, she made a mistake. Do you plan on spending days on end asking questions about a mistake? Are you going to ask her why she didn't use her brain in a more efficient manner? Maybe you can ask her why she is even running for Texas governor in the first place, considering there are dozen of liberty minded candidates that could have done a better job than her. /s No other person could have accomplished what she has in Texas at this time. She has done a phenomenal job. There is nothing wrong with asking questions, but what is it you are hoping to achieve by asking these questions? I cannot think of any practical purpose of continual griping.

    I am not so sure it was a mistake. If the American people are unable to critically think outside of MSM direction, I don't imagine there will be hope for libertarianism anyway. The more access they have to controversies like this, the weaker their brainwashing becomes. If we behaved within the confines of structured dialogue, there would never be any reason for others to ask questions. If we allow certain subjects to be off limits, its just a matter of those in power methodologically constructing controversy around anything we wish to discuss. Nullification is unserious. Secession is racist. Questioning the empire is unpatriotic. Selfishness is unamerican. Gun rights are for rednecks. Not paying taxes is criminal. Enterprise takes advantage of the poor. Questioning man made global warming is ignorant.

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeros View Post
    I am not so sure it was a mistake. If the American people are unable to critically think outside of MSM direction, I don't imagine there will be hope for libertarianism anyway. The more access they have to controversies like this, the weaker their brainwashing becomes. If we behaved within the confines of structured dialogue, there would never be any reason for others to ask questions. If we allow certain subjects to be off limits, its just a matter of those in power methodologically constructing controversy around anything we wish to discuss. Nullification is unserious. Secession is racist. Questioning the empire is unpatriotic. Selfishness is unamerican. Gun rights are for rednecks. Not paying taxes is criminal. Enterprise takes advantage of the poor. Questioning man made global warming is ignorant.
    This paragraph is eloquently phrased. My question is -- where does one draw the line? Is there a line to be drawn? That is, are there any untouchable topics?
    Last edited by Omphfullas Zamboni; 02-13-2010 at 01:54 AM.
    It doesn't end with this election cycle. Commit to long term change, and you won't see all the GOP state convention shenanigans as the end of the Ron Paul Revolution--but as the end of the neocon control of the GOP, (and the beginning of the Ron Paul Revolution). Hang in there for another year or so, and you'll start to see some absolutely amazing results for all of our efforts. ~Ninja Homer

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Omphfullas Zamboni View Post
    This paragraph is eloquently phrased. My question is -- where does one draw the line? Is there a line to be drawn? That is, are there any untouchable topics?
    Good point, because there obviously is a line. I would answer that the primary boundaries of what we should be discussing is the relevance to what we are trying to accomplish.

    Partial list of likely irrelevant topics:

    Apple nutrition facts
    Emperor penguin stride length
    Sand chemistry variation
    #10 penny nail sharpness
    Mongolian taste preference
    Lava viscosity by region
    Jessica Alba's belly button content
    Dewey Decimal system efficiency
    Anything regarding Carrot Top

    There might be other disqualifying paremeters as well, such as topics based on data that isn't physically possible, but the ideal sphere obviously includes many more topics than the current level of discussion allows. I assume most libertarians are convinced of their ideological correctness based on historic analysis of human action. Any atmosphere where the description of relevant human action is confined or corrupted is harmful to our goal because others who might otherwise come to the same ideological conclusion are unable to do so. Any successful attempt to confine or corrupt any relevant actuality is harmful to any goal that relies on truth.

    I guess the real question is, do our goals rely on the dissemination of truth? I would argue that they are inseparable and indistinguishable.
    Last edited by Jeros; 02-13-2010 at 02:45 AM.

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeros View Post
    Good point, because there obviously is a line. I would answer that the primary boundaries of what we should be discussing is the relevance to what we are trying to accomplish.

    Partial list of likely irrelevant topics:

    Apple nutrition facts
    Emperor penguin stride length
    Sand chemistry variation
    #10 penny nail sharpness
    Mongolian taste preference
    Lava viscosity by region
    Jessica Alba's belly button content
    Dewey Decimal system efficiency
    Anything regarding Carrot Top

    There might be other disqualifying paremeters as well, such as topics based on data that isn't physically possible, but the ideal sphere obviously includes many more topics than the current level of discussion allows. I assume most libertarians are convinced of their ideological correctness based on historic analysis of human action. Any atmosphere where the description of relevant human action is confined or corrupted is harmful to our goal because others who might otherwise come to the same ideological conclusion are unable to do so. Any successful attempt to confine or corrupt any relevant actuality is harmful to any goal that relies on truth.

    I guess the real question is, do our goals rely on the dissemination of truth? I would argue that they are inseparable and indistinguishable.
    Indeed our goals rely on dissemination of the truth. Truth will expose the agenda and wrong doing of those in control of our country. Truth will set us free.



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeros View Post
    "Former Congressman Ron Paul of Texas began his campaign for the 1988 presidential election after leaving the Republican Party and joining the Libertarian Party in early 1987 with a platform that included non-interventionism, decriminalization of illegal drugs, a return to the gold standard, the abolition of the Federal Reserve and the cutting of all government spending."

    Ron Paul's rhetoric has hardly changed over decades. If you can show me transcripts and such of him proposing anarchy or similar, I might believe you, but virtually all historical media or literature I am aware of does not demonstrate any significant difference compared to today.
    I'll give you the Ron Paul argument, as all I have to go on is my own experience as a libertarian activist during that era. Unfortunately, that was before the age of instant recall of all speeches and rallies. I don't blame Ron Paul for his 1988 platform, it was likely due to pressure from the ZAP extremist Libertarian Party, but...it's irrelevant anyway because I can only find two or three youtubes from his candidacy, and Morton Downey Jr. isn't the best example of a political presentation.

    The general rhetoric emanating form the Libertarian party has varied greatly though.
    I don't see this. They've been ZAPs since day one. Only recently did a Libertarian Reform Caucus form, but that happened around the same time as a more viable avenue for libertarian activism opened up (i.e. this), so it flickered out.

    What you propose is basically a rerun of Bob Barr. Bob Barr may not have been genuine, but his platform didn't exactly excite the grass roots either.
    I disagree. Barr was the problem, not his platform. Sure, some hated the platform, but many more loved it. There were a great many LP libertarians who hated the party's extremism and failure to take politics seriously.

    As Rand Paul and Peter Schiff have moderated their rhetoric, many, if not the majority of grassroots have shown concern about the deviation.
    I totally disagree with this. Schiff's problem is in his campaign strategy. And Rand's grassroots is stronger than ever. There is a tiny, vocal minority that hates him for moderating, but judging by the polls, and his grassroots support, his policy decisions have by no stretch of the imagination been detrimental to his campaign.

    Without a philosophically consistent platform, philosophically consistent supporters bail. At which point, the candidate might as well be a centrist.
    I challenge your use of the term "philosophical consistency". Philosophy is an individual endeavor. Each of us has a philosophy that is unique to our self. We come to together, compromising in doing so, in order to elect candidates to office who we consider superior to the other options. That previous sentence is the practical definition of political party. I'm posting an article right after this post that sums up my opinion on the matter.

    The consistency I speak of emanates from the austrian non-political philosophical quarters. Some may dispute this, but a great deal of credit of the resurgence of libertarianism should be given to the Mises Institute and all of its supporters.
    Recently? I'd give the credit to Rudy Giuliani, because it was that exchange that put Ron Paul in the limelight and grew his grassroots from disaffected libertarians such as myself.

  30. #26
    What is a Political Platform?
    by Carl Milsted Jr.
    Submitted Dec 22, 2004

    What is a political platform? This looks like a dumb question. But it is not. The answer is not trivial, and it is an answer that many Libertarian Party members fail to grasp. There are important subtleties.

    To answer this question, we have to answer the more basic question: what is a political party?

    What is a Party?

    A political party is a caucus taken from the whole of the voting population. That is, people of similar mind form an organization that agrees to run one candidate for a particular seat. By forming such a caucus, they concentrate their core concerns at the cost of having to compromise among themselves.

    That is, consider if 2 fascists and 55 libertarians were on the ballot. Under such circumstances, a fascist is likely to win, even in a heavily libertarian district. For this reason it is in the interest of libertarians to get together and decide on just one candidate to support. And once the libertarians do so, the fascists need to do likewise in order to have a chance at winning.

    Note that this process has a price. Each of those 55 libertarian candidates may well have been the favorite of some of the libertarians in the district. However, in order to have a libertarian, supporters of 54 of the candidates must surrender their favorite choice in order to ensure that a fascist does not win. (And the same goes for the other side.)

    We could imagine more than one libertarian grouping. If the district is sufficiently libertarian, two such groupings might be viable, or even three. But the more groupings there are, the more likelihood of a non-libertarian winning. A smaller tent allows more purity at the price of less chance of winning.

    In some parliamentary systems, smallish minorities can still win elections due to proportional representation. In the U.S. system, a party has to include enough factions so that it can be the majority somewhere. When I say "include enough" I mean both activists, fellow travellers, and swing voters.
    It's the Consensus

    So how do we define our parties? This is the job of the platforms of each party. Just as each party compromises within itself to produce a consensus candidate from within, each party also produces a consensus statement of its political values to help define the party.

    Because this must be a consensus position, fuzziness is necessary. Strong positions taken on every issue can shrink the coalition. Activists can storm out and swing voters can look elsewhere.

    But note that we do not need to have consensus on every issue to have a party. We just need enough positioning to define those of similar mind. Diversity must be tolerated for the coalition to be politically viable.

    It's Now

    People move between parties. Independent voters and ticket mixers move from one year to the next. As such, it makes sense for a political platform to reflect the consensus for what needs to be done now, vs. some excessively longterm vision. More importantly, this is the case for the mainstream parties in the U.S.

    Even if you prefer that a platform talk of ultimate visions, this is a bad idea because this is not the popular semantic definition of a platform. To put in longterm visions into a platform is to cause confusion; many people will misinterpret forward looking statements as calls to implement such actions now. This shrinks the coalition!

    Does the LP Have a Platform?

    The Libertarian Party does not have a platform in the sense of the major parties; the LP has an ultimate vision of the ideal government. Yes, it has some statements of what should be done now, but it also has statements that are intended to be done later. By mixing the two, the LP causes confusion and loses votes.

    Further, the LP Platform is not a realistic attempt to build a coalition of like-minded people that is big enough to actually win elections. There are few within the party who think that Americans are ready for what is in the platform. Instead, there are two "wishful" victory scenarios:

    1. The LP and related organization can educate the people where they will eventually fine pure libertarianism acceptable. This is to happen even though the government controls most of education and statists own most of the media.
    2. Statism will eventually cause economic and/or social collapse. At this point people will be desperate enough for change that they will try anything. Our job is to be there and be organized when this happens. (This is how the Bolsheviks took power.)

    A real political party (in a democratic system) tries to win elections... now. This means balancing ideology with reality. This means polling and focus groups. This means "listening tours." "Party of Principle" is a contradiction in terms.

    So how many real issue polls have libertarian commissioned? Sad to say, my polling at www.quiz2d.com is about as good as we have, and that ain't very. This is because too few Libertarian activists care about such things. This needs to be fixed.

    Does the Platform Matter?

    One of the main arguments that I have heard from those who want to keep the platform pure and visionary is that "no one reads political platforms." To this I point out:

    * The very political do read platforms. These are just the kind of people likely to become activists in a new political party.
    * The political press reads platforms, and their stories about our candidates reflect this.
    * The opposition reads our platform. When a moderate Libertarian threatens to win a significant number of votes, the major party opposition usually runs negative ads in the last weeks of the election quoting our platform.
    * The LP national staff reads the platform and strives to make all press releases and literature conform to the platform. They are legally required to do so by our bylaws. The results hurt our candidates and our recruitment efforts.

    Having a real platform is important.

  31. #27
    //
    Last edited by Jeros; 02-14-2010 at 01:55 PM.



Similar Threads

  1. Some Perspective, PLEASE!
    By KramerDSP in forum Ron Paul Forum
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 08-24-2011, 11:05 PM
  2. A different perspective
    By scottlfinley in forum Open Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-30-2010, 12:33 AM
  3. Perspective
    By aravoth in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 02-06-2008, 10:38 PM
  4. Perspective
    By ryvin1 in forum News About The Official Campaign
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-09-2008, 07:57 AM
  5. A bit of perspective
    By chrismatthews in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 11-13-2007, 04:01 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •