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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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
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 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.
My friends think I'm stupid for being a libertarian.
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.
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.
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 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.