The Federalist says Libertarians are Blowing Opportunity of a Century

presence

Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2011
Messages
19,330
http://thefederalist.com/2016/08/15/libertarians-miss-an-opportunity/




[h=2]Libertarians Are Blowing The Opportunity Of The Century[/h] 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.

[h=2]It Wasn’t Hard to Seize the Moment, Guys[/h] 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.

[h=2]Libertarians Are Basically Flower Children[/h] 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”?

index-300x93.png


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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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:
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 bullshit 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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top