Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 64

Thread: The Federalist says Libertarians are Blowing Opportunity of a Century

  1. #1

    The Federalist says Libertarians are Blowing Opportunity of a Century

    http://thefederalist.com/2016/08/15/...n-opportunity/








    Libertarians Are Blowing The Opportunity Of The Century

    This is the one year I'm considering voting for the Libertarians. Too bad Gary Johnson and Bill Weld are blowing it.



    By Robert Tracinski August 15, 2016




    This is the one year I am vaguely considering voting for the Libertarian Party candidate, Gary Johnson. I’m sure I’m not the only regular Republican voter to do so. Too bad Gary Johnson and his running mate Bill Weld are kind of blowing it.

    I normally wouldn’t vote Libertarian because they’re a small splinter party with no hope of winning and have no real impact on the election, and because, as a result of being a small splinter party, they tend to attract a lot of crackpots and repel the best political talent. (Libertarians with real political prospects, like Rand Paul or my own congressman, Dave Brat, bolt for the Republican Party when they can.) Then there’s the Libertarians’ dogmatically anti-interventionist foreign policy, complete with Ron-Paul-style rhetoric about how we were asking for 9/11. That is not exactly what you want to hear from the commander-in-chief.


    But the offerings this year from the two big parties are so dreadfully bad, so clearly below the minimum level of acceptability, that I am willing to cast about for alternatives. It’s highly unlikely the Libertarian candidate could win outright, particularly in a year when the political Right is badly divided. There’s a slightly less slim hope that he could get enough electoral votes to throw the election to the House of Representatives and prevail there with the support of disgruntled anti-Trump Republicans. But at the very least, a Libertarian candidate who gets 20 percent or 25 percent of the vote, or more, would serve as an effective way to register a protest vote against both of the major parties, rob the actual winner of any kind of mandate, and give those of us who just can’t bring ourselves to pull the lever for Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton a way to vote our conscience.

    It Wasn’t Hard to Seize the Moment, Guys

    All the Libertarian Party had to do was to put forward a candidate who could take relatively sane and defensible positions, particularly on the kinds of issues—like civil liberties and free markets—where you can usually expect a prominent Libertarian to think clearly and take a position in line with a commitment to liberty. Because that’s kind of what the Libertarian Party exists for, right?

    Yes, well, those of us who have followed the Libertarian Party over the years know they never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. So it’s no surprise that Johnson and Weld are doing their best to drive us away—and they’re doing it by not even being good at being Libertarians.

    Johnson badly flubbed a question about religious liberty, for the second time, coming out in favor the state’s right to coerce you into compliance with its notion of what your religious values ought to be. He wrapped up by declaring, “I just see religious freedom, as a category, as just being a black hole.” This sort of thing is Libertarianism 101, and Johnson just flunked it.


    Then in the past few days, we got Weld sounding like a Massachusetts liberal on gun control (which he basically is), making hysterical claims about imaginary gun parts like “clips” and “pins” and calling the AR-15 a “weapon of mass destruction.”


    Again, this is Libertarianism 101.

    Libertarians Are Basically Flower Children

    So what went wrong? Actually, none of this comes out of the blue, and it reflects a basic problem with the libertarian movement going back to the beginning.


    When the Libertarian Party was first formed in 1971, the free-market firebrand Ayn Rand dismissed them as “hippies of the right,” and there was definitely something to that. While some libertarians saw themselves as taking inspiration from Rand’s political ideas, there was also a large strain in the movement that saw itself as ideologically and culturally aligned with the Left, as an offshoot of the counterculture. Libertarianism wasn’t about reasserting an American tradition of liberty and constitutionally limited government. It was about smashing the system, man.

    Did you notice how, in the last election, Ron Paul kept billing his campaign as the “Ron Paul Revolution,” with the “evol” flipped backward so it read “LOVE”?



    This was pure hippie flower-child nostalgia.


    That’s why the Libertarians have been wasting so much effort in this election trying to appeal to disaffected Bernie Sanders supporters by railing against social conservatives and the military-industrial complex and a whole bunch of other lefty bogey-men. They cling to the illusion that they can convert a bunch of utopian socialists to libertarianism, if only they make clear that they’re opposed to religious nuts discriminating against gays, and that they don’t like guns. That, and the part about being allowed to smoke pot.

    Meanwhile, they’re letting the political opportunity of a century pass them by. A sizeable chunk of the Republican Party is there for the taking. They may not agree with the Libertarians on everything, but they would be open to a ticket that can emphasize areas of agreement on a few core issues, while presenting themselves as the sane and normal alternative in this insane election year. You know how, in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king? This is the year when just being minimally acceptable is enough to snap up millions of grateful voters. It could also be done without having to compromise actual pro-liberty principles, for example, by actually defending religious liberty and Second Amendment rights.

    Even on foreign policy, a candidate who presented himself as skeptical about overseas intervention but not eager to blame America first—the kind of balancing act Rand Paul has been working on—could, in this year, seem a reasonable alternative even to the hawks.

    This is an opportunity that any sensible, pro-free-market libertarian should be able to run away with. But in a year when Republicans have chosen a candidate who is indifferent to their own party’s ideological roots, Libertarians have allowed themselves to be held back by their ideological history. They just have not been able to bring themselves to change course to meet the requirements of this unprecedented political moment.

    They haven’t missed this opportunity to miss an opportunity.

    Follow Robert on Twitter.


    'We endorse the idea of voluntarism; self-responsibility: Family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying that some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person. It's a preposterous notion: It never worked, it never will. The government can't make you a better person; it can't make you follow good habits.' - Ron Paul 1988

    Awareness is the Root of Liberation Revolution is Action upon Revelation

    'Resistance and Disobedience in Economic Activity is the Most Moral Human Action Possible' - SEK3

    Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo.

    ...the familiar ritual of institutional self-absolution...
    ...for protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment...




  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2




    #muhparty
    Last edited by presence; 08-16-2016 at 09:56 AM.

    'We endorse the idea of voluntarism; self-responsibility: Family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying that some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person. It's a preposterous notion: It never worked, it never will. The government can't make you a better person; it can't make you follow good habits.' - Ron Paul 1988

    Awareness is the Root of Liberation Revolution is Action upon Revelation

    'Resistance and Disobedience in Economic Activity is the Most Moral Human Action Possible' - SEK3

    Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo.

    ...the familiar ritual of institutional self-absolution...
    ...for protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment...


  4. #3
    GJ and Weld are liberals. Not libertarians.

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by JK/SEA View Post
    GJ and Weld are liberals. Not libertarians.
    Yes, I think you're right.

  6. #5
    Part of the plan it seems.
    "Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it."
    James Madison

    "It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." - Samuel Adams



    Μολὼν λάβε
    Dum Spiro, Pugno
    Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito

  7. #6
    Isn't that special how the author takes several shots at Ron Paul? Teocon talking points.

    And then he claims that Johnson isn't good enough. Apparently, he doesn't like Ron Paul either. Probably wouldn't like Browne or Badnarik.

    Who would be his perfect "libertarian"? Ted Cruz? Tom Cotton? Mike Pence?
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Pharma-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul

    Proponent of real science.
    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    Who would be his perfect "libertarian"? Ted Cruz? Tom Cotton? Mike Pence?
    next time you engage in barter you'll meet him

    'We endorse the idea of voluntarism; self-responsibility: Family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying that some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person. It's a preposterous notion: It never worked, it never will. The government can't make you a better person; it can't make you follow good habits.' - Ron Paul 1988

    Awareness is the Root of Liberation Revolution is Action upon Revelation

    'Resistance and Disobedience in Economic Activity is the Most Moral Human Action Possible' - SEK3

    Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo.

    ...the familiar ritual of institutional self-absolution...
    ...for protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment...


  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by angelatc View Post

    Originally Posted by JK/SEA
    GJ and Weld are liberals. Not libertarians.
    Yes, I think you're right.
    Me three.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Johnson/Weld is an establishment insult to all true small government supporters
    and Johnson's going along with it cause he wants to be the candidate with the largest vote % in history

  12. #10
    All the Libertarian Party had to do was to put forward a candidate who could take relatively sane and defensible positions
    Actually, that's pretty much what the Libertarian Party did. They choose what was perceived as the most palatable candidate. McAfee would have been more fun, but not more acceptable to the mainstream.

    That’s why the Libertarians have been wasting so much effort in this election trying to appeal to disaffected Bernie Sanders supporters by railing against social conservatives and the military-industrial complex and a whole bunch of other lefty bogey-men. They cling to the illusion that they can convert a bunch of utopian socialists to libertarianism, if only they make clear that they’re opposed to religious nuts discriminating against gays, and that they don’t like guns. That, and the part about being allowed to smoke pot.
    Some truth there, especially with the J/W ticket.
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Pharma-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul

    Proponent of real science.
    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  13. #11
    After reading this:

    I normally wouldn’t vote Libertarian because they’re a small splinter party with no hope of winning and have no real impact on the election, and because, as a result of being a small splinter party, they tend to attract a lot of crackpots...
    I decided to quite reading the rest. Author is an idiot and does not understand voting.

  14. #12
    He can blow the opportunity I have between my legs.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sister Miriam Godwinson View Post
    We Must Dissent.

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    Isn't that special how the author takes several shots at Ron Paul? Teocon talking points.

    And then he claims that Johnson isn't good enough. Apparently, he doesn't like Ron Paul either. Probably wouldn't like Browne or Badnarik.

    Who would be his perfect "libertarian"? Ted Cruz? Tom Cotton? Mike Pence?
    The author may not be a libertarian, but he is dead on accurate in his indictment of Johnson and Weld.

  16. #14
    I'm starting to write a lengthy blog post on this, but if anyone is interested in what it takes to win, and why Rand was doing what he was doing, read "Crossing the Chasm". It's a classic book about marketing and what it takes to sell your ideas/product to the mainstream. It's specifically about crossing the gap between the hardcore minority and the mainstream customers.
    Last edited by SilentBull; 08-16-2016 at 12:49 PM.

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by SilentBull View Post
    I'm starting to write a lengthy blog post on this, but if anyone is interested in what it takes to win, and why Rand was doing what he was doing, read "Crossing the Chasm". It's a classic book about marketing and what it takes to sell your ideas/product to the mainstream. It's specifically about crossing the gap between the hardcore minority and the mainstream customers.
    I'll help you. It's all bull$#@! and useless without the media along with you on your side. Until the media stops purposely manipulating public opinion, the current "hardcore minority" groups will always remain minorities.
    No - No - No - No
    2016

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by asurfaholic View Post
    I'll help you. It's all bull$#@! and useless without the media along with you on your side. Until the media stops purposely manipulating public opinion, the current "hardcore minority" groups will always remain minorities.
    Of course the media is a problem, but you must understand how to sell to the mainstream. Those who thought Rand Paul should have continued doing what Ron Paul was doing, just don't understand marketing. Ron Paul reached the maximum number of people that could be reached with that strategy: the innovators and early adopters, as they are called in the book.

    To reach the majority, the strategy must change because the majority cares about different things. It's this balancing act, keeping the early adopters and innovators happy while expanding your marketing to the mainstream that is hard; even harder when those early adopters are too stupid to realize what Rand was doing.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by sgt150 View Post
    The author may not be a libertarian, but he is dead on accurate in his indictment of Johnson and Weld.
    Yep.

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by SilentBull View Post
    Of course the media is a problem, but you must understand how to sell to the mainstream. Those who thought Rand Paul should have continued doing what Ron Paul was doing, just don't understand marketing. Ron Paul reached the maximum number of people that could be reached with that strategy: the innovators and early adopters, as they are called in the book.

    To reach the majority, the strategy must change because the majority cares about different things. It's this balancing act, keeping the early adopters and innovators happy while expanding your marketing to the mainstream that is hard; even harder when those early adopters are too stupid to realize what Rand was doing.
    The strategy you described was tried and it was a big fat pathetic failure. So while your line of thinking may have sounded good on paper, it was a horrible disaster for growing the liberty movement in actuality. Hopefully Rand wises up and makes some big changes during his next go around.

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by sgt150 View Post
    The strategy you described was tried and it was a big fat pathetic failure. So while your line of thinking may have sounded good on paper, it was a horrible disaster for growing the liberty movement in actuality. Hopefully Rand wises up and makes some big changes during his next go around.
    The only reason it failed is because of Trump, and the fact that the media helped make "anti-establishment" mainstream, precisely to combat Rand's strategy, which would have worked had it not been for that. The problem is we are trying to hit a moving target, which is, I believe, asurfaholic's point.

    But blaming the strategy is wrong. That was precisely the right strategy. The problem is the media is always a step ahead, because they control the minds.

    If Rand had chosen an "anti-establishment" strategy, the media wouldn't have made "anti-establishment" popular. They would have said he was a "fringe" candidate.

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by SilentBull View Post
    The only reason it failed is because of Trump, and the fact that the media helped make "anti-establishment" mainstream, precisely to combat Rand's strategy, which would have worked had it not been for that. The problem is we are trying to hit a moving target, which is, I believe, asurfaholic's point.

    But blaming the strategy is wrong. That was precisely the right strategy. The problem is the media is always a step ahead, because they control the minds.

    If Rand had chosen an "anti-establishment" strategy, the media wouldn't have made "anti-establishment" popular. They would have said he was a "fringe" candidate.
    Perhaps if Rand is as myopic and tone-deaf as you are, he can halve the liberty movement and get embarrassed yet again in 2020.

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    Isn't that special how the author takes several shots at Ron Paul? Teocon talking points.

    And then he claims that Johnson isn't good enough. Apparently, he doesn't like Ron Paul either. Probably wouldn't like Browne or Badnarik.

    Who would be his perfect "libertarian"? Ted Cruz? Tom Cotton? Mike Pence?
    Just saying that the Libertarians don't agree on much across the board, but gun rights is a big exception to that. I don't think I've ever encountered a Libertarian that wanted restrictions on handguns. And yet here we are.

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by sgt150 View Post
    Perhaps if Rand is as myopic and tone-deaf as you are, he can halve the liberty movement and get embarrassed yet again in 2020.
    Sure, go ahead and ignore the basics of marketing. I'm sure you know better how to get people elected. I'm sure you have helped elect many candidates, as smart as you are.

    Feel free to ignore my post and my book recommendation, as it was meant for people interested in educating themselves.
    Last edited by SilentBull; 08-16-2016 at 03:08 PM.

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    Isn't that special how the author takes several shots at Ron Paul? Teocon talking points.

    And then he claims that Johnson isn't good enough. Apparently, he doesn't like Ron Paul either. Probably wouldn't like Browne or Badnarik.

    Who would be his perfect "libertarian"? Ted Cruz? Tom Cotton? Mike Pence?
    More like Lyndon Johnson

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by SilentBull View Post
    Sure, go ahead and ignore the basics of marketing. I'm sure you know better how to get people elected. I'm sure you have helped elect many candidates, as smart as you are.

    Feel free to ignore my post and my book recommendation, as it was meant for people interested in educating themselves.
    I will certainly ignore you, and your terrible-beyond-belief advice regarding political strategy for the liberty movement. Regardless of your excuse-making, we saw the fruits of your ideas in 2016. The fact that you want to double-down on them even after they have failed abysmally shows that you are boneheaded, not wise.



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by SilentBull View Post
    Ron Paul reached the maximum number of people that could be reached with that strategy [...]
    Apart from mere assertion, what reason is there to think that the number of people he reached was the maximum that could have been?

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentBull View Post
    It's this balancing act [...] that is hard; even harder when those early adopters are too stupid to realize what Rand was doing.
    Does this book you're talking about recommend the strategy of referring to the people you're trying to persuade as being "too stupid" to realize something?
    The Bastiat Collection · FREE PDF · FREE EPUB · PAPER
    Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850)

    • "When law and morality are in contradiction to each other, the citizen finds himself in the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense, or of losing his respect for the law."
      -- The Law (p. 54)
    • "Government is that great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
      -- Government (p. 99)
    • "[W]ar is always begun in the interest of the few, and at the expense of the many."
      -- Economic Sophisms - Second Series (p. 312)
    • "There are two principles that can never be reconciled - Liberty and Constraint."
      -- Harmonies of Political Economy - Book One (p. 447)

    · tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito ·

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by sgt150 View Post
    I will certainly ignore you, and your terrible-beyond-belief advice regarding political strategy for the liberty movement. Regardless of your excuse-making, we saw the fruits of your ideas in 2016. The fact that you want to double-down on them even after they have failed abysmally shows that you are boneheaded, not wise.
    And yet you completely ignore the reasons I stated as to why they failed; Trump, and idiot libertarians too stupid to see what he was trying to do, who refused to donate money to allow him to get his message out. Carry on. I look forward to your candidacy so you can teach Rand Paul how to get elected.

  31. #27
    I think the LP is doing just fine. Better than ever actually. It's silly to think they would make the jump from 1% to potus in one cycle. Polling double digits is good. They are probably going to hit 5% of the vote and get matching funds for next time. Maybe they run with some real funding next time around and they get to 15% and get in the debates.

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    Apart from mere assertion, what reason is there to think that the number of people he reached was the maximum that could have been?
    Because the "innovators" and "early adopters" are always a very small segment in any market. There just aren't enough of them. The early and late majority account for something like 66% of the market.

    The hardest part is switching your focus to go after that majority, while keeping your early customers happy, which was obviously the problem with Rand. If libertarians realized that he was doing this and would have donated the way they donated to Ron, he would have had a much better shot. He may still have lost because Trump, with the media's help, messed things up for everyone, including Jeb who was the favorite and also had an establishment strategy.

    The early majority, also called "pragmatists", are scared away by big changes. They don't like anything too disruptive and are looking for incremental improvements only. They look for things that can neatly fit into their already established routines. Innovators and early adopters are the ones looking for revolution. To sell to the early majority and late majority, you have to package your message a certain way.
    Last edited by SilentBull; 08-16-2016 at 06:40 PM.

  33. #29
    Silentbull, I've heard all that marketing crap before at dying churches. It was the exact same scenario, too. They got far enough off message to drive everyone away, some true believers stuck around trying to convince everyone that staying on message was the point and without a point there's no reason to stay, the leaders called them naysayers and fools and that they didn't understand how to run things, and it all spiraled down a leftist toilet bowl, in exactly the same way the OP article pointed out.

    The only real way to get them back is to keep your bull a lot more silent and allow some ideological purity back in. That is what attracts independent voters. Truth. Not marketing strategy bull$#@!.
    There are no crimes against people.
    There are only crimes against the state.
    And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by SilentBull View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SilentBull View Post
    Ron Paul reached the maximum number of people that could be reached with that strategy [...]
    Apart from mere assertion, what reason is there to think that the number of people he reached was the maximum that could have been?
    Because the "innovators" and "early adopters" are always a very small segment in any market. There just aren't enough of them. The early and late majority account for something like 66% of the market.

    The hardest part is switching your focus to go after that majority, while keeping your early customers happy, which was obviously the problem with Rand. If libertarians realized that he was doing this and would have donated the way they donated to Ron, he would have had a much better shot. He may still have lost because Trump, with the media's help, messed things up for everyone, including Jeb who was the favorite and also had an establishment strategy.

    The early majority, also called "pragmatists", are scared away by big changes. They don't like anything too disruptive and are looking for incremental improvements only. They look for things that can neatly fit into their already established routines. Innovators and early adopters are the ones looking for revolution. To sell to the early majority and late majority, you have to package your message a certain way.
    With due respect, that all sounds rather pat and glib - and in any case, it doesn't answer the question I asked: what reason is there to think that the number of people Ron Paul reached was the maximum number that could have been reached? I have no doubt that there was indeed some (at least theoretical) "maximum" to the support Ron Paul might have achieved at any given point in time - but I am quite skeptical that he ever actually achieved it (or even came close to doing so, for that matter).

    For one thing, such maxima are relative and not absolute; by their nature, they change with time and circumstances. For instance, Ron got more votes in '12 than he did in '08. How, then, can one say with any confidence that he would not have gotten even more in '16, had he run again? And if one cannot say this with confidence, then how can one say with confidence that he had "reached the maximum number of people that could be reached" (except by counterfactually asserting that he could not have gotten more than he actually did - which is the very claim at issue)?

    For another thing, Ron was not a particularly good orator or expositor. Had he the speaking skill and eloquence of, say, a Harry Browne, I do not see how anyone could contend ceteris paribus that he could not have gotten more support than he did. And then, of course, there all the other contingent factors which subdued the support he actually received, as distinct from how much he otherwise might have achieved. The all-too-well-known shenanigans of the media are one example of such factors. Another example is the performance of the official campaign (let's be charitable and call that performance "somewhat less than vigorous") on a variety of accounts, such as the missed opportunity in Virginia, where only Ron and Romney were on the primary ballot in '12. Any of a number of other such factors could be identified.

    The upshot of all this is that I simply do not know what Ron's "maximum" was, let alone whether he actually "reached" it or not - and neither do you. Nor does anyone else. Thus, I see no warrant for declarations that Ron Paul achieved "maximum reach" and that he took things as far as they can go "with that strategy" ...
    Last edited by Occam's Banana; 08-16-2016 at 08:31 PM.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast


Posting Permissions

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