Very well explained, and I agree that this is the only way to go.
It would require a uniform mindset among Libertarians, which seems to be difficult to achieve.
It looks like many liberty-minded people end up voting along single-issue lines like abortion - or they just get scared into voting Republican if the Democratic candidate leans too far left.
I'm fully on board with this strategy, and I'd like to know what we can do to get others on board as well.
I'm not sure it needs a uniform mindset. I really think we only need enough by-in to get the bylaws amended and to get candidates selected that are committed to this strategy.
I think it's easy to get single issues bought in to this (as long as their position is the libertarian one). We just add their pet issue to the list of options for the two parties to consider. (There is nothing magic about giving them 10 options. If it goes up to 12 or 15, that's no problem)
I think to get people on board for the national level, we need to get some state parties to try this on the state level. Show that it can be successful.
Given our long-term position as a minority, which is unlikely to change anytime soon for a wide variety of reasons, causing pain and angst by disrupting incumbents of both parties makes a lot of sense.
I have opted-out of electoral politics since 2012 but have recently been tempted to rejoin by Tom Woods' and Dave Smith's involvement in the Mises Caucus of the LP. Smith has stated outright his mission to take over the LP.
What neither of them have done, to my knowledge, is articulate a strategy once they have done so.
I've posted this article in the Tom Woods supporters group on MeWe.
Thanks for sharing with Tom. I think getting big influencers to consider this would go a long way. Anything we can do to get more spotlight on these ideas would help!
No problem. The more ideas we have on this the better.
The LP is just an embarrassment and in my view has been a net liability for the liberty movement. I would like it to become actually libertarian or go away.
FDA is UN-Constitutional. Reagan lied about getting rid of UN-Constitutional agencies. E.g., the Dept of Education.
The problem with the LP is they are just like the Duopoly they claim are the enemy. That is, the LP ignores "the supreme Law of the Land", the US Constitution.
Why were neither the US Constitution nor the suppression of the State Militias (1903) nor the HUGE issue of computer VoteFraud mentioned? If you want to talk to me direct, email me. <info@WeThePeopleForPresident.org>
I agree, and like the thoughts in here. I have a lot of discussions with friends and family about getting rid of the "running for election" principle in the LP, and focusing more on "getting the right work accomplished." However, I have an addendum to the "Tactics" section. You provided a list of 10 things an incumbant would need to do. I would add this 11th: All elected officials can serve no more than two terms in office (just like the President.
While this is not typically considered a specifically libertarian stance, I STRONGLY believe that the amount of corruption we see in the political arena stems from these life-long/lifetime politicians. If a politician can't effect change in two terms, then get rid of 'em and give someone else a try.
Republicans and Democrats are not our enemies. They are our neighbors and family. It is not us against them.
Changing hearts and minds is all that matters. Policies and mandates are mute when law enforcement understands and values individual freedom. (See Orange County)
In my case I consider the Libertarian party extremely successful. It has opened my mind to possibilities I never would have considered. I am teaching these ideas to my children.
Freedom cannot and should not be forced on those that don't value it.
Any political party that does not follow "the supreme Law of the Land" is the enemy. And any individual who fails to follow the law is a criminal who should be punished accordingly, but JUSTLY. Like the M.I.C., the P.I.C. (prison industrial complex) needs to be destroyed.
There also needs to be a way to address Libertarianism at the individual level also. In order to be against statism a person needs to be self-sufficient. This includes not just financially but more importantly health. I’m 46 and most of my friends are in poor health and this makes them dependent on the health care system and therefore the government. Their always trying to convince me that ‘we’ need more government in health care because ‘we’ can’t afford it. I haven’t been to a doctor since I was a kid so the cost of healthcare doesn’t concern me. Taking over healthcare was essentially a gorilla tactic by the statists and very effective. It’s made most dependent on the government. In other words, someone who ate eggs for breakfast and steaks or seafood for dinner, will be strong and self sufficient and not need the State. People who eat fast or processed foods will never survive on their own.
Healthcare is in the same deal as my earlier comment re: the UN-Constitutionality of rogue Govt. Healthcare should be a function of the churches. But Govt took that away and the churches were too cowardly to act.
Pursuing a strategy of spoilerism is, in my view, defeatist. It presumes that we will never be able to persuade significant numbers of people to align politically with prioritization of individual liberty. If we can't do this then in the long run we are doomed.
The point about messaging is of some value, but moreso because there simply will never be agreement about messaging just as there will never be agreement about strategy. It doesn't matter if I or any other individual agrees or disagrees with your ideas, there are too many other libertarians who will never agree that ballot access should be de-emphasized or that seeking to win elections is not important.
As an elected Libertarian, serving on my town's city council, I affect policy. I've previously been a party to a lawsuit that's been heard by the US Supreme Court, proposed legislation to my state Senator that was later passed into law, seen my state's ballot access law eased, and run for statewide office. There is no substitute for actually being in office.
The one thing that I would like to see Libertarians do is try to get better at the basic techniques of campaigning. I've seen a lot of candidates who never produce a piece of literature, never knock on any doors, and never attempt to contact voters. On the other hand, candidates who do these things in races where they have the resources to compete are often able to win. Those candidates may be winning local offices now but as we increase the number of competent campaigners we have the more opportunity we will have to win higher offices.
There are many who despair of ever competing for statewide or federal offices and want to come up with alternatives. There is nothing wrong and everything right with trying to innovate and play to our strengths, but that does not mean that the fundamentals can be jettisoned. To speak in a sports analogy, a football team that can't recruit the best players is wise to seek out different ways to use the players they have but that doesn't mean that learning how to block and to tackle can be ignored or that it makes sense to just not show up for certain games on the schedule.
There are no magic bullets that will bring instant success. If we want to build a more free world it's going to take a long time and a lot of effort and it's going to involve persuading a lot of other people that we've got the right idea. The point at which most people, who don't care that much about politics, are even willing to consider what we offer is during elections. If we focus only on being disruptive, the establishment parties will not only not become more receptive to our ideas they will more aggressively seek out ways to shut us out of the process entirely. Doing the hard work of campaigning effectively in as many elections as possible is the way to build credibility, increase votes, win more offices, and actually gain leverage to change policies by working as part of coalitions focused on the right approach on particular issues. This is how we've helped enact decriminalization or marijuana and other intoxicants, promoted criminal justice reform, pushed licensing reform, supported LGBT equality, and stood up for the 2nd Amendment, 1st Amendment, and the 4th and 5th Amendments and the rest of the Bill of Rights. We have had real-world results and we can have more if we are willing to put in the effort to get better at basic political techniques and skills. If we don't improve in the 'blocking and tackling' then it won't matter what strategic changes we make.
I don't think it's defeatist to admit that becoming a dominant political party is unlikely and to adjust our strategy accordingly. I think it's the opposite.
I admit, I think it's unlikely that we will turn enough people into libertarians to get political victory that way. But that isn't my point in this article. My point is that the LP isn't a good vehicle for making that change.
I genuinely appreciate your efforts as a city counselor. We need more gratitude in this movement and I want you to know that I feel genuine gratitude for your efforts. But I'm not sure why it's important that you are doing that work as an LP member. It takes far more resources to get and LP candidate elected than it would if they just ran as a Republican/Democrat. I'm not sure if the benefits outweigh the cost.
I do think the way you campaign is very different if you are trying to spoil an election compared to if you are trying to win. Especially for the presidential election.
I do agree things will take time. Hard work is essential as is coalitioning. But I'm skeptical that continuing to do the same thing we've done for 10 years is magically about to bear fruit.
Having been a Libertarian since 2000 and being a student of LP and political history, I can assure you we are light-years ahead of where we were in 2010 and in my view we have every reason to expect similar improvement of our position over the next decade.
In my view the goal of campaigning doesn’t change regardless of if one has similar resources to the opponents or not, it’s always to get as many votes as possible. The message to do that varies from race to race regardless of how resources compare but it’s always about getting that message to as many potentially receptive voters as possible.
We are out of time and now live in a relatively covert Police State (it was overt during the Plannedemic of 2020-2021.
The LP has had 50 years to have more relevance. To the casual observer, it is obvious they have failed with their current "strategy and tactics".
The question (small "L") libertarians in the LP should be asking themselves is "Why?" My position as a Constitutional libertarian is that they fail to adhere to "the supreme Law of the Land" and fail to realize the Duopoly are working together to keep power from the People. Libertarians appear to be ignorant of the fact that power was suppressed in 1903, TEN YEARS PRIOR to the treasonous act of Congress abdicating its duty to coin money.
Ron Paul betrayed libertarianism. We don't audit The Fed...We the People destroy it using our revitalized State Militia. Currently, however, there are no State Militias and it is probably too late although I am doing what I can in Texas to restore power to Texians.
I disagree with your point #4 under "Strategy" about not breaking the official rules. It is imperative that we break the illegal official rules and I would point to the illegal lockdowns, mask mandates and business closures related to the China Virus as an example. These are "official rules" with no basis in the law or the Bill of Rights and not only should they be broken, it is our duty to stand up to them by breaking them.
I should have been clearer. I approve fully of civil disobedience. I was speaking specifically about following official election rules. I clarified that in the article. Thank you for pointing out the problem to me!
In a Police State, the People need more than civil disobedience. We need our (suppressed in 1903) State Militias restored. At least one...preferably the Texas State Militia. That is what my gubernatorial campaign will be about - Militia and "Taxation Is Theft".
Im with Chris....also isnt trying to change policy playing on their terms? Time is fast approaching where tax revolt and and full non participation. That opportunity may be upon us in months as peoples fear of losing a job becomes moot. "the supreme art of war comes from subduing enemies without fighting" also Tzu
Andrew Bennion: It has been a year and a half since your comment. What are your thoughts now re: a "tax revolt". N.B. I stopped paying income taxes in 1997, fyi.
Very well explained, and I agree that this is the only way to go.
It would require a uniform mindset among Libertarians, which seems to be difficult to achieve.
It looks like many liberty-minded people end up voting along single-issue lines like abortion - or they just get scared into voting Republican if the Democratic candidate leans too far left.
I'm fully on board with this strategy, and I'd like to know what we can do to get others on board as well.
I'm not sure it needs a uniform mindset. I really think we only need enough by-in to get the bylaws amended and to get candidates selected that are committed to this strategy.
I think it's easy to get single issues bought in to this (as long as their position is the libertarian one). We just add their pet issue to the list of options for the two parties to consider. (There is nothing magic about giving them 10 options. If it goes up to 12 or 15, that's no problem)
I think to get people on board for the national level, we need to get some state parties to try this on the state level. Show that it can be successful.
Curt: What are you thoughts now that the 2022 LPNC in Reno is over and the Mises Caucus is "in power". LOL
You make a compelling case.
Given our long-term position as a minority, which is unlikely to change anytime soon for a wide variety of reasons, causing pain and angst by disrupting incumbents of both parties makes a lot of sense.
I have opted-out of electoral politics since 2012 but have recently been tempted to rejoin by Tom Woods' and Dave Smith's involvement in the Mises Caucus of the LP. Smith has stated outright his mission to take over the LP.
What neither of them have done, to my knowledge, is articulate a strategy once they have done so.
I've posted this article in the Tom Woods supporters group on MeWe.
Thanks for sharing with Tom. I think getting big influencers to consider this would go a long way. Anything we can do to get more spotlight on these ideas would help!
No problem. The more ideas we have on this the better.
The LP is just an embarrassment and in my view has been a net liability for the liberty movement. I would like it to become actually libertarian or go away.
Great ideas and well composed and presented. liberavoce.home.blog
“Reform the FDA so it only approves drugs based on safety, not efficacy”
That didn’t work very well in Europe https://www.the-scientist.com/reading-frames/europe-is-sinking-biotechagain-68339
FDA is UN-Constitutional. Reagan lied about getting rid of UN-Constitutional agencies. E.g., the Dept of Education.
The problem with the LP is they are just like the Duopoly they claim are the enemy. That is, the LP ignores "the supreme Law of the Land", the US Constitution.
This approach would also encourage the major parties to support ranked choice voting as a defense against it.
I'm in
Why were neither the US Constitution nor the suppression of the State Militias (1903) nor the HUGE issue of computer VoteFraud mentioned? If you want to talk to me direct, email me. <info@WeThePeopleForPresident.org>
I would really love to talk to you about this in more detail is there anyway I could get you on a podcast or something someday?
I'd love to. I have my own weekly talk radio show LIVE on Fridays.
I agree, and like the thoughts in here. I have a lot of discussions with friends and family about getting rid of the "running for election" principle in the LP, and focusing more on "getting the right work accomplished." However, I have an addendum to the "Tactics" section. You provided a list of 10 things an incumbant would need to do. I would add this 11th: All elected officials can serve no more than two terms in office (just like the President.
While this is not typically considered a specifically libertarian stance, I STRONGLY believe that the amount of corruption we see in the political arena stems from these life-long/lifetime politicians. If a politician can't effect change in two terms, then get rid of 'em and give someone else a try.
Very well thought out strategy and well written.
I hope you will reconsider.
Republicans and Democrats are not our enemies. They are our neighbors and family. It is not us against them.
Changing hearts and minds is all that matters. Policies and mandates are mute when law enforcement understands and values individual freedom. (See Orange County)
In my case I consider the Libertarian party extremely successful. It has opened my mind to possibilities I never would have considered. I am teaching these ideas to my children.
Freedom cannot and should not be forced on those that don't value it.
Any political party that does not follow "the supreme Law of the Land" is the enemy. And any individual who fails to follow the law is a criminal who should be punished accordingly, but JUSTLY. Like the M.I.C., the P.I.C. (prison industrial complex) needs to be destroyed.
My friends think I'm stupid for being a libertarian.
Why do your "friends", smh, think you are "stupid for being a libertarian"?
Good case, by the way.
There also needs to be a way to address Libertarianism at the individual level also. In order to be against statism a person needs to be self-sufficient. This includes not just financially but more importantly health. I’m 46 and most of my friends are in poor health and this makes them dependent on the health care system and therefore the government. Their always trying to convince me that ‘we’ need more government in health care because ‘we’ can’t afford it. I haven’t been to a doctor since I was a kid so the cost of healthcare doesn’t concern me. Taking over healthcare was essentially a gorilla tactic by the statists and very effective. It’s made most dependent on the government. In other words, someone who ate eggs for breakfast and steaks or seafood for dinner, will be strong and self sufficient and not need the State. People who eat fast or processed foods will never survive on their own.
Healthcare is in the same deal as my earlier comment re: the UN-Constitutionality of rogue Govt. Healthcare should be a function of the churches. But Govt took that away and the churches were too cowardly to act.
It's a good thought exercise and should be explored.
Libertarians can also run as Republicans and Democrats and work to change policy from within.
Principle over politics.
Pursuing a strategy of spoilerism is, in my view, defeatist. It presumes that we will never be able to persuade significant numbers of people to align politically with prioritization of individual liberty. If we can't do this then in the long run we are doomed.
The point about messaging is of some value, but moreso because there simply will never be agreement about messaging just as there will never be agreement about strategy. It doesn't matter if I or any other individual agrees or disagrees with your ideas, there are too many other libertarians who will never agree that ballot access should be de-emphasized or that seeking to win elections is not important.
As an elected Libertarian, serving on my town's city council, I affect policy. I've previously been a party to a lawsuit that's been heard by the US Supreme Court, proposed legislation to my state Senator that was later passed into law, seen my state's ballot access law eased, and run for statewide office. There is no substitute for actually being in office.
The one thing that I would like to see Libertarians do is try to get better at the basic techniques of campaigning. I've seen a lot of candidates who never produce a piece of literature, never knock on any doors, and never attempt to contact voters. On the other hand, candidates who do these things in races where they have the resources to compete are often able to win. Those candidates may be winning local offices now but as we increase the number of competent campaigners we have the more opportunity we will have to win higher offices.
There are many who despair of ever competing for statewide or federal offices and want to come up with alternatives. There is nothing wrong and everything right with trying to innovate and play to our strengths, but that does not mean that the fundamentals can be jettisoned. To speak in a sports analogy, a football team that can't recruit the best players is wise to seek out different ways to use the players they have but that doesn't mean that learning how to block and to tackle can be ignored or that it makes sense to just not show up for certain games on the schedule.
There are no magic bullets that will bring instant success. If we want to build a more free world it's going to take a long time and a lot of effort and it's going to involve persuading a lot of other people that we've got the right idea. The point at which most people, who don't care that much about politics, are even willing to consider what we offer is during elections. If we focus only on being disruptive, the establishment parties will not only not become more receptive to our ideas they will more aggressively seek out ways to shut us out of the process entirely. Doing the hard work of campaigning effectively in as many elections as possible is the way to build credibility, increase votes, win more offices, and actually gain leverage to change policies by working as part of coalitions focused on the right approach on particular issues. This is how we've helped enact decriminalization or marijuana and other intoxicants, promoted criminal justice reform, pushed licensing reform, supported LGBT equality, and stood up for the 2nd Amendment, 1st Amendment, and the 4th and 5th Amendments and the rest of the Bill of Rights. We have had real-world results and we can have more if we are willing to put in the effort to get better at basic political techniques and skills. If we don't improve in the 'blocking and tackling' then it won't matter what strategic changes we make.
Thanks for your thoughtful reply.
I obviously disagree on a few points.
I don't think it's defeatist to admit that becoming a dominant political party is unlikely and to adjust our strategy accordingly. I think it's the opposite.
I admit, I think it's unlikely that we will turn enough people into libertarians to get political victory that way. But that isn't my point in this article. My point is that the LP isn't a good vehicle for making that change.
I genuinely appreciate your efforts as a city counselor. We need more gratitude in this movement and I want you to know that I feel genuine gratitude for your efforts. But I'm not sure why it's important that you are doing that work as an LP member. It takes far more resources to get and LP candidate elected than it would if they just ran as a Republican/Democrat. I'm not sure if the benefits outweigh the cost.
I do think the way you campaign is very different if you are trying to spoil an election compared to if you are trying to win. Especially for the presidential election.
I do agree things will take time. Hard work is essential as is coalitioning. But I'm skeptical that continuing to do the same thing we've done for 10 years is magically about to bear fruit.
Indeed. The LP fits the definition of insanity to a T.
Two things:
Having been a Libertarian since 2000 and being a student of LP and political history, I can assure you we are light-years ahead of where we were in 2010 and in my view we have every reason to expect similar improvement of our position over the next decade.
In my view the goal of campaigning doesn’t change regardless of if one has similar resources to the opponents or not, it’s always to get as many votes as possible. The message to do that varies from race to race regardless of how resources compare but it’s always about getting that message to as many potentially receptive voters as possible.
We are out of time and now live in a relatively covert Police State (it was overt during the Plannedemic of 2020-2021.
The LP has had 50 years to have more relevance. To the casual observer, it is obvious they have failed with their current "strategy and tactics".
The question (small "L") libertarians in the LP should be asking themselves is "Why?" My position as a Constitutional libertarian is that they fail to adhere to "the supreme Law of the Land" and fail to realize the Duopoly are working together to keep power from the People. Libertarians appear to be ignorant of the fact that power was suppressed in 1903, TEN YEARS PRIOR to the treasonous act of Congress abdicating its duty to coin money.
Ron Paul betrayed libertarianism. We don't audit The Fed...We the People destroy it using our revitalized State Militia. Currently, however, there are no State Militias and it is probably too late although I am doing what I can in Texas to restore power to Texians.
I disagree with your point #4 under "Strategy" about not breaking the official rules. It is imperative that we break the illegal official rules and I would point to the illegal lockdowns, mask mandates and business closures related to the China Virus as an example. These are "official rules" with no basis in the law or the Bill of Rights and not only should they be broken, it is our duty to stand up to them by breaking them.
I should have been clearer. I approve fully of civil disobedience. I was speaking specifically about following official election rules. I clarified that in the article. Thank you for pointing out the problem to me!
In a Police State, the People need more than civil disobedience. We need our (suppressed in 1903) State Militias restored. At least one...preferably the Texas State Militia. That is what my gubernatorial campaign will be about - Militia and "Taxation Is Theft".
Im with Chris....also isnt trying to change policy playing on their terms? Time is fast approaching where tax revolt and and full non participation. That opportunity may be upon us in months as peoples fear of losing a job becomes moot. "the supreme art of war comes from subduing enemies without fighting" also Tzu
Andrew Bennion: It has been a year and a half since your comment. What are your thoughts now re: a "tax revolt". N.B. I stopped paying income taxes in 1997, fyi.