Skip to main content

Can Libertarian Party Learn to Make a Real Difference?



Does Mary Ruwart have it right? Yes and No!

In an article on "Third Party Watch," Dr. Mary Ruwart argues the Libertarian Party would be wise to refrain from nominating a presidential candidate who has not thoroughly done his or her liberty homework and therefore doesn't really believe in liberty.

Most libertarians would agree. But let's look deeper.

As her leading example, Dr. Ruwart argues that she would not like to see an LP candidate back off the LP's historic stance against the War on Drugs, and she proceeds to lay out all the logical reasons why the LP's stance against the War on Drugs is pure libertarianism.

Unfortunately, she misses the most important point of all: loudly campaigning against the War on Drugs guarantees electoral defeat, because the vast majority of voters, mistaken or not, equate the War on Drugs with good. Almost everyone these days knows somebody whose life, or family's lives, or friend's lives have gone through almost unendurable suffering because of some one's drug use. People feel all this pain and vote their gut reaction: ban drugs. Voters don't vote based on drawn out logical reasoning from premise to conclusion (a lesson libertarians MUST learn).

Dr. Ruwart is correct in her statement of a pure libertarian position. She is incorrect in her implications if libertarians are interested in long range success. Long range success depends on emphasizing libertarian positions which are popular with a huge majority of voters.

In her second example, libertarian campaigns against gun bans, Dr. Ruwart's logic is equally exemplary, and this time she is in rapport with the vast majority of voters. Campaigning to get governments out of the business of banning guns is a winning libertarian campaign position because millions of people see the value of having a gun and don't want governments taking their guns away. In addition, this position gains tremendous support from people who have no guns but do not want government changing the intent of the U.S. Constitution.

But then being the well-integrated libertarian she is, Dr. Ruwart quickly regresses to arguing against bans on pornography, another election losing guarantee.

So while Mary Ruwart is correct in her positions on all these issues, she is incorrect in her overall understanding of how to "win friends and influence people" through political action.

Now Mary would surely argue that she is not interested in "winning friends" at the expense of violating her principles. She argues that the LP must not stop being the Party of Principle and become the Party of Expediency. But this argument is invalid because these are not the only two alternatives. In politics, you do not have to violate your principles in order to only talk about the positions you hold which are also popular with a vast majority of voters, and you are not violating your principles by remaining silent on issues which are guaranteed to lose elections. Quite the contrary. You serve your principles by winning elections and finding yourself in elected offices where the media will pay more attention to you and help spread your underlying premises.

Quite the opposite of loudly proclaiming all their unpopular positions, unless libertarians start emphasizing those of their positions which appeal to the vast majority of voters, they are not going to influence many people, which is their purpose for engaging in political activity in the first place.

Dr. Ruwart is correct when she implies libertarians will only sabotage themselves with candidates who are not thorough libertarians. But she is incorrect when she implies that LP candidates must continue to operate as they have in the past. Because in the past all libertarians have done is sabotage themselves anyway.

If you are a freedom lover interested in winning politics be sure to study: Course in Political Miracles

For a great discussion on Christianity vs. State Socialism see: Christianity vs. State Socialism

“I did not understand what made me free, nor what my freedom is, nor where to look to find it. Father, I have searched in vain until I heard Your Voice directing me. Now I would guide myself no more. For I have neither made nor understood the way to find my freedom. But I trust in You. You Who endowed me with my freedom as Your holy Son will not be lost to me. Your Voice directs me." (Prayer from A Course in Miracles)






Technorati tags:
,
,
, , , , ,
, , , , ,,,, ,

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Is Sarah Palin's Joy Ayn Rand's Ideal?

Lesson 50: "I join Ayn Rand, educating spiritually." Government worshippers are in control of most universities, virtually every public school system, and almost every major media market. The general public has been thoroughly brainwashed to believe that if there is a problem, or the illusion of a problem, government solutions are the answer ... a new government program, a new government bureaucracy, more power to government. Because almost all avenues of education and information have been under the control of government worshippers, the vast majority of people are stuck in thinking habits which will never for long periods of time serve liberty. Because people's underlying thinking habits will rise to the surface again and again, any libertarian political victory can only be short-lived ... unless people's underlying way of thinking is changed. As much as I might hate to admit it, thorough re-education of the public cannot not be a number one priority for libertaria...

Ron Paul is Wrong; Mitt Romney is Right!

"Ron Paul does not believe we went into Iraq because of 9/11. But Mitt Romney obviously believes we did. So who’s right?" ~Gary Benoit The strained arguments of some libertarians that Dwight Eisenhower is somehow responsible for the 9/11 attack in New York is equivalent to arguing that President James Buchanan was responsible for the Mountain Meadows Massacre of the Baker-Fancher emigrant party on 9/11 in Utah. It is truth in the sense we are all responsible for everything in our world. This is a very valuable truth, wouldn't you say? The twisted leftist argument is that Islamic Jihadists would not have declared war on Western societies if it hadn't been for Western government policies reaching back through the years. But anyone who studies the Koran knows this argument is bullshit. The Koran demands that war be waged on "infidels" until everyone on earth is either converted to Islam, enslaved by Islamists, or killed. Mitt Romney is right. The United States...

Jesus Christ & Ayn Rand: Brother & Sister

It is far too easy (intellectually lazy) to conclude that Jesus Christ and Ayn Rand are miles apart in what they teach. Nothing is further from the truth. It is only necessary to juxtapose the words of Ayn Rand with the words of Jesus to see they teach exactly the same. Ayn Rand summarizes her teaching this way: "My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute." — Ayn Rand, Appendix to Atlas Shrugged Let's look at the words of Jesus Christ regarding these four elements: 1. heroic being, 2. happiness as purpose, 3. productiveness, and 4. reason as absolute. Let's start with the idea that man must choose to be a heroic being. Here is how Jesus Christ says it: Be not content with littleness, but be sure you understand what littleness is, and why you could never BE content with it. Littleness is the offering you ...