Would libertarians do better if we marketed ourselves as moderates?

[speciallyblend]

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

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

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

 

[speciallyblend]

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

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

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

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

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


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


It's Catching on i tell ya


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

 

[acptulsa]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Andrew-Austin]

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

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

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

 

[Truth Warrior]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[acptulsa]

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

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

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

 

[heavenlyboy34]

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

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

I like that! Well said, IMHO.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

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

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

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

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

 

[Truth Warrior]

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

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

Explain that to Ron.

In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock.
Thomas Jefferson

 

[ronpaulhawaii]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is a keeper.

 

[Redmenace]

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