Posted on 09/04/2012 1:25:02 PM PDT by Shout Bits
Last week at the Tampa RNC, party insiders employed parliamentary tricks to block Rep. Ron Paul delegates from casting their votes. States such as Mane and Colorado came up short as libertarians got a lesson in hardball politics. Party conventions have morphed into cynical spectacles since Ronald Reagan fought on the floor of the 1976 convention, so nobody should be surprised. Still, without their own Reagan, libertarians will remain vulnerable to the hammer of mainstream politics.
The Libertarian Party and libertarians in general are like alternative energy, the perennial next big thing that never materializes. Much as the conservatives had Buckley, the libertarian cause is full of intellectuals forming the canons of individualism. Libertarians embrace smart writers like Veronique de Rugy and Nick Gillespie, but mass appeal comes from the TV screen, not a pen. While social media has leveled the playing field once dominated by the Old Time Media, the most successful politicians remain telegenic prompter readers who speak to the heart more than the mind.
Consider the sad case of Sen. Hillary Clinton. While being a joyless technocrat is not a sin, it proved to be her political downfall. A stereotypical Wellesley 1960's radical, Clinton has a centrally planned vision for the US where good government is the core problem solver. She is contemptuous of any traditional value, and thinks the family unit is subordinate to the role of 'the village.' While her vision is broad, she is a small thinker who crafts many policies to advance her leftist agenda. Enter Barak Obama, then also a junior Senator. He, too, was a college radical, contemptuous of the established order and also raised by communists. Unlike Clinton, he had no ideas or policies, just Marxist principles. With no experience in work and little experience in government, Obama spoke to the heart and easily beat the seasoned Clinton. Clinton had the entire Democrat machine at her disposal, and her husband was the best fundraiser ever. Despite such an advantage, voters chose soaring platitudes over experience and substance.
In practice Obama and Clinton are the same politician. Both support socialized single payer health care and higher marginal taxes. Both support expanded social welfare programs and wrinkle their noses at traditionalism. Only a policy snob would notice a difference in that Clinton is more academic, dry, and clear-cut.
Similar to Obama, Reagan spoke to the hearts of voters. His "Morning in America" campaign made misty voters dream again. Reagan was surrounded by conservative technocrats who shaped his policies, but his gift was in speaking to the hearts of regular people. Reagan's version of hope yielded two of the biggest landslides in US history.
Obama and Reagan's lesson for libertarians is to stop arguing policy to people who will not listen. Every great person talks to those who would listen in a way they will understand. Pundits call it 'dog whistle' politics, but the winning strategy is to bury policy deep in the rhetoric of the heart. Some examples of good politics:
Shout Bits can be found on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ShoutBits
You lose my attention when you can’t even spell MAINE...credibility goes way down....
Boy, you are surely right. Very bad error.
Well stated.
Reagan was a grownup.
Next question.
I did not say that everything on the list was pure white truth. I certainly did not demand you agree with the list. What I was showing are common examples of how politicians sell their agenda through mild subterfuge.
You don’t hear Dems shouting “socialism,” instead they shout “justice.” That is the idea.
The point of the article is that libertarians have to play the game to hope to ever win.
Where Is The Libertarian Reagan?
Reagan was a grownup.
Next question.
Again, you miss the point entirely. Reagan was a conservative, as are you I imagine. What I am saying is that libertarians need a communicator like Reagan or Obama. I did not even imply that Reagan was a libertarian.
so you are looking for a way to deceive people - since they reject your theories
how sad is that
- doesn't have “truther” leanings and
- has some concept on the realities of modern warfare (WMDs, proxy armies, cyberterror, the risks of open boarders, etc)
Yes, exactly. Libertarians have to get away from the weirdos and ideologues if they ever want real power. Ron Paul does not need the truthers at all, and I have no idea why he refuses to renounce them. Maybe he is afraid that if the OTM picks off the low hanging fruit of his coalition, they will aim for the heart next.
“lololol
so you are looking for a way to deceive people - since they reject your theories
how sad is that”
Very sad, but that is politics, and everybody plays the game. Politics is ugly, and it always has been.
he DID NOT deceive people into buying into wackjob theories
to suggest that he did is insulting
I quite agree that libertarians need to package their ideas better.
I just don’t think this list is a very good example of doing so.
They’re either not libertarian at all or they are inaccurate.
For instance, the claim that corporate welfare is a bigger problem than welfare for individuals. It may or may not be true, that depends on your definitions and the numbers.
But “welfare” of either type is not the real problem. It’s the accumulation of entitlements as a whole, of which “welfare” is rather a small piece.
No offense intended. Your heart is in the right place, but I think you need to give this idea some more thought.
Well, I’m all in favor of that.
The problem is that increasing numbers of Americans don’t understand the Constitution at all, and see appeals to its authorities as mainly motivated by selfish desire of rich people to keep others from getting what they need in life.
IOW, when you appeal to the Constitution to justify your position I think you’re mostly preaching to the choir. Elections are won by converting people to your position.
Paul is not a truther. He has been highly reluctant to repudiate those followers who are.
You can say Paultard all you want, but the GOP just nominated a RINO, a socialized medicine advocate, and a social moderate that has been on both sides of every major issue.
I’d take Paul any day over Romney. In any event, the article was not praising Paul, but arguing that the movement has to get beyond him.
but since you did - why is he reluctant to repudiate them? part of the ‘we need to deceive’ platform?
ron paul is a fool and would be worse than obama
so you have said reagan was a deceiver - that you need to deceive so you can get power
your problem is NOT ron paul - its your wackjob ideas that you can't defend - while claiming to be the only ones that understand the constitution, you ignore what it says
and now - a romney distraction - and again - sad
Very true and well-said.
And that’s where another Great Communicator is needed.
My problem is that many conservatives don’t stop to question recent conservative positions that have no basis in the Constitution, such as the ination-building that we never seem to stop trying.
I disagree.
The Constitution is not so much about what the government should or should not do. It expresses few ideals or goals, with the obvious exception of Bill of Rights.
The Constitution, as I’m sure you know, vests the war-making power jointly in the President and Congress. It says nothing about what the goals of a war conducted under it should be. It nowhere says nation-building is prohibited. The war-making powers, except for some irrelevant quibbles about how long an army budget can be for and suchlike, is essentially unlimited.
I agree in general that nation-building is not a good idea. But conservatives should be the last people to claim that anything they disagree with is therefore “unconstitutional.” That is a good part of how we wound up in this mess, with judges “finding” new interpretations of the Constitution to suit their druthers.
Many, many disagreeable things are not unconstitutional.
True, the argument is weak. I was also thinking “common defense” not “offense”, but I recognize that’s not an enumerated power. I’m sure there is an original intent argument. But they won’t change people’s minds either.
The best argument for non-interventionism: we’re broke.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.