Is there hope for freedom zealots in politics?
We all know polls and surveys can be hopelessly misleading. Their results depend on who is being asked, what is being asked, how it is being asked, when and where it is being asked, even the mindset of the one asking. A logical person never chooses to base actions on poll results. "Objective" surveys vs. "Push" polls is actually a false dichotomy. All surveys and polls might just as well be called "pulls" because they all pull answers from respondents to some degree or another according to their creator's way of categorizing the world.
That said, we don't need a poll or survey to know that Ron Paul's ideas voiced in numerous public speeches as well as television debates aired nationwide have vastly increased the influence of libertarian ideas within the Republican Party. No such wild fire as the Ron Paul fervor could have spread before 2011.
This year the Republican Liberty Caucus, chaired by libertarian Representative Justin Amash of Michigan, led at least 35 libertarian-leaning Congress members in campaigning among fellow Republicans for the leadership candidacy of libertarian Representative Paul Labrador of Idaho. Nothing remotely like this could have occurred in Congress before 2014.
Now we see arising new opportunities for spreading the freedom message. In various states, high level candidates of one of the major parties (which truthful men and women call the Dictatorship Party) have called for Libertarian Party candidates to be included in their state-wide debates because they imagine libertarian debaters will not suck voters away from their own party, but rather from the Republican Party, the only other party that can beat them in an election. The Dictators recognize the Republican Party's growing libertarian element, and they are thinking "divide and conquer."
But the Dictatorship Party cannot gain from this "allow them in debates" strategy. With two doctrinaire ideologues on the stage, the Dictator and the Libertarian, the contrast will be obvious and the Dictator will no longer be able to disguise his or her dictatorship mentality. At the same time, any mediocre Republican on the stage will shy away from sounding like the Dictator and will thus create a vacuum on the stage into which the Libertarian's view will flood. A voter listening to the debate might enjoy most of what the Libertarian is saying (because mankind's deep inner spirit rejoices over freedom) but will then likely end up voting for the Republican who by now looks less dangerous than the Dictator (and who actually has a chance to win the election).
But libertarians would not have lost (provided they don't sabotage themselves on stage). The overall result of such debates is: the true nature of the Dictatorship Party has been more exposed, the Republican Party has considered some new ideological possibilities, and the Libertarian Party is no longer seen so much as an immature fringe association of idealists who are out-of-touch with reality.
Of course if history is any indicator, Libertarians refraining from sabotaging themselves might be a lot to hope for. But it has to be assumed that the Dictatorship Party wants Libertarians on the debate stage who might actually draw votes away from the other major party, so would not propose such debates in races where the Libertarian candidate was obviously head-in-the-sand or inarticulate. So is there hope?
Those who have been in rapport with the libertarian movement for many years have often been astounded at the Libertarian Party's mind-boggling propensity for reaching the heights of political self-sabotage. Yet the muses of freedom rejoice over progress on the heels of Ron Paul's two recent presidential runs, and in the wake of the Republican Liberty Caucus of Justin Amash and Paul Labrador.
Unlike the Dictatorship Party's message which is guaranteed failure except with lies, trickery, and highly charismatic demagogues, the freedom movement's message washes less charismatic but honest messengers along in its tide. The promise of freedom wields great sweeping power.
For example, Jesus Christ stated (in a wholly unrelated context): "Remind yourself that you are making a declaration of independence in the name of your own freedom. And in your freedom lies the freedom of the world." Even those who haven't the slightest idea of what Jesus is really talking about can read such a statement and feel the infinite motive power of mankind's desire for freedom.
By the way, those lucky ones who do have an inkling of what Jesus is talking about would read the original question of this article and laugh. And while still smiling, they would reply happily: "Why ask about hope, when there is certainty?"
To fully grasp how insane the psychology of modern "liberal progressives" really is, read Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged."
"God's laws will keep your minds at peace, because peace IS His Will, and His laws are established to uphold it. His are the laws of freedom, but yours are the laws of bondage. Since freedom and bondage are irreconcilable, their laws CANNOT BE UNDERSTOOD TOGETHER. The laws of God work only for your good, and there ARE no other laws beside His. Everything else is merely lawLESS, and therefore chaotic." -Jesus Christ in A Course in Miracles