Wow, you are paying attention. But, hmm, so much fallacy in your post that I’m sure, on reflection, you’ll recognize.
Poli-sci is not economics. I didn’t say it was a commie plot, rather I said most poli-sci courses I took were from far left profs. I do recall a Straussian one, probably a proto-neo-con.
Mostly, though, this IPR dialog is not an academic exercise. It is surprisingly scintillating political conversation that we might have engaged in at the corner bars in decades past. I and many here use shorthand terms and spellings. We don’t proofread and we’re not subject to peer review.
During the election, I was watching some Jones youtubes, mostly because it seemed relevant to the rise of Trump. I liked hearing from Roger Stone directly, and provided great insight into Trump, having been on the inside of that campaign. Jones has become unwatchable in recent months for me.
I think it’s safe to say that I am NOT a conspiracy theorist. I watch MSNBC and Fox youtubes, too, mostly as a means to triangulating toward truth. All three invest in profoundly false premises, and for me it’s amusing to hear them and notice that they seem oblivious to the mistakes they make.
Still unwilling to offer me an NAPster alternative?
I’m not terribly concerned by taxonomies employed by poli-sci profs. In my college days, they were either Marxists or far left-liberals, and I generally disagreed with their “scholarly” perspectives.
Bob, you’ve previously claimed you took master level courses instructed by Gordon Tullock. Perhaps your college experience memory is a bit hazy these days, but I assure you that Tullock was neither a left-liberal nor a commie.
FYI: i consider it badge of honor to be called an extremist by anyone who claims the field of political science is a commie plot. Have you been watching a bit too much of Alex Jones lately?
“…heimatsutz national security state…” heimatsutz should be “Heimatschutz” if you mean “Homeland Protection.”
When President Bush announced the creation of the Department of Homeland Security I determined that the original German name is “Heimatsicherheitsdienst.”
In the Third Reich the Security Service was “Sicherheitsdienst.”
In the German Democratic Republic, the State Security Service was “Staatsicherheitsdienst” so clearly Homeland Security Department would be “Heimatsicherheitsdienst.”
If you google it, after a variety of references in libertarian websites is shown, google will take you to the DHS website.
robert capozzi
September 6, 2017
tk,
Never ill will on my part, except maybe in my weakest moments. I note that I sometimes agree with one set of NAPsters on balance and disagree with others. For ex., on Charleson I was totally with PF, and totally opposed to Cantwell, until recently and possibly still is a NAPster. There are some NAPsters who are quite hawkish with whom I disagree. I think it’s fair to say I disagree to some extent with you and AJ on immigration.
Don’t forget that I’m a Randian/Rothbardian in recovery. I once bought the NAP as the One True Way toward liberty. It’s fractured applications might be an opportunity for the radical inquiry into whether it’s a useful standard to view civil society.
Still, I surely don’t want you to be uncomfortable. If the term NAPster triggers you, and you won’t or can’t offer a better descriptor, would NIOFster work better for you?
Well, you’re the one you would know that, since the population of “NAPsters” has nearly 100% overlap with “people in the libertarian movement with whom Robert Capozzi disagrees at any given moment.” Only you can really know whether that nearly 100% overlap is confirmation bias or ill will.
robert capozzi
September 6, 2017
dL: …explaining this a thousand times from political science standpoint, I keep hearing the same “NAPster” broken record from you.
me: Coming at this from another angle, first, I’m not terribly concerned by taxonomies employed by poli-sci profs. In my college days, they were either Marxists or far left-liberals, and I generally disagreed with their “scholarly” perspectives. Second, I use NAPster as short-hand for NAP Adherents because it’s short and it riffs off TK’s Kn@ppster blog. Third, if you don’t like my short-hand, I’ve invited you to offer up another short-hand term that you find less grating. Repeating your objection doesn’t work since you have repeated your whining about my short-hand term for non-obvious reasons.
robert capozzi
September 6, 2017
dL: I’m further amused that opposition to the heimatsutz national security state is somehow an extremist position.
me: I’m really at a loss as to how this is relevant. For me, I don’t like the vibe of the “homeland security” term, but, yes, I would say that overnight abolition of all those functions would qualify as extremist.
We could pass the hat and poll test support for abolishing the Coast Guard, but we all know the result would be highly predictable, gaining maybe 5% support at most. In fact, most asked might think the poll is a joke of some sort! 😉
Anthony Dlugos
September 6, 2017
rc.
“To be fair to our NAPster brothers and sisters, they will not necessarily savage and otherwise ostracize a more moderate L candidate or individual. ”
You are right, they won’t. Those who are genuine in their purity won’t.
robert capozzi
September 6, 2017
ad,
“Purist” doesn’t work for me. It implies that NAPsters are pure and non-NAPsters are impure. This is inaccurate and false.
Anthony Dlugos
September 6, 2017
“Please don’t become the second person on the planet to adopt RC’s “NAPster” delusion. You’ve got enough bizarre delusions running around in your head already.”
I could go back to “Purist.” Would that be better.
I blame the delusions on you getting me hooked on Kentucky straight bourbon. I used to be a rational scotch drinker, like GovWeld and the rest of the Eastern Establishment.
roberrt capozzi
September 6, 2017
tk: RC’s “NAPster” delusion
me: Still waiting for an alternative term, after repeated requests. Feels like ill will to me, but I hope I’m wrong.
Please don’t become the second person on the planet to adopt RC’s “NAPster” delusion. You’ve got enough bizarre delusions running around in your head already.
It amuses and puzzles me that you and many proponents of extremist L-ism seem to be unable to see things as all black or all white. “Principled” full-throated and bombastic vs. finger in the wind.
It amuses me that despite explaining this a thousand times from political science standpoint, I keep hearing the same “NAPster” broken record from you. I’m further amused that opposition to the heimatsutz national security state is somehow an extremist position.
robert capozzi
September 6, 2017
ad,
To be fair to our NAPster brothers and sisters, they will not necessarily savage and otherwise ostracize a more moderate L candidate or individual. As I understand it, so long as the candidate never advocates or implies even qualified support of any aspect of the State and never advocate that any of the State to grow, they will not foam at the mouth. This is not to say that they would be ENTHUSIASTIC about a moderate L candidate, but so long as the NAP plumbline is toed, they will keep their long knives sheathed.
Emblematic of this is the “governments — when instituted — ” clause in the SoP. “When instituted” needed to be inserted to avoid the implication that nonarchy is not an option, iirc.
It all gets quite tortured, but such is the nature of the LM-osphere.
Anthony Dlugos
September 6, 2017
A possible explanation is that for the according to the NAPster (and other) dogmatist mindset, holding high the banner of “principle” is itself a “win.”
Not only is that a possible explanation, it is THE explanation, in my opinion. Which is a big problem for any number of reasons when it comes to a political party, not the least of which is that judging success is purely in the eye of the beholder, unconcerned with such philistine concerns like vote totals.
I would probably be willing to just let the NAP-ster/radical set have the 2020 nomination, if they would be willing to abide by the vote total result and either agree to take a pragmatic stance going forward, or leave (and I would be willing to accept the same deal).
But that would be pointless, because they could always default to “well, 300,000 votes is okay, because it was the right message!”
“This Angrytarian attitude opens the door to the Cantwells, Invictuses, and Spencers, who (probably unconsciously) are in it less to win and more to raise their fists in anger, in public and with pronounced and vocal self-righteousness.”
100% correct. NAPsters don’t see this because everything is viewed through the lens of philosophy. The idea that the Cantwells and Invicutses can just lie about their adherence to the philosophy in order to gain the platform doesn’t enter into consideration.
robert capozzi
September 6, 2017
ad: What kind of defeatist thinking is that?
me: A possible explanation is that for the according to the NAPster (and other) dogmatist mindset, holding high the banner of “principle” is itself a “win.” Spouting out unfiltered utopianisms, I suspect, is supremely satisfying to them. Indeed, actual winning elections (or even acting AS IF you are running to win) represents proof that of Libertarian-lite-ness. This rains on the NAPster parade, where defiant, neck-vein-bulging is the goal.
This Angrytarian attitude opens the door to the Cantwells, Invictuses, and Spencers, who (probably unconsciously) are in it less to win and more to raise their fists in anger, in public and with pronounced and vocal self-righteousness.
They don’t seem interested in truth, which for me is the higher principle.
Anthony Dlugos
September 6, 2017
“Hmmm, I recall the term “moonbat” being a popular slur in the early 2000s to describe those who opposed the Iraq War. Well, the moonbat position was the correct one. And if one supported that war at the time merely on the basis of overton window optics, one would have no credibility on any anti-war position today.”
In the matter of public accommodations, the equivalent moonbat position would not be opposition to the Iraq War. It would be to respond to the decision to go into Iraq by arguing to disband the military and turn defense over to the free market and private defense firms. Which, again, might be an interesting avenue for, say, a think tank, but not for a political party.
“Overton window==stick your finger in the fucking wind. That may work for a major party candidate. But that’s farting in the wind for a 3rd party.”
That’s good to know, because I don’t want to be a 3rd party. What kind of defeatist thinking is that?
robert capozzi
September 6, 2017
dL,
It amuses and puzzles me that you and many proponents of extremist L-ism seem to be unable to see things as all black or all white. “Principled” full-throated and bombastic vs. finger in the wind.
It runs counter to life. People make adjustments in how they behave. Appropriate locker room behavior contrasts with funeral behavior contrasts with al child’s birthday party, etc. I would think NAPsters and dogmatists recognize the concept of appropriate behavior, except, apparently, when it comes to politics.
Hmmm, I recall the term “moonbat” being a popular slur in the early 2000s to describe those who opposed the Iraq War. Well, the moonbat position was the correct one. And if one supported that war at the time merely on the basis of overton window optics, one would have no credibility on any anti-war position today.
Overton window==stick your finger in the fucking wind. That may work for a major party candidate. But that’s farting in the wind for a 3rd party. The only thing of substance that wind farts will produce is skid marks…
robert capozzi
September 5, 2017
tk: The Overton Window, like all windows, is opened from its edge.
me: 100%.
The edge, not the moon! 😉
robert capozzi
September 5, 2017
cm: Again, if your yardstick for success is winning, then Obama and George W. Bush are great libertarians.
me: I don’t have a “yardstick.” BHO and GWB were not Ls in my book as neither seemed interested in advancing liberty and shrinking the State.
I was pleased to see RP1 doing well for a while in the R prez nom races. I was profoundly disappointed by his handling of NewsletterGate1.0 and 2.0, and there are aspects of Paul-ism that I find off-key on many levels.
I was pleased to see GJ run a reasonably professional campaign with an often compelling message.
One key to success that some point to is the willingness to take risks and experiment with different approaches. Applied NAPsterism might work under the right conditions, I suppose, but my sense is its obvious theoretical flaws lead to almost certain failure.
robert capozzi
September 5, 2017
aj: Robert Capozzi, did Gary Johnson win the presidential election by giving mealy mouthed, watered down, and in some cases, anti-libertarian, answers to questions?
me: Obviously not. I disagreed with some of GJ’s positions, if you recall. I didn’t find the “mealy mouthed” or “watered down,” though. Those are your words and your characterization. I would never expect a campaign — especially a third party one — to be 100% in line with my views. I would never expect a third party candidate to win, either. To me, though, I’d like to see a well-balanced campaign that acts as if it COULD win.
aj: Ron Paul did not win the Republican presidential nomination, but he did win the hearts and minds of a lot of people over to the cause of liberty.
me: I have tremendous respect for RP1. Like GJ, he takes positions I don’t agree with. I would have voted for him had he secured the R nomination, and I did vote for him in 88.
I also appreciate adult conversation, and it’s really important to be clear-eyed about some of his associations with unsavory characters and how this Hater, Racist Right nonsense has infected the reputation of the LM.
—–
Here’s a good place to start: the property rights of homophobic bakers are getting kicked down to the bottom of the to-do list. They’ll have to wait. Period. I am truly sorry for the honestly religious baker who is going to have to bake a cake for someone they hate, but they should have been helping us every day of the past 45 years, up to and including today, when OTHER people’s property rights were being infringed upon. I have sympathy for their situation. Actually, I don’t They should have been helping. Now they’ll have to wait.
—-
Actually, no, they won’t. The Supreme Court will be taking up their case next month.
The LP doesn’t get to decide which issues are important. It just gets to decide whether to be right or wrong on those issues. And being wrong on those issues is wrong from a marketing standpoint as well. Lying about what we are will NEVER fool people into voting for us because they think we’re something else.
The Overton Window, like all windows, is opened from its edge.
Andy, anyone who has been paying attention has long since stopped following any of your whackadoodle troofer tin foil hat links. When I read your comments (which I rarely do and always regret), I end my reading with your actual words.
The Ron Paul campaign continued to gain steam while remaining libertarian on message. Again, if your yardstick for success is winning, then Obama and George W. Bush are great libertarians.
Andy
September 5, 2017
Robert Capozzi, did Gary Johnson win the presidential election by giving mealy mouthed, watered down, and in some cases, anti-libertarian, answers to questions?
Ron Paul did not win the Republican presidential nomination, but he did win the hearts and minds of a lot of people over to the cause of liberty. Ron Paul has done more than anyone else in this regard.
robert capozzi
September 5, 2017
cm: “Ron Paul answered tough questions on heroin legalization in Republican presidential debates without running away from libertarian principles.”
Me: And?
Did he get the nomination? Has there been a mass consciousness shift on the issue? Did it somehow create an inflection point where tens of millions of minds are now wanting liberty in their lifetimes?
Nope.
He did meet Richard Spencer in that timeframe, I do believe. It doesn’t seem like much of a consolation prize!! 😉
Andy
September 5, 2017
Why can’t pompous jackass Chuck Moulton actually read the comment and see that I cut and pasted the YouTube description that was posted by That Guy T, aka-Taleed Brown, who is the person who made and posted that video, and who is also the person who posted that description where he mentioned that he is black, in the comment that I cut and pasted from him from YouTube?
The relevance of the quote is that it has been alleged that one must be a racist/”white supremist” if one opposes anti-discrimination laws, yet That Guy T, aka-Taleed Brown, correctly takes the same position.
Anthony, clearly you have not been listening to LP moderates, who have been telling radicals for decades that we need to back off drug legalization and only talk about medical marijuana.
It’s always the same refrain: not the right time for liberty… pretend we are centrists to get elected, then we can govern like libertarians — except if they get elected they need to keep shying away from libertarianism so they can get re-elected. The time for embracing liberty always seems to be in the future if moderates have anything to say about it.
I’m with Barry Goldwater: extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.
Anthony Dlugos
September 5, 2017
“Ron Paul answered tough questions on heroin legalization in Republican presidential debates without running away from libertarian principles.”
Public opinion is moving closer to drug re-legalization. Proposing an end to drug prohibition is in no way the political suicide that would come with arguing for the rights of a racist restaurants to put a “no n**ggers allowed sign” in the window.
Philosophically, they are obviously the same. However, electoral politics has to account for the frame of reference of the voters, and the limited time frame of an electoral campaign. The voters you don’t lose on the issue itself (which includes the ones who misunderstand the libertarian position), you will lose via their realization that you have no intention of speaking to their issues of importance at the given moment and would rather engage in flights of philosophical fancy that tell them you’re not serious about the office itself, because not even the President, let alone any lower office, has within himself or herself the power to overturn decades of legal precedents and who knows how many laws and institute by unilateral decree an immediate regime of absolute property rights. How exactly could a president accomplish this? For one thing, who are the judges he could nominate to federal benches that would hold such an extreme position on property rights? They don’t exist.
At least Vermin Supreme’s “free pony for everyone” has a sense of whimsy.
cm: less time coming up with excuses to embrace statism and abandon principle.
me: The Stiff Arm tactic does not, as I see it, “embrace statism.” It would be fairer to say that it avoids getting bogged down in gotcha questions where there is virtually no chance for highly theoretical destinational goals that some Ls seem fascinated with. I don’t feel in any way Unprincipled when employing a Stiff Arm.
Then, again, I’m more interested in truth first and progress second than I am in engaging in academic speculation in public. Nothing per se “wrong” with such speculation, but it seems to have almost nothing to do with rolling back the State.
I completely agree with Starchild. You can answer tough questions about libertarian policies without denying the LP 3 times like Judas.
Less Antman is one of many masters of pivoting tough questions into principled answers without sounding inhumane or rascist. Libertarians should spend more time learning how to defend and promote liberty, less time coming up with excuses to embrace statism and abandon principle.
Why does whackadoodle Andy keep mentioning that people who agree with him on a given position are black?
robert capozzi
September 5, 2017
dL: Well, it gets me a bit bracing when I read the optics of a thing is the only criterion for justice.
me: I’m sorry if you have the impression that optics is the only consideration, although I’m not sure how you came to that conclusion.
A holistic lessarchist approach would be to assess where progress can be made toward maximizing social peace and liberty, including where the optics work to our advantage, tabling them where they are to our disadvantage, where we are likely to garner the most support, and where the interests against enhanced liberty are currently insurmountable.
dL: If its any consolation, I don’t consider being forced to do what you already doing to be the worst type of libertarian violation, given that one is being fairly compensated for doing it. However, the means of accomplishing it, in this case, an expansionist use of the commerce clause, leads to a plethora of new injustices.
me: Yes, if I understand your point, I agree. Since all laws and their enforcement (or even reparations!) are imperfect and prone to collateral unintended consequences, all we can do is exercise our best judgment to press for enhanced liberty in the areas most likely to bear the most fruit.
It gets me a bit bracing for me when I hear the phrase “the correct L position.” Has a Talmudic/College of Cardinals vibe.
Well, it gets me a bit bracing when I read the optics of a thing is the only criterion for justice.
If its any consolation, I don’t consider being forced to do what you already doing to be the worst type of libertarian violation, given that one is being fairly compensated for doing it. However, the means of accomplishing it, in this case, an expansionist use of the commerce clause, leads to a plethora of new injustices.
Anthony Dlugos
September 5, 2017
That’s why I prefer the more truthful “Look, anyone paying attention can have legitimate concerns about ANY law,” approach followed up with “no I don’t advocate changes at this time.”
This approach stiff-arms the baiting-type questions that have been used to expose Ls as heartless extremists.
Not bad at all.
robert capozzi
September 5, 2017
dL: The correct libertarian position would have been the repeal of the State enforced Jim Crow laws and restitution/reparations for those who were harmed(so, instead, say, a 1964 Civil Reparations Act).
me: I think I’m with you in theory IF reparations and damages could be sorted out. I’m very skeptical that they could be sorted, though.
It gets me a bit bracing for me when I hear the phrase “the correct L position.” Has a Talmudic/College of Cardinals vibe.
That’s why I prefer the more truthful “Look, anyone paying attention can have legitimate concerns about ANY law,” approach followed up with “no I don’t advocate changes at this time.”
This approach stiff-arms the baiting-type questions that have been used to expose Ls as heartless extremists.
I can’t say this is the “correct” position, but I do think it would work much better in a political context. It states the obvious: no law is perfect. It recognizes that in politics ideas need to be prioritized and ripened. Even NAPsters (I don’t think) can really object to the Stiff Arm.
The Stiff Arm avoids the gotchas. It positions a L as reasonable but it also doesn’t alienate those who have concerns about things like the CRA and other toxic subjects. And, wonderfully for me at least, it is true.
Anthony Dlugos writes in part (September 4, 2017 at 10:25):
“I didn’t say it was impossible to be principled and be involved in electoral politics. I am principled. I have the right principles for advocating the reduction of the size and scope of government and increasing individual liberty in the realm of electoral politics…”
Anthony, I appreciate your kind words about me (September 4, 2017 at 19:49), and I have no grounds to call you unprincipled or reason to doubt your good intentions. However I confess I don’t know what your political principles are. Compromising in order to cobble together electoral majorities of 50%+1 vote is a strategy, not a principle. Where laws exist, what do you think they should ideally say when it comes to freedom of association?
“In the face of a qualified, moderate Libertarian candidate, the representative of radical libertarianism ends up with 7% of the delegates.”
That’s a misleading observation. Darryl Perry didn’t get a small share of the delgates’ votes at the 2016 LP convention because the delegates disagreed with what he was saying. He got probably more passionate applause than Gary Johnson did, and I think most of the people in that room understood public policy ought, with few if any exceptions, to be based on the Non-Aggression Principle.
I believe Gary Johnson was nominated for multiple interrelated reasons, but I’m pretty sure one major reason is that delegates based their decisions more on who they believed would appeal to others (primarily the media) than on which candidate’s positions best reflected their own. In other words, they voted using the same kind of thinking that led millions of people to vote for Clinton or Trump despite realizing they really would have rather had Johnson in office than either of them!
If we want voters to vote Libertarian in public elections, we in the LP need to set a good example by voting for who we believe is best, not who we think other people will like. When people vote based on how they expect other people to vote, election outcomes will fail the test of wisdom by not reflecting our best judgements, and they will fail the test of democracy by not reflecting the actual opinions of the electorate.
“…your principles are not well-suited for electoral politics. They ignore the plain facts of current voter preference in favor of advocating for a particular set of set-in-stone policy prescription, never to be adjusted based on current political conditions.”
I’m not sure how different our actual principles are. Obviously our approaches are different. My approach is to be honest and not try to mislead voters. Not to make people think, for instance, that I only want to decriminalize marijuana when really I want people to have the freedom to put whatever they want into their own bodies, harmful or not, without being criminalized for those choices.
This doesn’t mean I’m “ignoring” the (often highly nuanced and not-so-plain) facts of current voter preferences, and it doesn’t mean I won’t support decriminalizing marijuana when that’s the proposal on the table (assuming it’s a “clean” proposal, and not something like California’s Prop. 64 or worse!). Radicals will usually support incremental steps in the right direction, so long as these steps do not involve violating our principles or harming the chances for further progress. It just means that I will push to make sure what’s on the table is as pro-freedom as possible, and not pretend anything less than a free world is my goal.
“I know, you’re going to argue how to explain said absolute property rights in a thirty-second answer in the midst of a 6-month campaign in a way that distills a mountain of libertarian argumentation going back decades, and I am telling you that this is absurd and you’re not that good, I’m not that good, no one in this party is that good. Given their current frame of reference, voters are just gonna look at us as a bunch of enablers for racists [if we tell the truth about freedom of association]”
If a candidate frames their responses to questions about freedom of association in a way that supports the rights of people to take a stand against offensive bigotry, it’s going to be difficult to frame him or her as an enabler of racism, and responding this way is not hard to do.
For instance if someone asks our candidate, “Should a homophobic baker be legally compelled to bake a cake for a customer who wants it for his gay wedding?”, the candidate might respond by turning it around and asking, “Should a gay baker be legally compelled to bake a cake for a customer who wants it for celebrating Hitler’s birthday? I say no, what do you say?” If the interviewer tries to press the question, the candidate can say, “My support for freedom of association should be clear from the example I gave. Please don’t try to force me to answer the question in a way that would be used to falsely make me look bigoted when I am not.”
The key is to simply refuse to use the interviewer’s biased question as the measure by which the right of freedom of association should be evaluated.
Also, if a candidate has strong, anti-bigoted positions on other culturally sensitive issues – passionately condemning the “War on Drugs”, police abuses against minorities, anti-immigrant policies, etc., it will be difficult to convincingly smear him or her as a bigot even if s/he were to answer the “cake” question or some similar query exactly as asked.
Well, if you are arguing w/ bigots, alt-right apologists or emasculated, victimized snowflakes, forever…or at least until white Jesus returns…whichever event happens first.
me: Well framed. NAPsters generally won’t address this sort of clarity head on, because they have enough self-awareness and political savvy to recognize how fatal this position is. They often attempt a pivot, but there of course is no effective way to pivot on the matter.
1) 1964 Civil Rights Act
The correct libertarian position would have been the repeal of the State enforced Jim Crow laws and restitution/reparations for those who were harmed(so, instead, say, a 1964 Civil Reparations Act). Although libertarians believe that voluntary nondiscrimination is a desirable, socially optimal outcome, we don’t support the positive law of an expansive interpretation of the commerce clause to enforce this outcome because this invites the same legal treatment of humans as property a la the very Jim Crow laws that supposedly were being remedied. You are correcting an injustice by promoting another injustice. So yes, the 1964 Civil Rights Act(or at least some parts of it) is an example of “activist, liberal government,” Mr. O’Donnell, but the “New Jim Crow,” the drug War, is legally sanctioned by the same principle that sanctioned parts of the 1964 Civil rights Act. So your “activist, positive law, liberal government” that you defend is now and has been imprisoning minorities at a rate that exceeded apartheid South Africa. So unless you think that minorities are simply much more disposed to be criminals by nature, you must conclude that your precious “activist, positive law, federal government” sanctions a racist legal regime.
Andy
September 4, 2017
“Anthony Dlugos
September 4, 2017 at 21:58
‘You act as though this was the first time that a Libertarian Party candidate ever got asked any difficult questions. Libertarians have been asked difficult and controversial questions in interviews for years.’
Andy, your conspiracy theory nutteries and wackadoodle political philosophy gives you the sense of perspective of a drunken sailor. Harry Browne was a virtual nobody,”
Harry Browne was just one example of a Libertarian getting asked difficult and controversial questions in interviews. The fact of the matter is that Harry Browne was on several TV shows, and multiple radio shows, and he was asked all kinds of questions, some on controversial topics, and he always gave a libertarian answer, and he never sounded stupid or uninformed.
“and Ron Paul’s only actual presidential run was ignored. His runs for the GOP nomination simply weren’t as high profile as a town hall for an atual presidential nominee. Not to mention the fact that I don’t recall him ever getting asked the sort of controversial question I suggested…specifically about a hypothetical racist restaurant. In any case, Ron Paul’s newsletters pretty much gave everyone the idea he was perhaps a closet racist anyway, whether that was true or not.”
Here is an interview Ron Paul did with black comedian, DL Hughley, where Hughley talks about how Ron Paul won him over after Ron Paul answered a controversial question about the Civil War.
from press release: Rachel Maddow asked whether the 1964 Civil Rights Act properly outlawed racial segregation at privately owned lunch counters.
me: Possible lessarchist answer: Proper? Look, anyone paying attention can have legitimate concerns about ANY law. The Constitution once supported slavery, and our nation had the good sense to change the Constitution. Jim Crow laws were overturned, and that’s a good thing. Could the 64 CRA been written better? Absolutely. Do I advocate changing it? No, no I don’t, but I do look forward to the day when it is utterly irrelevant.
Anthony Dlugos
September 4, 2017
“Also, from talking to random members of the public who saw the Stossel debates last year, I heard more positive feedback about Austin Petersen and John McAfee than I did about Gary Johnson.”
Must have been people in drug-induced psychosis. Anyway, your 35-year old blogger (funny Andy defends a guy who is now a republican), and your Belizean murder suspect together ended up receiving fewer delegates than Johnson on both votes anyway so who cares?
Anthony Dlugos
September 4, 2017
“You act as though this was the first time that a Libertarian Party candidate ever got asked any difficult questions. Libertarians have been asked difficult and controversial questions in interviews for years.”
Andy, your conspiracy theory nutteries and wackadoodle political philosophy gives you the sense of perspective of a drunken sailor. Harry Browne was a virtual nobody, and Ron Paul’s only actual presidential run was ignored. His runs for the GOP nomination simply weren’t as high profile as a town hall for an atual presidential nominee. Not to mention the fact that I don’t recall him ever getting asked the sort of controversial question I suggested…specifically about a hypothetical racist restaurant. In any case, Ron Paul’s newsletters pretty much gave everyone the idea he was perhaps a closet racist anyway, whether that was true or not.
This is what would ACTUALLY happen if the news media sinks its teeth into someone standing their ground on an absolute property rights defense, or something similar. And mind you, this wasn’t only a senatorial primary, not a presidential campaign:
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS — Fresh from his victory in last week’s Kentucky Republican senatorial primary, Rand Paul found himself caught in a whirlwind when MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow asked whether the 1964 Civil Rights Act properly outlawed racial segregation at privately owned lunch counters. Speaking circuitously if not evasively, Mr. Paul finally said:
“[O]ne of the things freedom requires is that we allow people to be boorish and uncivilized. But that doesn’t mean we approve of it.”
So although he supports striking down segregationist state Jim Crow laws, he objected to Title II of the Act, outlawing racial discrimination in “public accommodations.” “Had I been around I would have tried to modify that,” he said.
—>However, after a torrent of media and blogospheric criticism, he changed course,<— telling CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, “I would have voted yes…. I think that there was an overriding problem in the South, so big that it did require federal intervention in the sixties.”
Andy
September 4, 2017
Anthony Dlugos said: “he has no idea the hell we would be in if Governor Johnson had answered the Bake The Cake Question with an absolute defense of property rights, then doubled down on that in a high profile cable tv Town Hall event by defending the same absolute property rights of racist restaurant owners. (He surely would hear the same question in EVERY subsequent interview, asked in a hundred different ways. Weld would have long since left the ticket. It would be a descent into madness. NAPsters have the ironic benefit that they generally have no audience outside of other Libertarians listening to them. Skilled reporters would have skewered them so effectively, they end up in the witness protection program.)”
You act as though this was the first time that a Libertarian Party candidate ever got asked any difficult questions. Libertarians have been asked difficult and controversial questions in interviews for years. I have a VHS tape buried away in a box that has some of Harry Browne’s TV appearances from his 2000 campaign, and in two of them, he was hounded by by Hannity & Colmes and in the other one by Bill O’Reilly. Ron Paul was asked difficult questions on controversial topics when he ran for President in the Republican primaries in 2008 and in 2012. The fact of the matter is that other candidates handled the difficult questions on controversial topics better than Gary Johnson did. Getting asked difficult questions on controversial topics is not a reason for Libertarian candidates to shy away from libertarianism, it is a reason to get candidates who are more capable of giving well reasoned, principled libertarian answers to these questions than Gary Johnson was.
Also, from talking to random members of the public who saw the Stossel debates last year, I heard more positive feedback about Austin Petersen and John McAfee than I did about Gary Johnson.
Anthony Dlugos
September 4, 2017
That’s okay. Unlike you, I’m not on a witch hunt determining everyone’s purity level.
I briefly met Governor Weld in Orlando, and I shook his hand all I said was, “Welcome aboard.” He said thanks and that was it.
Later, I witnessed someone who certainly WOULD pass your test yelling at him like a deranged lunatic.
Andy
September 4, 2017
Anthony Dlugos said: ” I know that his dedication to an uncompromising libertarianism is genuine…which is more than I can say for Woods and even Stapleton.”
This coming from a guy who supports Bill Weld. Not exactly a credible person for determining libertarian purity.
Video description from YouTube: “That Guy T
Published on May 12, 2014
A black guy against anti-discrimination laws… Only in Obama’s America right? lol :p”
Andy
September 4, 2017
Robert Capozzi, a private restaurant owner should have the right to put up such a sign.
The response to this that can get those horrified by such an idea to come around to the libertarian side is by asking why one would you want to patronize this restaurant.
Sure, some people may like this or may not care, but a restaurant that has such a policy is obviously going to lose some customers.
The solution is to spend your money at a restaurant that does not have this policy.
Anthony Dlugos
September 4, 2017
RCapozzi,
I do honestly appreciate the thoughtful and impassioned responses Starchild gave me in this thread. I only know him via reputation and on this site, but as sure as the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, I know that his dedication to an uncompromising libertarianism is genuine…which is more than I can say for Woods and even Stapleton.
But that devotion blinds some to political reality. I think a lot of the NAPsters don’t have the political savvy you refer to, so dedicated are they to the NAP and radical libertarianism. They honestly think a candidate CAN pivot with regard to the public accommodations/private property rights issue.
To say that ignores the history of the Jim Crow South doesn’t even begin to scratch the surface of the problem.
In any event, if Starchild thinks the LP has a problem now with connections to the alt-right, extreme conservatives, and disaffected republicans in general, he has no idea the hell we would be in if Governor Johnson had answered the Bake The Cake Question with an absolute defense of property rights, then doubled down on that in a high profile cable tv Town Hall event by defending the same absolute property rights of racist restaurant owners. (He surely would hear the same question in EVERY subsequent interview, asked in a hundred different ways. Weld would have long since left the ticket. It would be a descent into madness. NAPsters have the ironic benefit that they generally have no audience outside of other Libertarians listening to them. Skilled reporters would have skewered them so effectively, they end up in the witness protection program.)
In that case, we wouldn’t even have the saving grace that no one would be watching or the “out” that the candidate saying it was an insignificant peon running for a peon office. The blow to both Johnson and the LP itself would be possibly fatal.
Then again, he wouldn’t be Governor Johnson if he ever thought to handle that question in a NAP-pure way anyway.
robert capozzi
September 4, 2017
ad: the NEXT question would have been about whether or not a white restaurant owner in Mississippi could put up a “No N**gers Allowed” sign in his window, and had he stuck to absolute property rights AGAIN, the campaign would have been OVER, period.
me: Well framed. NAPsters generally won’t address this sort of clarity head on, because they have enough self-awareness and political savvy to recognize how fatal this position is. They often attempt a pivot, but there of course is no effective way to pivot on the matter.
Anthony Dlugos
September 4, 2017
“But in conclusion Anthony, if you don’t agree with anything else I say here, please consider this: If you believe it is impossible to be principled, and agitate for freedom and justice while involved in electoral politics, and that to get anything done within it, you must compromise your good beliefs and limit yourself to short-term thinking, for the sake of the movement please don’t involve or concern yourself with electoral politics, and instead focus on the areas of life in which you believe you can do the right thing.”
I didn’t say it was impossible to be principled and be involved in electoral politics. I am principled. I have the right principles for advocating the reduction of the size and scope of government and increasing individual liberty in the realm of electoral politics, an arena where the frame of reference of the voters matters. I will continue to concern myself with electoral politics, because my principles involve accounting for voter preference in designing libertarian solutions.
You are also principled. However, your principles are not well-suited for electoral politics. They ignore the plain facts of current voter preference in favor of advocating for a particular set of set-in-stone policy prescription, never to be adjusted based on current political conditions. As I have noted multiple times, this is an admirable stance to take in other arenas of activism. However, the overwhelming evidence of politics dictates its wholly inapplicable in the arena of electoral politics. The fact that your models that the Libertarian Party should look to are MLK Jr, Ghandi, and even Bernie Sanders just demonstrates that you are looking to outliers in an arena of competition that rewards cobbling together majorities, roughly speaking, of 50% + 1 vote.
So I offer you the same advice: if ignoring the revealed preference of voters and advocating for immutable principles of right and wrong are principles that drive your work, please don’t involve or concern yourself with electoral politics, and instead focus on the areas of life in which you believe you can do the right thing.
I’m not sure exactly what your two examples (the gay bar example and the NAACP example) are supposed to be suggesting to me. All I know is this: had Governor Johnson answered the “Bake the Cake” question in the way you argue, I with ABSOLUTE certainty…as Governor Johnson did as well…that he would have surely been asked the same question in one of his cable tv Town Halls, and had he stuck to an absolute property rights defense, the NEXT question would have been about whether or not a white restaurant owner in Mississippi could put up a “No N**gers Allowed” sign in his window, and had he stuck to absolute property rights AGAIN, the campaign would have been OVER, period. And the Libertarian Party would simply be viewed, best case scenario, as totally out of touch, and worst case scenario, condoning racist behavior. There would have been no way for Governor Johnson, given the time constraints involved in a campaign for public office and current revealed preference of voters, to talk his way out of that corner. No way at all. Understanding this, as I do, is NOT a lack of principles, it demonstrates a DIFFERENT set of principles than your’s. It comes from a humility about what is possible in the midst of a campaign for public office.
By the same token, digging in your heels on the property rights issue does NOT mean you are more principled, it means you are applying a set of principles wholly inappropriate for the setting of electoral politics, because it ignores, by your own admission, where voters are right now, and argues…nonsensically. I might add… that a thirty second answer on a cable t.v. Town Hall, advocating for absolute property rights is gonna do anything other than convince voters that they are looking at a racist or a racist enabler. That’s not humility about the limits the arena set on us. Frankly speaking, its a form of audacity that does far more harm than good and is a flat-out refusal to understand where voters and potential voters are at right now.
“You seem to have a very narrow view of what a political party can do…”
Yes, I do. Electoral politics is not an arena for radical change. But that’s okay. Even tiny changes can have HUGE positive impacts in this arena. That’s the good news. The decriminalization of marijuana across the country, a tiny step in the right direction of full drug prohibition repeal, would have monumental positive effects.
“Obsessing over how others see you is not the best way for a political party (or any other group or individual, really) to get a positive reputation. The best way to get a positive reputation is to conduct oneself in such a manner as to deserve one.”
Obsessing? No one is obsessing. I’m merely suggesting we account for it. If you’re arguing that GovJohnson should have answered the Bake The Cake question in the Petersen way, you’re suggesting we ignore it completely. Oh, I know, you’re going to argue how to explain said absolute property rights in a thirty-second answer in the midst of a 6-month campaign in a way that distills a mountain of libertarian argumentation going back decades, and I am telling you that this is absurd and you’re not that good, I’m not that good, no one in this party is that good. Given their current frame of reference, voters are just gonna look at us as a bunch of enablers for racists. (Again, at best).
“Yes, he [Invictus] said we should have nominated the polished, conservative-leaning Austin Petersen, who has now gone over to the GOP, not the radical candidate Darryl Perry.”
You’re right, he didn’t suggest we should have nominated Perry.
The party has been around for 46 years. Libertarianism as a philosophy has bloomed fully in this country since then. Multiple think tanks, media outlets, blogs, podcasters; countless campaigns all over the country, including a dozen Presidential campaigns, untold numbers of volunteers going out into this country in various venues, advocating for the LP and libertarian solutions; letters to the editor, calls to talk shows, appearances on t.v, and in public office debates.
All this, and, when you distill all that down, and at the other end of the pot still, out comes a room in Orlando of 1,000 of the most dedicated Libertarians in the country, the most knowledgeable libertarians around, the most likely to know of and thus be amenable to a radical formulation of libertarianism…what do we find? In the face of a qualified, moderate Libertarian candidate, the representative of radical libertarianism ends up with 7% of the delegates. 7%. The idea that such radicalism would play better in the population at large is…willful ignorance.
Anyway, my point is that you will forgive me if I don’t see that the solution to the incursion of the alt-reich into our midst is to define libertarianism so narrowly and so radically that it appeals to just 7% of a room full of actual party members.
That must be the ultimate example of cutting off our nose to spite our face.
My previous post got too long for IPR’s rules apparently (first time I think I’ve reached that barrier!), so the second part of my response to Anthony Dlugos is continued here…
I’ll remind you: when Invictus gave us his fare-thee-well speech, he made it a point to suggest we should have nominated Petersen, who DID make it a point to say Governor Johnson should have answered the question the way you suggest he should have. He knows the surest way to run himself and his crew out of the party is for us present a moderated Libertarian message emanating from a party that makes winning a priority.
Yes, he said we should have nominated the polished, conservative-leaning Austin Petersen, who has now gone over to the GOP, not the radical candidate Darryl Perry. Fascists, by the way, also tend to be overly enamored of “strong leaders” and “winners”, so it is natural for them to make winning a priority. I think that’s one reason they’ve tended to embrace Trump instead of trying to build their own independent party.
“Libertarian leadership is about getting out in front of public opinion and moving it in a pro-freedom direction, not just accepting the bulk of the status quo as you find it.”
As I noted, electoral politics is not the place for moving public opinion. Politicians are late adopters, not early adopters. This is fact. If you want to move public opinion in a libertarian direction, (an admirable goal) you’re wasting your time in a political party.
You seem to have a very narrow view of what a political party can do, and little conception of how electoral politics can overlap with other approaches. It may be useful to look overseas, and at history, for some eye-opening examples. The campaign to free India from British rule, for instance:
“A campaign of mass non-cooperation against imperial rule had spread throughout the country, initiated earlier that year when Mohandas Gandhi and approximately 80 followers from his religious community set out on a Salt March protesting the British monopoly on the mineral. Before the campaign was through, more than 60,000 people would be arrested, with as many as 29,000 proudly filling the jails at one time. Among their ranks were many of the most prominent figures from the Indian National Congress, including politicians that had once been reluctant to support nonviolent direct action.”
That article goes on to note some lessons for our own era:
“For people seeking to generate change today, the landscape of social movements can appear fragmented and confusing. Responding to the myriad challenges of racial oppression, economic exploitation and environmental catastrophe, different groups pursue widely varying organizing strategies. Some people work to create mass mobilizations — actions such as the Women’s March, Occupy Wall Street, or large immigrant rights protests — that draw significant public attention, but that can fade away quickly. Others focus on the slow-and-steady work of building long-term institutions, such as unions or political parties. Still other groups foster countercultural communities and alternative institutions outside of the mainstream. Often, there is little contact between groups employing different strategies — and little sense of common purpose.
“However, these different efforts need not see themselves at odds with one another. Movements function best when they recognize diverse roles and find ways to employ the contributions of each in constructive ways. In fact, this can be a key to success…”
“Gandhi is one of the most revered public figures of the 20th century. Yet, for all of his renown, Gandhi’s actual strategies for promoting social change in India are much less known. Some people think of him as a spiritual figure who led through moral persuasion alone. Others have heard of the most famous acts of civil disobedience undertaken by him and his followers, protests that have been celebrated widely and dramatized in Hollywood movies. Still others picture him as a political figure, sitting at the negotiating table across from officers of the British Empire.
“All of these ideas reflect aspects of Gandhi’s political life. However, each portrait by itself is incomplete.
“Gandhi’s methodology for bringing about social transformation was more interesting than any one of these facets suggests. What makes him such a unique figure to examine within the history of social movements is his ability to bring together a variety of different types of organizing. Gandhi was able to cultivate what can be called a healthy ‘ecology of change,’ in which groups with diverse theories and practices for changing their society could each expand the capabilities of the movement as a whole.
“In particular, he united three strains of activity — strains which parallel those present today in the U.S. and beyond: First, large-scale mobilizations that employed nonviolent direct action (what Gandhi called satyagraha). Second, efforts to build a lasting organizational structure (the Indian National Congress) that could influence dominant institutions. And third, the creation of alternatives outside of the mainstream (such as Gandhi’s ashrams and the ‘constructive program’).”
But Gandhi also faced resistance from more politically and culturally conservative elements within organizations like his Congress Party:
“Many members of Congress, particularly those of a more moderate and lawyerly disposition, were distrustful of mass mobilization. Lata Singh describes how these tensions played out in the lead-up to the Non-Cooperation Movement in 1920. In Bihar, senior members of Congress ‘who believed strongly in constitutional methods of struggle opposed [passing a] resolution [to authorize the noncooperation campaign] and expressed strong doubts and apprehensions about the strategy of launching such a movement,’ Singh writes. The resolution only passed after “these senior members had left the meeting in ‘disgust.’’”
“In subsequent decades, even as Congress repeatedly relied on Gandhi for his expertise in galvanizing public sentiment, only a portion of its members would identify as ‘Gandhians.’ Brown argues that many in Congress extended ‘ambivalent and conditional support’ for his nonviolent campaigns, and they were eager to return to constitutional politics as soon as mass mobilizations died down.”(above excerpts from (from https://wagingnonviolence.org/feature/gandhi-strategy-success/)
They lacked Gandhi’s grassroots sensibilities and radical commitment to principle, but his approach worked.
“The last three LP nominees for President were: Barr, Johnson, and Johnson. VP nominees were Root, Gray, and Weld. The party is already operating in a pragmatic, moderated way. If it ever gets larger, this is only going to become more obvious. This is the nature of electoral politics. The only way to stop that would be to turn the party into some other type of organization, where entry is strictly managed, and only those concerned with right and wrong are ‘hired.’”
I’m glad to hear you acknowledge that the LP has been “operating in a pragmatic, moderated way”. Some critics have falsely claimed that radicals have been calling the shots, and accordingly tried to blame radicals for the party not having more success. While our ideology has mostly been fairly balanced between radical anarchists and more moderate supporters of limited government, we have not been radical in our methodology, operations, and tactics, and I believe this has limited the party’s ability to inspire more people, expose more people to the ideas of freedom, and take it to the next level.
We don’t need to stop being a political party in order to fix this problem, we just need to be a different, more outside-the-box kind of political party when it comes to our methods.
“Actually there is, and I’ve already given you two examples, which you ignored in your response.”
What were your two examples?
The owners of a gay bar prohibiting heterosexual (but not homosexual) displays of affection in their establishment, and the NAACP choosing to hire only black employees.
But in conclusion Anthony, if you don’t agree with anything else I say here, please consider this: If you believe it is impossible to be principled, and agitate for freedom and justice while involved in electoral politics, and that to get anything done within it, you must compromise your good beliefs and limit yourself to short-term thinking, for the sake of the movement please don’t involve or concern yourself with electoral politics, and instead focus on the areas of life in which you believe you can do the right thing.
My comments below in plain text, Anthony Dlugos’s in italics, and article excerpts in boldface…
Anthony writes, In electoral politics, given the immutable fact that success is determined by who has the most votes, not by who’s right and who’s wrong; its ALWAYS triage time. What can get done in any given moment is always constrained by the mindset of the voters we are trying to appeal to.
You may be confusing success in conventional terms with success in libertarian terms. Success in libertarian terms means increasing the net amount of freedom in the world. Simply getting someone elected is not a success in libertarian terms unless it translates into advancing the cause of freedom. Those who are narrowly focused on trying to get votes, and are willing to violate principle in order to do so, for instance by throwing the rights of others under the bus when they find it politically convenient, deserve to be viewed with suspicion. In most cases they turn out to be politicians who are more in it for the money, the power, and/or their careers, than for the cause.
“MLK Jr is a good example. He was an activist, not a politician His organization, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, was not a political party, it was an activist organization. His methods and tactics, such as civil disobedience, are essentially useless in electoral politics. Good activist organizations understand this, and specifically AVOID entering electoral politics since they know compromise and short-term thinking is simply unavoidable. The model of MLK Jr, then, is wholly inapplicable to electoral politics.”
MLK is indeed a good example. His vision isn’t inapplicable to electoral politics, but it does encompass a broader and more radical approach to politics than favored by most conventional politicians. Compare his attitude to that of Hillary Clinton, as recounted in a Rolling Stone article from last year (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-martin-luther-king-didnt-run-for-president-20160118):
“One day this past August, Clinton learned Black Lives Matter activists planned to protest one of her campaign appearances in New Hampshire, so she agreed to meet demonstrators backstage. During a roughly 15-minute exchange, the former secretary of state pressured activists to focus on specific policy proposals that might be viable in Congress or in the courts. She argued, ‘I don’t believe you change hearts. I believe you change laws, you change allocation of resources, you change the way systems operate.’
“Her position was consistent with her career of pressing for reform (or failing to do so) within the confines of Beltway debate. Essentially, she told the activists they needed to work within the system to get anything done.
“This is not an uncommon position. But King had a very different perspective, one consistent with the field now known as ‘civil resistance.’ Drawing from the work of theorists such as Gene Sharp, scholars in this field argue that power is more widely distributed than is typically believed — and that CEOs, generals and senators do not hold all the cards. Even entrenched dictators rely on the compliance of the people in order to maintain power. If a sufficient number of people choose not to cooperate with an existing order, the standing of these leaders crumbles.
“Civil resistance movements can look beyond a ‘transactional’ model of politics that attempts to exact small gains based on conventional wisdom about what is feasible within Washington. Instead, through disruptive and dramatic protest, they alter the political climate and create new possibilities for change – turning impractical demands into urgent priorities.”
I disagree that one can’t build a political party, or be involved in the electoral arena, without surrendering to compromise and short-term thinking. That’s only true when one is too focused on conventional winning – in which case, as previously noted, one shouldn’t be entrusted with power.
Mind you, this does NOT mean that the tactics of activists can’t be successful. They absolutely can be. Nor does it mean the tactics of compromise and a mindset of going after only what’s pragmatically possible at this time can’t accomplish some good. They absolutely can.
Agreed, with the caveat that libertarians compromising on principle is likely to overall do more harm than good.
“It does mean that we understand what works in one arena will not work in the other. MLK Jr would never have been elected to public office. His success was predicated on the fact that he and his organization stayed outside direct electoral politics and agitated for change.”
This is where we really disagree. The arenas of politics and activism are not separate and distinct, but most effective when used together to build a dynamic, multifaceted movement. It is possible to campaign for public office, and have a political party that embraces Martin Luther King style agitation for change. The Rolling Stone piece also cites Bernie Sanders as understanding this dynamic more than most:
“In choosing the path of a career politician, Bernie Sanders has opted for a different route than King. But he shows more understanding than most about how social movements can reshape the terrain of the politically possible. Calling for a ‘political revolution,’ Sanders has argued that ‘no matter who is elected to be president, that person will not be able to address the enormous problems facing the working families of our country.’ Instead, grassroots movements are needed to change the focus on the national discussion.”
“Electoral politics ain’t primarily an education business. It CAN educate in an ancillary matter, but we aren’t professors at the front of a college class educating a captive audience; we aren’t preachers at a pulpit commanding our parishioners on what’s right and what’s wrong. In this arena, we serve at the pleasure of the voters; we assimilate the constraints upon public policy that the voters demand, and we fashion our solutions…which can be libertarian solutions…within the constraints that the voters give us. It can operate no other way.”
Trying to get elected is just a means to an end, not an end in itself. Insisting that we must fashion our solutions within the constraints that voters give us is just another way of saying, “Be ruled by the Overton Window, don’t question conventional wisdom.” But this is indeed short-sighted, and unimaginative. It’s not wise to set your watch by a clock that is broken. Nor does one “serve at the pleasure of the voters” unless one is elected to public office. As party leaders making decisions for the Libertarian Party, we serve at the pleasure of party members. And that’s a good thing, because LP members who have signed the Non-Aggression pledge and identify as Libertarians are generally much more committed to freedom than is the average U.S. voter who supported either Trump or Clinton.
“I’m not particularly aware of appeals to libertarians from members of the alt-reich to help protect their legal rights to bigotry, but whatever.”
You’re right. They don’t couch their appeals in those terms, because they are skilled enough to understand that wouldn’t work. They see us as a party willing to chuck electoral success in order to defend “principle,” and so couch their appeals in terms of what’s “right and wrong” without regard to its political viability.
Libertarians have been talking about freedom of association long before the alt reich was “a thing”. We would still be talking about it now regardless of whether they were the flavor of the month or not. When even our political opponents recognize us as principled and not simply willing to unethically do whatever it takes to win, like the power-addicted leaders of the cartel parties, I consider that a good thing.
And frankly, we have an element that gets duped into sacrificing our brand image to what’s presently getting them in a twist. And if you’re willing to suggest that Governor Johnson should have answered the Bake the Cake question without regard to political calculations, you’re their target, no offense intended.
None taken. But I think Gary Johnson should have given the question in a principled, libertarian response. That doesn’t require ignoring his audience’s biases and misunderstandings, but it also doesn’t mean buying into them.
“Brand image” as far as I am concerned is for commercial brands – libertarianism is not a “brand”, and freedom is not for sale! Obsessing over how others see you is not the best way for a political party (or any other group or individual, really) to get a positive reputation. The best way to get a positive reputation is to conduct oneself in such a manner as to deserve one.
Anthony Dlugos
September 3, 2017
starchild,
“I don’t think it should ever be “triage time” when it comes to the political defense of inalienable human rights. As MLK said, “The time is always right to do the right thing.””
In electoral politics, given the immutable fact that success is determined by who has the most votes, not by who’s right and who’s wrong; its ALWAYS triage time. What can get done in any given moment is always constrained by the mindset of the voters we are trying to appeal to.
MLK Jr is a good example. He was an activist, not a politician His organization, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, was not a political party, it was an activist organization. His methods and tactics, such as civil disobedience, are essentially useless in electoral politics. Good activist organizations understand this, and specifically AVOID entering electoral politics since they know compromise and short-term thinking is simply unavoidable. The model of MLK Jr, then, is wholly inapplicable to electoral politics.
Mind you, this does NOT mean that the tactics of activists can’t be successful. They absolutely can be. Nor does it mean the tactics of compromise and a mindset of going after only what’s pragmatically possible at this time can’t accomplish some good. They absolutely can. It does mean that we understand what works in one arena will not work in the other. MLK Jr would never have been elected to public office. His success was predicated on the fact that he and his organization stayed outside direct electoral politics and agitated for change.
“If you don’t like them seeking “our help in the VERY specific instance of homophobic bakery owners”, then don’t focus your educational efforts on that specific instance.”
Electoral politics ain’t primarily an education business. It CAN educate in an ancillary matter, but we aren’t professors at the front of a college class educating a captive audience; we aren’t preachers at a pulpit commanding our parishioners on what’s right and what’s wrong. In this arena, we serve at the pleasure of the voters; we assimilate the constraints upon public policy that the voters demand, and we fashion our solutions…which can be libertarian solutions…within the constraints that the voters give us. It can operate no other way.
“I’m not particularly aware of appeals to libertarians from members of the alt-reich to help protect their legal rights to bigotry, but whatever.”
You’re right. They don’t couch their appeals in those terms, because they are skilled enough to understand that wouldn’t work. They see us as a party willing to chuck electoral success in order to defend “principle,” and so couch their appeals in terms of what’s “right and wrong” without regard to its political viability. And frankly, we have an element that gets duped into sacrificing our brand image to what’s presently getting them in a twist. And if you’re willing to suggest that Governor Johnson should have answered the Bake the Cake question without regard to political calculations, you’re their target, no offense intended.
I’ll remind you: when Invictus gave us his fare-thee-well speech, he made it a point to suggest we should have nominated Petersen, who DID make it a point to say Governor Johnson should have answered the question the way you suggest he should have. He knows the surest way to run himself and his crew out of the party is for us present a moderated Libertarian message emanating from a party that makes winning a priority.
“Libertarian leadership is about getting out in front of public opinion and moving it in a pro-freedom direction, not just accepting the bulk of the status quo as you find it.”
As I noted, electoral politics is not the place for moving public opinion. Politicians are late adopters, not early adopters. This is fact. If you want to move public opinion in a libertarian direction, (an admirable goal) you’re wasting your time in a political party. The last three LP nominees for President were: Barr, Johnson, and Johnson. VP nominees were Root, Gray, and Weld. The party is already operating in a pragmatic, moderated way. If it ever gets larger, this is only going to become more obvious. This is the nature of electoral politics. The only way to stop that would be to turn the party into some other type of organization, where entry is strictly managed, and only those concerned with right and wrong are “hired.”
“Actually there is, and I’ve already given you two examples, which you ignored in your response.”
It was claimed that Jeff Deist gave a “Nazi speech,” even though if you actually listen to the speech, he was talking about decentralization of power
How many times do we have to go over this? When you bloody and soil yourself at the end of a speech, whatever you said before that point stops mattering. It’s equally true whether you bloody and soil yourself literally and physically or whether you do it verbally and metaphorically as Deist did.
have proven, was something that actual Nazis opposed.
Once again they only oppose it when they have centralized power. If Hitler opposed decentralism under all circumstances he would not have staged the Beer Hall Putsch, which would have installed him as the head of a secessionist Bavarian regime had it succeeded. We can find many Hitler fans today in the radically decentralist parts of the back to nature fascist Third Position movement.
Hitler and the CSA were for things like free speech and decentralism only when it suited them – that is when they are out of power. The CSA was not for decentralism when it came to counties that wanted to secede from its states or slaves who wanted to secede from slaveowners. Alabama’s segregationists were not for home rule for cities and counties. Hitler wanted free speech when he was a candidate and protester, not so much when he was fuehrer. Right now, at this point in time, decentralism and free speech are useful to the white nationalist movement. If they should take power on a large scale again they will no longer find these things to be useful.
Rothbard tried different political strategies throughout his life, including working with the leftist/Marxist Peace and Freedom Party at one point.
Unfortunately he died during his “paleo” alliance with the far right and his less savory followers have carried that on, now spawning the altreich bowel movement. “Blood and soil” is just the natural culmination of all that.
Some responses to what Anthony Dlugos writes in part (September 2, 2017 at 10:30), follow…
“Tactically speaking, I think strengthening the immigration plank at New Orleans 2018 would be the single most significant thing we could do to shake ourselves free of association with the right/republicans.”
When it comes to amending the LP Platform, I agree that taking a strong stand for freedom of movement might indeed be the best thing we could do.
“In any event, odd isn’t it, then, that the people we agree are toxic elements in our movement (white nationalists), or who enable/condone the behavior of toxic elements (Woods, Stapleton, the paleos), were in full-throated agreement with much of the radical set about what a mistake it was to nominate Johnson and Weld. Can you explain that?”
If you can explain the phenomenon that the people I hope we agree are toxic elements in society at large, those at the top levels of power in government, are in full-throated agreement with much of the non-radical set about what a mistake it is to take strong stands against police abuse, taxation, government militarism, drug laws, etc., I’ll take a stab at it.
“There is no way, GIVEN THE CURRENT CONSTRAINTS OF POPULAR OPINION , to come off as anything other than a bigot or pandering to the bigots by standing up for absolute property rights in the area of public accommodations. There just isn’t.”
Actually there is, and I’ve already given you two examples, which you ignored in your response.
“This is the hardest reality of electoral politics that the typical radical, as genuine in their beliefs as they might be, has trouble accepting, and why they end up making common cause (inadvertently so) with the white nationalist: in the political arena, our range of options is limited by the frame of reference of the general population, by the overton window. That window CAN move, but it hasn’t yet. And anyone who chooses to engage in the libertarian movement via the vehicle of the Libertarian Party HAS to accept that reality.”
Libertarian leadership is about getting out in front of public opinion and moving it in a pro-freedom direction, not just accepting the bulk of the status quo as you find it. And the typical libertarian radical does not make common cause with white nationalists. In my experience, the typical libertarian radical is in fact more anti-nationalist than the typical libertarian moderate.
“This is why I am immediately worried by any Libertarian who says our mission is “a world set free in our lifetimes” or some such messianic cause.”
That language is in the Libertarian Party platform and has been since around the time of the party’s founding, so it sounds like you have a problem with the Libertarian Party itself.
I don’t see wanting freedom for everyone as a “messianic cause”; no more so than the misguided “cause” of trying to get everyone to stay inside the Overton Window. As a radical who is very skeptical of following leaders, I don’t have a political messiah – do you?
“It ignores the practical realities of politics.
It doesn’t “ignore” the abysmal state of current politics; it seeks to shift the paradigm.
“It draws in the white nationalist element because they see a movement willing to sacrifice itself to their cause by taking a stand on a hill not worth dying for at this time.”
You can help avoid drawing them in by using better examples when talking about property rights, like the ones I gave, and by framing the debate in terms of helping the poor and marginalized instead of accommodating the bigoted. The law as it stands is tilted in favor of the wealthy and well-connected; true respect for property rights (not having to get permission from those in power in order to exercise them) would change that.
“If the white nationalists wanted a world where they are able to put a “No N**gers Allowed” sign in their restaurant, then they should have spent the last several decades fighting against the encroachment of the state into property rights, and their defense of property rights should have been a universal, consistent one, not one that gets them in a twist NOW.”
Sure, but if they were that sensible and principled, they probably wouldn’t be ethno-nationalists.
“Where were they when the rights of gay men were being trampled by the state? When the reproductive rights of women were being trampled by the state? Now they want our help? Now they want our help in the VERY specific instance of homophobic bakery owners. I don’t think so. I don’t think I’ll have our future sacrificed to a bunch of johnnie-come-lately racists. This is triage time, and their desires go to the bottom of the to-do list. They’ll have to wait, and we may never get to their concerns. And if that makes them upset, tough shit. TOUGH SHIT! Leave.”
One might just as readily ask, where have leftists been when the rights of people in communist countries have been trampled by the State? The reality is that virtually nobody on the left or on the right has been anything like consistent in standing against oppression. I’m not particularly aware of appeals to libertarians from members of the alt-reich to help protect their legal rights to bigotry, but whatever. Our focus should be on doing the right thing, not on the fact that some people with odious beliefs might happen to agree with us. If you don’t like them seeking “our help in the VERY specific instance of homophobic bakery owners”, then don’t focus your educational efforts on that specific instance.
I don’t think it should ever be “triage time” when it comes to the political defense of inalienable human rights. As MLK said, “The time is always right to do the right thing.”
Andy
September 3, 2017
“paulie
September 2, 2017 at 15:18
‘Dave is Jewish.
This flies in the face of the “Ron Paul and Jeff Deist and Tom Woods and anyone else connected with the Mises Institute are mean, nasty even Nazi racists who want to do all kinds of bad things.’”
First up no one here is saying anything like that. Second, Rothbard was Jewish yet praised David Duke. So, the fact that some of them have Jewish ancestry is not a real answer to anything”
It was claimed that Jeff Deist gave a “Nazi speech,” even though if you actually listen to the speech, he was talking about decentralization of power, which, as I have proven, was something that actual Nazis opposed.
Also, as noted here before, Rothbard tried different political strategies throughout his life, including working with the leftist/Marxist Peace and Freedom Party at one point.
Andy
September 2, 2017
Anthony Dlugos said: “oh dear god that’s a whole lotta derp right there”
This from a guy who likes to throw around accusations, and who thinks that Bill Weld is a libertarian.
V for Vagina
September 2, 2017
Avis,
“While I do find the LP’s “herding cats” routine most amusing, this silly little Golden Calf Worshippers vs. Filthy Libertine Degenerates civil war you’ve got going on makes me so glad I stopped being enamoured with it or its various philosophies long ago.”
Good riddance and please take the rest of your kind with you.
“Sarwak was utterly disingenuous and intellectually dishonest. Project & Deflect seems to be his entire M.O.”
Yeah…I’m going to say that would be you, Stapleton, Woods et al.
“If this is the leadership the LP is choosing, maybe this pituful party is finally getting ready to put itself out of all of our misery.”
In your dreams, not in reality.
“As for keeping alt-right types out of the LP: who needs the LP? We’re not far out now from legitimate alt-right style political parties in the U.S.. And I will enjoy the salty tears when they eclipse the LP overnight.”
More dreaming, fash. Time for a reality check. The alt right already has its own alt parties: American “Freedom” Party, American Eagle Party, Traditionalist Workers Party…I’m going to go ahead and say National Socialism Movement, Knights Party and American Nazi Party too since the only difference is…well, there is none. So how are your parties doing? Let’s just say not as well as the LP. Unless you count Trump and the GOP in which case you may have a point…but it’s more than a bit of a reach to claim them as wholly an alt right party even if you sometimes seem to be the tail that’s wagging that elephant.
The sad reality is that it is far more difficult to organize a third party in real life than you or Stapleton can even begin to grasp. It’s easy to snipe from the sidelines but go ahead and try to create your alt right party. Contrary to your arrogant fantasies you will find that far from eclipsing the LP overnight you will be flailing and failing as you fall flat on your flabbergasted fash faces. I have my marshmellows ready.
This flies in the face of the “Ron Paul and Jeff Deist and Tom Woods and anyone else connected with the Mises Institute are mean, nasty even Nazi racists who want to do all kinds of bad things.”
First up no one here is saying anything like that. Second, Rothbard was Jewish yet praised David Duke. So, the fact that some of them have Jewish ancestry is not a real answer to anything.
Anthony Dlugos
September 2, 2017
“Dave Smith is a libertarian comedian from New York City. Dave was raised in a leftist environment, but was inspired to get into libertarianism after hearing Ron Paul speak while Ron was running in the Republican presidential primaries. Although his last name does not imply it, Dave is Jewish.”
oh dear god that’s a whole lotta derp right there.
Andy
September 2, 2017
” nasty even Nazi ”
Should read, “nasty, evil Nazis…”
Andy
September 2, 2017
Check out this excellent interview that Jeff Deist recently conducted with Dave Smith. Dave Smith is a libertarian comedian from New York City. Dave was raised in a leftist environment, but was inspired to get into libertarianism after hearing Ron Paul speak while Ron was running in the Republican presidential primaries. Although his last name does not imply it, Dave is Jewish.
This flies in the face of the “Ron Paul and Jeff Deist and Tom Woods and anyone else connected with the Mises Institute are mean, nasty even Nazi racists who want to do all kinds of bad things.” hysteria that is being repeated by some people.
i.e., those not dependent on a government program to get laid
robert capozzi
September 2, 2017
ad: They don’t have our best interests at heart.
me: I hear this, but I would contend that to be a Hater is by definition to be insane. Haters know not what they do. They don’t know their OWN interests, much less an organization’s, even lesser still the interests of a free, peaceful society.
Anthony Dlugos
September 2, 2017
“Sarwak [sic] was utterly disingenuous and intellectually dishonest.”
Care to elaborate, or do you just drop assertions and run?
Avis
September 2, 2017
While I do find the LP’s “herding cats” routine most amusing, this silly little Golden Calf Worshippers vs. Filthy Libertine Degenerates civil war you’ve got going on makes me so glad I stopped being enamoured with it or its various philosophies long ago.
I’m not a huge Stapleton fan, but he’s a decent interviewer. Still, he left some pretty salient points on the table unaddressed. Maybe this was intentional, but it’s a bit of a waste.
Sarwak was utterly disingenuous and intellectually dishonest. Project & Deflect seems to be his entire M.O.. If this is the leadership the LP is choosing, maybe this pituful party is finally getting ready to put itself out of all of our misery.
As for keeping alt-right types out of the LP: who needs the LP? We’re not far out now from legitimate alt-right style political parties in the U.S.. And I will enjoy the salty tears when they eclipse the LP overnight.
Anthony Dlugos
September 2, 2017
“We are taking on water at a rapid pace and emergency measures are called for.”
I might not be quite as alarmed, but measures imbued with alacrity are called for.
Here’s a good place to start: the property rights of homophobic bakers are getting kicked down to the bottom of the to-do list. They’ll have to wait. Period. I am truly sorry for the honestly religious baker who is going to have to bake a cake for someone they hate, but they should have been helping us every day of the past 45 years, up to and including today, when OTHER people’s property rights were being infringed upon. I have sympathy for their situation. Actually, I don’t They should have been helping. Now they’ll have to wait.
Anyone who stays is probably someone we can trust. Anyone who gets upset needs a swift kick in the ass out the door. Out! Out! They don’t have our best interests at heart.
If we do not make an effort to keep our message balanced to appeal at least as much to people on the left as those on the right, we risk entering a vicious downward spiral to the right in which more people from that side of the political spectrum get involved, and with their involvement tilt the character of the party and movement further in that direction, which would increase the appeal to those on the right while correspondingly decreasing the appeal to those on the left, until “Libertarian” is seen to mean something like “Tea Party” and no longer represents a genuinely independent third voice in politics.
It’s worse than that. It’s already being taken to mean “Tea Party” and is now on the verge of being taken to mean altreich. We are not just seen as being on the right but on the far right. Tea Party is identified with Republicans, so who or what is to the right of that? We urgently need to throw the entire right flank out of being associated with libertarianism – the “moderate” fusionist right, the T(rump)-Party right and the bigot altreich far right alike (especially, but not only, the last one). We are taking on water at a rapid pace and emergency measures are called for.
Anthony Dlugos
September 2, 2017
starchild,
I share your concern about the association with the right that we have to shake ourselves from. The fact that, “Republicans who want to smoke pot,” is one of the common monikers thrown around in political circles is testament to the reality of our situation now. Likely as a result of the Ron Paul Effect, which I have come to believe did more harm than good. Tactically speaking, I think strengthening the immigration plank at New Orleans 2018 would be the single most significant thing we could do to shake ourselves free of association with the right/republicans. Strengthening the abortion plank would help as well. White nationalists don’t have a real hang up with abortion, but their fellow-traveling paleocons do.
In any event, odd isn’t it, then, that the people we agree are toxic elements in our movement (white nationalists), or who enable/condone the behavior of toxic elements (Woods, Stapleton, the paleos), were in full-throated agreement with much of the radical set about what a mistake it was to nominate Johnson and Weld. Can you explain that?
I can. Here’s where you’re wrong:
“Jason Stapleton and his radio engineer aren’t wrong to stand up for the libertarian principle of property rights; Gary Johnson by contrast was flat-out wrong to say during the 2016 campaign that a baker should be forced to make a wedding cake for a gay marriage that violated his beliefs. But there are ways to articulate this principle which do not require pandering to bigots on the right.”
Gary was right, Jason is wrong, and you are wrong. There is no way, GIVEN THE CURRENT CONSTRAINTS OF POPULAR OPINION , to come off as anything other than a bigot or pandering to the bigots by standing up for absolute property rights in the area of public accommodations. There just isn’t.
This is the hardest reality of electoral politics that the typical radical, as genuine in their beliefs as they might be, has trouble accepting, and why they end up making common cause (inadvertently so) with the white nationalist: in the political arena, our range of options is limited by the frame of reference of the general population, by the overton window. That window CAN move, but it hasn’t yet. And anyone who chooses to engage in the libertarian movement via the vehicle of the Libertarian Party HAS to accept that reality.
This is why I am immediately worried by any Libertarian who says our mission is “a world set free in our lifetimes” or some such messianic cause. It ignores the practical realities of politics. It draws in the white nationalist element because they see a movement willing to sacrifice itself to their cause by taking a stand on a hill not worth dying for at this time.
If the white nationalists wanted a world where they are able to put a “No N**gers Allowed” sign in their restaurant, then they should have spent the last several decades fighting against the encroachment of the state into property rights, and their defense of property rights should have been a universal, consistent one, not one that gets them in a twist NOW. Where were they when the rights of gay men were being trampled by the state? When the reproductive rights of women were being trampled by the state? Now they want our help? Now they want our help in the VERY specific instance of homophobic bakery owners. I don’t think so. I don’t think I’ll have our future sacrificed to a bunch of johnnie-come-lately racists. This is triage time, and their desires go to the bottom of the to-do list. They’ll have to wait, and we may never get to their concerns. And if that makes them upset, tough shit. TOUGH SHIT! Leave.
robert capozzi
September 2, 2017
ad,
Yes, great point. It’s also possible that there are paleo leaders who encourage the association with Haters with winks and nods, and other paleos — perhaps JS — who are simply hyper-defensive and therefore dense, lacking self awareness.
And, yes, there might be some devolving, too. Perhaps because issues like immigration have become SO inflamed that some Paleo NAPsters are willing to be in league with Haters because they have an overlapping interest on the subject. To me, though, those who fall more or less into this category must have some serious perceptual blocks, since being in league with overt Haters is so obviously toxic and therefore counter-productive.
Lots of good comments in this thread, including from commenters whose remarks here I often disagree with, like Robert Capozzi and Anthony Dlugos.
Paulie’s posts (September 1, 2017 at 16:22, September 1, 2017 at 16:23) about the kind of search results that are coming up right now in web searches related to the term “libertarian” provide a vital reality check about the backdrop to this debate, and why Nick Sarwark wasn’t wrong to speak out and urge other prominent libertarians to denounce fascism and the alt-reich.
Although I winced a little when Nick said this was “a fight that needed to be picked”, overall I think he handled this interview very well, calmly making clear that he is not saying Tom Woods, Jeff Deist, or others are white supremacists, etc., despite Jason Stapleton’s repeatedly misunderstanding him on this (or hearing what he wanted to hear), and making clear that Tom in particular, like Jason himself, is doing valuable work.
I’m with Anthony in seeing Jason as sincere in his devotion to freedom, I just don’t think he understands the danger to the libertarian movement, and to the Libertarian Party, of pandering to people on the right.
David Demarest makes a good point (September 1, 2017 at 06:38) about Jason Stapleton’s prescription for the Libertarian Party apparently involving the LP speaking with a much more unified voice (presumably his) being unrealistic. Doesn’t Jason realize that lots of us would have a similar contrarian reaction to being asked to get with (his) program, that he defends when it comes to Tom Woods and others refusing to sign a petition that lots of prominent libertarian leaders have signed? He may be under the impression that a democratic, mass-participatory organization like the LP can or should be run in the top-down matter of a radio show. To my mind that is not only impractical, but if it could somehow be achieved I think the party’s days as a libertarian organization would be numbered.
That desire for a party with more top-down control, in which everybody acts “professional” and stays “on message”, is an attitude that seems more common among those who have some conservative or right-leaning tendencies than among other libertarians. I believe these libertarians are forgetting that power corrupts, and that enforced conformity is dangerous. They can generally see this when it comes to the “political correctness” of the left, and clearly some will react against even the perceived taint of it when asked to sign an anti-fascism petition, but when it comes to the Libertarian Party, not so much.
But the problem here goes beyond the tendency of right-leaning libertarians to favor more top-down control which could prevent the LP from realizing its potential as vehicle for the manifestation of a real popular mass movement. As Paulie’s posts clearly show, the LP – indeed I would argue the libertarian movement as a whole – is more commonly associated with the right than with the left. If we do not make an effort to keep our message balanced to appeal at least as much to people on the left as those on the right, we risk entering a vicious downward spiral to the right in which more people from that side of the political spectrum get involved, and with their involvement tilt the character of the party and movement further in that direction, which would increase the appeal to those on the right while correspondingly decreasing the appeal to those on the left, until “Libertarian” is seen to mean something like “Tea Party” and no longer represents a genuinely independent third voice in politics.
If that were to occur, the LP would lose its chance of shifting the political paradigm from right/left on the Nolan Chart, to up/down (libertarian vs. authoritarian). The movement would be stuck with a LINO type (Libertarian-In-Name-Only) party using and tarnishing its name. It could set the entire freedom movement back by decades.
Jason Stapleton and his radio engineer aren’t wrong to stand up for the libertarian principle of property rights; Gary Johnson by contrast was flat-out wrong to say during the 2016 campaign that a baker should be forced to make a wedding cake for a gay marriage that violated his beliefs. But there are ways to articulate this principle which do not require pandering to bigots on the right. We can talk instead about the right of a bar owner to disallow heterosexual (but not homosexual) displays of affection in his bar*, the NAACP’s right to hire only black employees if they choose, etc.
*This actually happened some years ago at a gay bar here in San Francisco
Anthony Dlugos
September 2, 2017
Unless, as we speculate, that the refusal to sign is intentional. Maybe they like the association, and their “principle” is merely smokescreen.
I guess it’s also possible that what started as principle devolved into identifying with the poor, downtrodden white nationalists.
I think the response to my suggestion there is that this paleo strategy appears too planned out for it to be some version of the Stockholm Syndrome.
robert capozzi
September 2, 2017
Starchild: I don’t think that’s the proper way to view the petition. When I signed it, I didn’t for a moment see doing so as being about defending myself.
Me: Great catch, S. Indeed, one sees what psychologist might identify as a severe case of arrested development among paleos and sometimes Randians. Anything that strikes them as potentially contrary to their interests in any way requires a hyper-defense. That extreme defensiveness leads to an emotional denseness, where they somehow cannot see just ridiculous they come across.
It distorts their worldview so much that a request to sign a petition against fascism becomes a personal affront! They get stuck in a perceptual loop, and cannot even be reasoned with, as their defensiveness goes on high alert.
Jason Stapleton (to Nick Sarwark): “You’re asking him [Tom Woods] to defend himself [by asking him to sign the anti-fascism petition].”
I don’t think that’s the proper way to view the petition. When I signed it, I didn’t for a moment see doing so as being about defending myself.
To me, signing the petition was about speaking out against a bad ideology which has been getting a lot of play in the news lately, and at the same time defending the libertarian movement from association with it.
It would be nice if all the movement’s critics were smart (or honest) enough to render such a defense as unnecessary as Tom Woods apparently thinks it is, but in my experience that’s sadly not the case.
Sarwark is a guilt by association SJW lunatic. But I’ll give him props for courage. Also he lied about Gottfried straight up.
It’s not guilt by association when there actually is an association. And FYI: those who use the term “SJW” are almost assuredly themselves primary purveyors/consumers of group identity victimhood. I had to laugh at the first paragraph of the article Sarwark linked to:
The night America elected Donald J. Trump president, 38-year-old Richard B. Spencer, who fancies himself the “Karl Marx of the alt-right” …
Although Spencer probably got that from Hoppe, not Gottfried.
Saying “blood and soil” has the problem that most Americans will have no idea what is being referenced, nor will they care. It’s up there with Hoch Hapsburg! On the same line of no idea, I have no idea who this Stapledon fellow is, and doubt his influence.
You may not like what I have to say or the inferences I draw, but I do my best not to lie.
robert capozzi
September 1, 2017
ad,
I think JS was saying TW is the L equivalent of Limbaugh to the Rs. He wasn’t referring to himself, I don’t think. While I find JS to be articulate enough, he comes across as one-dimensional and far too quick to express opinions about things he knows very little of.
Anthony Dlugos
September 1, 2017
In the podcast, he actually 1) favorably compares his influence on the LP to Rush Limbaugh’s influence on the GOP and 2) suggests Sarwark picking a fight with the Mises/paleo crowd was a bad idea. Why? They’ll stop donating money they haven’t been donating in the first place? They’ll take their ball and go to the Constitution Party? They’ll threaten to take Petersen’s 20% and…go? Where? He already left.
There were people who participated in that Unite the Right rally who are registered Republicans. So how about go after the Republican Party?
Don’t be dense to the Nth power. Do a google news search on Republican or Republican Party. They are not being smeared with this crap nearly as much as we are.
Not that long. He rejoined in 2015. For all we know he may be a member right now. But you and I both know this is not just about the party since all these people were or are associated with “libertarian” including self-associating and associated by others. Again look at the google news headlines – just from the very first page of results only – that I posted earlier.
I don’t think that anyone thinks that Cantwell should be emulated.
Some people obviously do. But more importantly a lot of people who don’t associate him with libertarianism. That’s not what we want.
I don’t think that Spencer was ever an LP member, and from what I have heard about Spencer’s views on economics, I don’t think anyone would mistake him for a libertarian.
He was a Ron Paul supporter. I guess his economic views evolved.
Only to people who didn’t pay listen to or pay attention to his entire speech.
His speech was about decentralization of power, which, ironically, was something that actual Nazis opposed.
No, you haven’t paid attention. If Deist delivered his whole speech and then right at the end pulled down his pants, squatted down in the middle of the stage, took a shit, wiped it with his hand and licked it clean right in front of everyone and the cameras, that’s what his speech would have been about. Anyone who pretends otherwise just has no idea because that would be far more significant than anything he had said. Saying “blood and soil” is just like that. It’s the same thing. Nothing he said before that has any significance whatsoever in light of that.
Andy
September 1, 2017
During the first several minutes of this show, Jason Stapleton talks about his show yesterday where he interviewed Sarwark.
The Jason Stapleton Program: America Has a Tax Problem…
“robert capozzi
September 1, 2017 at 18:44
‘aj: I have never suggested this, nor has Jason Stapleton, nor has Tom Woods, nor has Jeff Deist, nor has anyone else with any credibility.’
me: Don’t be dense. Cantwell, Spencer, and others…explicitly so. ”
Cantwell quit the LP awhile ago. I don’t think that anyone thinks that Cantwell should be emulated. I don’t think that Spencer was ever an LP member, and from what I have heard about Spencer’s views on economics, I don’t think anyone would mistake him for a libertarian.
There were people who participated in that Unite the Right rally who are registered Republicans. So how about go after the Republican Party?
“Deist alludes to it with his ‘blood and soil’ statement.”
Only to people who didn’t pay listen to or pay attention to his entire speech.
His speech was about decentralization of power, which, ironically, was something that actual Nazis opposed.
“Woods plays it coy. Hoppe more than alludes to it. Stapleton plays sanctimoniously dumb on the matter.”
I disagree.
And when it comes to marketing, Tom Woods and Jason Stapleton are doing pretty darn well, as they both have popular podcasts, and Woods has sold a lot of books.
Some people tried to pull this same crap on Ron Paul, and Ron Paul did more to spread the libertarian message to more people than anybody.
“‘Hate’ means bigoted in this context.”
Once again, libertarianism is about the Non-Aggression Principle, and applying it to person and property.
I fail to see what any of this has to do with libertarianism.
Talk to me about the NAP. Talk to me about property rights.
If you are trying to turn this into a marketing lecture, it is kind of funny for people with little to no success in marketing to be giving guys who are actually successful at marketing, like Tom Woods and Jason Stapleton, a lecture on the subject.
robert capozzi
September 1, 2017
aj: I have never suggested this, nor has Jason Stapleton, nor has Tom Woods, nor has Jeff Deist, nor has anyone else with any credibility.
me: Don’t be dense. Cantwell, Spencer, and others…explicitly so. Deist alludes to it with his “blood and soil” statement. Woods plays it coy. Hoppe more than alludes to it. Stapleton plays sanctimoniously dumb on the matter.
This fight has to happen, until every rock is overturned and every lowlife accounted for.
Agreed. Sooner or later one of these who was formerly involved in the LP, maybe even as a candidate, will be the one driving his car into a crowd or his U Haul truck full of explosives into a building or whatever. We need maximum dissociation before that happens, not after.
pf, agreed, except we really can’t know what the motive of Mises-types is. Is it a financial motive? Perhaps partial affinity for the Haters? Maybe even unqualified affinity that they camouflage.
Mix of all those with the mix being different depending on which person we are talking about.
Andy
September 1, 2017
Robert Capozzi, who is suggesting that a “hate message” be attached to libertarianism (unless you mean hate the government, or hate the initiation of force and fraud)? I have never suggested this, nor has Jason Stapleton, nor has Tom Woods, nor has Jeff Deist, nor has anyone else with any credibility.
Libertarianism is about the Non-Aggression Principle, and more specifically, how it relates to person and property. We can debate how to apply the NAP, or what is the best way to achieve a society that is based on the NAP, but those are other issues.
Anthony Dlugos
September 1, 2017
Excellent work there, paulie. We may have some disagreements on strategy and tactics for the party, but you are on point with regarding to countering the alt-reich, and the need for immunizing the party from the white nationalists, xenophobes and racists.
Incidentally, from time to time I hop on YouTube and watch parts of videos emanating from the alt-right universe to hear what they are talking about. Last night, I watch some of a new one from some outfit called Red Ice TV. They interviewed the new CEO of Identity Evropa, a white nationalist group, and at 1:37, the host asks him about his background, whereupon the new CEO said he had always been involved in politics, and he started out in high school in…you guessed it…the “Ron Paul/libertarian movement.” Here you go:
Yes, I know, this is only one anecdote. But anyone who happens to have any interest in the long term success of the LP and its brand image cannot be anything but terribly unsettled if not kept up at night with worry about where the tentacles of this monster are already sunk in if it pops up in unsuspecting places like the one I have now made everyone aware of.
This fight has to happen, until every rock is overturned and every lowlife accounted for.
robert capozzi
September 1, 2017
pf, agreed, except we really can’t know what the motive of Mises-types is. Is it a financial motive? Perhaps partial affinity for the Haters? Maybe even unqualified affinity that they camouflage.
Could also be some kind of weird agenda involving the enemy’s enemy or something. Or they are exercising their “thin” side, as well as partial mutuality on immigration.
Honestly, I really can’t imagine how a person can get so turned around that they don’t immediately recognize the importance to drawing a sharp distinction between Ls and Haters.
So there you have it. Why do we need to denounce the white supremacists? Because the world at large is associating us with them, and them with the violence and murder in Charlottesville. And because many of the alt right’s leaders used to call themselves libertarians and some still do.
The world is not confusing us with socialists. The leaders of violent left wing riots, aside from the fact that they are not killing people, are not calling themselves libertarians. They’re not former LP congressional and senatorial candidates.
If anything the Mises Institute folks who have been fostering these people with their undead “paleo” strategy should denounce them more than anyone. But they won’t, because they want their money and support.
The LP is right to denounce them and absolutely needs to denounce them especially and not the less violent folks on the left that no one is confusing us with.
On the *very first page of results* for libertarian right now:
Does libertarianism have an alt-right problem?
Washington Post Aug 23, 2017?
Is There Really an ‘Insidious Libertarian-To-Alt-Right Pipeline’?
Reason (blog) Aug 23, 2017?
Why Libertarians Go Alt-Right
The American Interest Aug 23, 2017?
View full coverage?
Trump – A Friend of Libertarianism
Being Libertarian Aug 29, 2017?
Libertarians wrestle with the alt-right – The Washington Post
Washington Post Aug 24, 2017?
The Insidious Libertarian-to-Alt-Right Pipeline
Daily Beast Aug 22, 2017
“Weeping Nazi” Christopher Cantwell went from libertarian to fascist — and he’s not alone
Salon Aug 26, 2017?
Libertarianism, Individualism, and Racism
Cato Institute (blog) Aug 25, 2017
Anthony Dlugos
September 1, 2017
RCapozzi,
“Yes, his discussion indicates a high level of ignorance on the subject. Of course, my view is that a Paleo-NAPster party would the current LP look Amazon.com-like in terms of its effectiveness.”
I do believe Stapleton means well.
As I noted regarding the Stapleton-Woods podcast, he asked Woods whether he sees himself as an educator or political activist, or something like that. Later, Stapleton volunteers that he hopes his 8,000-person strong forum or whatever it is is not just some “preaching to the choir” arena. He hopes people who want to find out about libertarianism are coming there.
This tells me he has some recognition of the idea of optics, and that they are important in the political arena.
His mistake is thinking that the LP can be on an educational mission. Ultimately, even if he means well, he will end up surrounded by the same lowlife scum Woods appears to be explicitly courting.
Agreed with virtually everything Sarwark said and virtually nothing Stapleton said, other than where they agreed.
robert capozzi
September 1, 2017
aj: … it seems as though there is more concern about some associations than there is about others, which strikes me as being hypocritical.
me: Damn straight! CFR and the other associations are not nearly as politically toxic as allying IN ANY WAY with the Hater Right, in my estimation. You don’t see that?
aj: I also don’t think that Stapleton fully understands the difficulties involved with building a minor political party with all of the obstacles put up by the Democrats and the Republicans. Gaining success in politics, particularly as a minor political party, is more difficult than most people realize.
me: Yes, his discussion indicates a high level of ignorance on the subject. Of course, my view is that a Paleo-NAPster party would the current LP look Amazon.com-like in terms of its effectiveness. Or a Paleo-NAPster party would probably sink rather quickly below the Constitution Party in the current ranking. Combining rigid, dogmatic NAPsterism with a Hate message excludes something like 99.5% of the population.
I listened to about 20 minutes, and I want to offer some support to Nick Sarwark in his critique of Rothbard’s paleo strategy.
Rothbard’s paleo strategy was based on the fact that some conservatives came to oppose the first Iraq war, and Rothbard and other libertarians found this a hopeful sign.
Rothbard of course overestimated Pat Buchanan’s opposition to interventionist foreign policy. In his book “A Republic, Not an Empire” Buchanan defends President Nixon’s escalations in Vietnam; according to a source who has dealt with Buchanan on antiwar issues, Buchanan continues to think that America could have won the Vietnam War, and he continues to despise the antiwar movement of that era.
In the Rothbard-Rockwell Report, Rothbard went beyond that to praise the 1990 campaign of David Duke in Louisiana.
It is true that Rothbard attempted different strategies throughout his life. When I first heard of him, he was undertaking an “alliance with the new left.” I was in YAF at the time, but joined in the libertarian exodus, and I got involved with the antiwar movement. The new left had different tendencies, including a large group of people who were not very political, just opposed to war.
Rothbard went beyond allying with new left anarchists and apolitical antiwar activists. Rothbard favored working with Marxist groups against American imperialism, and at various times, he denounded left-anarchists. As late as the 1990s Rothbard denounced European left anarchists who, in contrast to American left anarchists, tend to be outspoken in opposition to communists.
Within the New York Peace & Freedom Party in 1968, Rothbard allied with the Progressive Labor Party, a Maoist grouplet, against a more mainstream new left group that was opposed to Soviet bureaucratic collectivism.
Jason Stapleton mentioned that Rothbard is Jewish, in defense against charges that Rothbardians are not willing to denounce Nazis. Rothbard never let his Jewish ancestry get in the way of denouncing Israel or applauding communists or right-populists who also opposed Israel. And he did not bring up his own Jewish background when he praised David Duke.
Lew Rockwell, Tom Woods and others consistently criticize Cato Institute as being run by “beltway libertarians” who are implied to be seeking to influence the government, and even charged with defending policies of the federal government. Lewrockwell.com continues its affiliate marking with Amazon.com, despite Amazon’s $600 million/year contract to provide computing services for the Central Intelligence Agency.
Ultimately, Jason Stapleton is an obscure host of an obscure podcast that nobody really pays attention to. I certainly will never pay attention to it again.
OK, so it looks like there were actually public invitations to Woods et al. to sign, and comments on them not signing, the statement.
I’m assuming from Sarwark’s “In case you’re wondering why people have a problem with …” reference that there was pressure, or at least encouragement, from elsewhere as well.
Keep in mind that sarwark’s tag came after Woods and his legion of trolls started volunteering they weren’t going to be “browbeaten” into signing anything.
I’m assuming from Sarwark’s “In case you’re wondering why people have a problem with …” reference that there was pressure, or at least encouragement, from elsewhere as well.
As far as I can tell, Sarwark and Sean Haugh were the only ones contra-Woods involved in that spat, compared to legions of Hoppean/Woods trolls.
Andy
September 1, 2017
Robert Capozzi said: “Indeed, his ‘knock it out of the park’ discussion felt delusional — almost Trumpian in its arrogance — to me.”
Stapleton is doing a great job with his show. He has obviously gained a lot of viewers in a short period of time.
I agree with Stapleton’s overall point, that the Libertarian Party should be further along down the road to success than it is, but I also don’t think that Stapleton fully understands the difficulties involved with building a minor political party with all of the obstacles put up by the Democrats and the Republicans.
Gaining success in politics, particularly as a minor political party, is more difficult than most people realize.
Andy
September 1, 2017
Robert Cappozi said: “He doesn’t seem to ‘get’ that the optics of being associated — fairly or unfairly — with Haters is a HUGE FUCKING PROBLEM from an optical/political perspective. NS does get that.”
I agree with your concerns, but considering that the Libertarian Party has associated with and nominated for high level political office, Council on Foreign Relations political establishment shill Bill Weld, CIA drug warrior Bob Barr, and neo-con Wayne Allyn Root, it seems as though there is more concern about some associations than there is about others, which strikes me as being hypocritical.
The Republicans and Democrats have had plenty of “haters” among their ranks. The long time late US Senator from West Virginia, Robert Byrd was a former member of the KKK, yet he is admired to this day by Hillary Clinton, and there is a statue of him in West Virginia which nobody has demanded that it be taken down. Long time Republican US Senator from South Carolina, Strom Thurmond, had a history of being a “hater,” yet he held office until he died in 2003.
OK, so it looks like there were actually public invitations to Woods et al. to sign, and comments on them not signing, the statement.
I’m assuming from Sarwark’s “In case you’re wondering why people have a problem with …” reference that there was pressure, or at least encouragement, from elsewhere as well.
That answers that question, which was a big one for me: The first time I heard that Woods wasn’t signing the statement was when he threw his pity party about it on Stapleton’s show, so it rang to me about a guy yelling about how he wasn’t going to attend a party he hadn’t been invited to. And I really didn’t and don’t care whether or not he signs it. My own contribution was simply to answer the question he asked as to why he might want to.
“I think overall that NS exercises the better overall judgment in this matter, although I do think he probably should not have called out Deist and Woods for either blowing their dog whistle or not explicitly denouncing Haterism.”
I’m still waiting to see the evidence that he called them out for the latter, as opposed to responding to Woods’s melodrama about it.
I keep asking — did ANYONE publicly call on Woods to sign the “not a fascist” statement before he started whining about being pressured to sign it? If so, there should be a tweet or a blog post or SOMETHING to show that that was the case.
It never even occurred to me to know, or care, whether or not Woods had signed the “not a fascist statement” until Woods himself threw his little temper tantrum about it (also on Stapleton’s program).
Did anyone actually ASK Woods to sign the “Libertarians United Against Fascism” letter, or criticize him for not doing so, especially prior to him going on Stapleton’s show and ranting about how he wouldn’t sign it and shouldn’t have to sign it and why would anyone think he should sign it?
No. Sarwark did tweet the petition link to Deist, but not to Woods. Of course, since Woods follows Deist, I’m pretty sure he saw that.
Anthony Dlugos
September 1, 2017
“Another great insight that NS makes here is that TW, JS, and most/all the paleo/alt-right crowd who call themselves “L” won’t denounce the Haterade coming from Cantwell, Spencer, Invictus, etc. Instead, they OFTEN say: It’s OK to be a Hater, so long as they don’t initiate force.
This paleo crowd WILL viciously attack leftists, cosmotariarns, banksters, etc., so we know that they are capable of issuing denunciations!”
That was a very good point that I noted as well.
robert capozzi
September 1, 2017
sorry
It’s very difficult NOT to infer at least some fellow-feeling ….
Anthony Dlugos
September 1, 2017
I’ll say this about Stapleton: I think he means well. I think he is the classic case of a libertarian devoted to…in love with, even…his “product,” a principled libertarian message.
I base this on the few podcasts of his I have listened to. He is not unreasonable. He was the one who, during the 2016 campaign hubbub about the NAP, indicated that it wasn’t something that should be followed dogmatically. It is a rule of thumb, not meant to be anything more.
I give no such leeway to Woods and his Mises crew, people who are at the very least, as RCapozzi pointed out, tone deaf in the extreme, and (more likely in my opinion), at some level simpatico with white nationalist and alt-reichers.
In other woods, Stapleton’s devotion to the message blinds him to the optics in the electoral arena. Woods is either not bothered by the optics, or frankly likes them.
robert capozzi
September 1, 2017
Another great insight that NS makes here is that TW, JS, and most/all the paleo/alt-right crowd who call themselves “L” won’t denounce the Haterade coming from Cantwell, Spencer, Invictus, etc. Instead, they OFTEN say: It’s OK to be a Hater, so long as they don’t initiate force.
This paleo crowd WILL viciously attack leftists, cosmotariarns, banksters, etc., so we know that they are capable of issuing denunciations!
Why?
It’s very difficult to infer at least some fellow-feeling between paleos and alt-right haters, even if the Woods of the world are careful not to actually explicitly embrace Spencer (who I learned yesterday was in some way a supporter of the Paleo God, RP1).
If there is no fire causing their smoke, why won’t they tell us: Nope, there’s no fire. Instead, the paleos deflect and simply will not answer the direct question. They will not distance themselves from the Hate Right.
Perhaps they think we are naive? Perhaps their self-delusion and lack of self-awareness is so powerful they simply don’t recognize the impression their silence generates.
Sarwark’s being disingenuous about the “success” of the LP. There was no coattails for LP candidates under Johnson.
Candidate averages have been going up slowly but steadily. Voter registration continues to rise. Non-dues paying membership hit new heights (now down from its peak, but only due to an overdue data cleanup). Dues paying membership went up significantly for the first time since Browne and while it has declined somewhat as expected, it’s still above the pre-Johnson level and for the first time since Browne the LNC is putting significant money into membership prospecting, so it will probably start to grow again. Party income is up (that is average giving per member also went up). I’d say Sarwark is correct, especially if he manages to pull off recruiting a lot more candidates in 2018. I don’t think there has been a really concerted effort to recruit large numbers of candidates since the days of Ron Crickenberger, RIP.
Furthermore he basically ran as John Anderson 2.0
To be fair, I think it was closer to Ed Clark than John Anderson.
if it was a pied piper moment drawing away the alt-right and paleos, probably a good thing.
Actually, JS ultimately understands this, because he later says something to the effect of, “Maybe this party isn’t for me and my message.” He’s right.
“He doesn’t seem to “get” that the optics of being associated — fairly or unfairly — with Haters is a HUGE FUCKING PROBLEM from an optical/political perspective. NS does get that.”
Right again. JS seems to think he gets to decide how people view his messaging. Incorrect.
I just finished listening to this. I feel that Stapleton misunderstood many of Nick’s points. It’s possibly difficult for him to see or understand Nick’s points since he engages in the same sort of Right-wing pandering and circle-jerk that Nick had argued Tom Woods also engages in (and why this drama started). Stapleton argues that the LP should have had more successes by now and it’s pathetic that 3% is our best showing after 45 years. This line of thinking is common and simple-minded; it conveniently ignores a whole slew of variables: * lack of funding (it costs $250K/day to run for president) * lack of ballot access (where do you think that money goes? To this) * lack of media exposure (we can’t possibly get votes without this) * lack of understanding about our platform (the media helps add to this by lumping us in with whatever the latest Right-wing counter-movement is) * myopic voter beliefs (wasted vote/ lesser evil/ spoiler myth)
JamesT
September 1, 2017
Sarwark’s being disingenuous about the “success” of the LP. There was no coattails for LP candidates under Johnson. Furthermore he basically ran as John Anderson 2.0 but got half as many votes. And Clinton/Trump is way crazier than Reagan/Carter.
Anthony Dlugos
September 1, 2017
“He doesn’t seem to “get” that the optics of being associated — fairly or unfairly — with Haters is a HUGE FUCKING PROBLEM from an optical/political perspective. NS does get that.”
Right again. JS seems to think he gets to decide how people view his messaging. Incorrect.
Anthony Dlugos
September 1, 2017
“JS seems to think that the paleo L message is profoundly attractive, and he also seems to believe that paleo Ls are already legion. I believe he’s incorrect on both counts, if so. Indeed, his “knock it out of the park” discussion felt delusional — almost Trumpian in its arrogance — to me. ”
Indeed. At one point towards the end, Stapleton asks forebodingly, “What would happen if my podcast, the Woods podcast, [and a few others I forgot -ed.], disavowed the Libertarian Party, and said ‘we’re now voting Republican.'”
The answer is quite simple: it wouldn’t mean a damn thing. It would be a blip, quite easily overcome, and probably…if it was a pied piper moment drawing away the alt-right and paleos, probably a good thing.
Actually, JS ultimately understands this, because he later says something to the effect of, “Maybe this party isn’t for me and my message.” He’s right.
ATBAFT
September 1, 2017
Do more than 20 people in the LP know what this “fight” is all about? I’d rather read about where and how local LP groups have engaged in the free speech debate on their local campuses or town squares. That’s where “we will get the word out” about libertarian principles. And, it seems to me, the lack of local, active LP groups is the most severe problem the LP has.
V for Vagina
September 1, 2017
Sarwark nails it as usual. Also Knapp is correct in comments above. Let’s get these paleo, alt right, white nationalist, white supremacist, libertarian-conservative fusionists and right-“libertarians” the hell out of the libertarian movement or anywhere near it as soon as possible.
JamesT
September 1, 2017
Sarwark is a guilt by association SJW lunatic. But I’ll give him props for courage. Also he lied about Gottfried straight up.
robert capozzi
September 1, 2017
sorry:
Other, LESS neutral, people should. As Chair, NS should maintain Honest Broker status when it comes to factions and factional disputes.
robert capozzi
September 1, 2017
JS seems to think that the paleo L message is profoundly attractive, and he also seems to believe that paleo Ls are already legion. I believe he’s incorrect on both counts, if so. Indeed, his “knock it out of the park” discussion felt delusional — almost Trumpian in its arrogance — to me.
JS’s framing of the Woods/Sarwark spat is incomplete, either on purpose or by omission. He doesn’t seem to “get” that the optics of being associated — fairly or unfairly — with Haters is a HUGE FUCKING PROBLEM from an optical/political perspective. NS does get that.
Instead, JS and TW seem to just reply, “Woods has the right to NOT participate in denouncing Haterism.” This is, of course, correct.
I think overall that NS exercises the better overall judgment in this matter, although I do think he probably should not have called out Deist and Woods for either blowing their dog whistle or not explicitly denouncing Haterism. It IS NS’s job to protect and distance the LP and LM from being associated with Cantwell and the other defecting Haters, but not his job to call out the semi-complicits like Deist and Woods.
Yes, Rothbard came up with all kinds of strategy ideas during his life, and I suppose that it’s possible one or more of them might have turned out just as badly as the “paleo strategy” if he’d stuck with them. But it was the “paleo strategy” he was still hooked on when he suddenly died, and lesser minds in his circle seem to have been unwilling or unable to abandon it when it proved to be a gigantic loser politically (possibly because it seems to have been something of a winner financially).
One thing I did not hear covered in this interview/debate:
Did anyone actually ASK Woods to sign the “Libertarians United Against Fascism” letter, or criticize him for not doing so, especially prior to him going on Stapleton’s show and ranting about how he wouldn’t sign it and shouldn’t have to sign it and why would anyone think he should sign it?
David Pratt Demarest
September 1, 2017
Fascinating interview featuring two Libertarian forces to be reckoned with. Nick Sarwark has a knack of using clear logical statements while recognizing the right of others speak their mind. I particularly like Nick’s analysis of marketing strategies used by various segments of the Libertarian movement. Nick is absolutely right when he points out that what you say or do not say as part of your marketing strategy is important. Nick’s assertion gets to the heart of whether or not political correctness is appropriate in the Libertarian movement. I assert that political correctness is not appropriate in any context, particularly in the Libertarian movement.
Libertarians in general do a far better job of avoiding political correctness than the two major parties and their sycophant traditional media apologists. Libertarians, however, are not immune from political correctness when they focus on their target audiences with the aim of garnering or retaining votes or audience numbers. That is unfortunate.
I define political correctness as the misrepresentation of reality to achieve a political goal. Let me be even more blunt. Political correctness is nothing more than ‘means justifies ends’ lying for political purposes. Putting the military, police and even compulsory majority-rule representative democracy on pedestals they do not deserve in order to achieve political aims is not only morally reprehensible but also not productive in the long run.
Jason Stapleton’s strong and articulate message calls for the Libertarian Party to speak with one voice, preferably his voice. A noble goal, I am sure, but not based in reality. Despite a shared admirable predisposition toward individual liberty, the strength of the Libertarian movement is that is does not speak with one voice and it never will. Libertarians are or should be continuously immersed in deep-dive, root-cause analysis to improve their perception of reality and what it takes to advance the cause of freedom for all. Political correctness does a disservice to those who are willing to think outside the box for themselves rather than spout one-voice group-speak political correctness.
~David Pratt Demarest, September 1, 2017
Andy
September 1, 2017
Lots of interesting stuff covered in this interview.
I could be wrong, but I think that this “tiff” between Woods and Sarwark started after Woods posted a video of a speech he gave titled, “What I Learned From Murray Rothbard,” and Sawark made what came off as a negative comment about Rothard’s use of the “paleo” strategy (that is, libertarians reaching out to and forming coalitions with paleoconservatives) in the 1990’s. I would have to listen to the interview again, but I don’t think that this was discussed in the interview above with Stapleton.
Regardless of the merits or demerits of the “paleo” strategy, two things should be pointed out, 1) Rothbard tried different strategies throughout his life, and at one time, he tried to recruit from and coalition with people on the political left, and at other times he worked within the Libertarian Party, and 2) the speech given by Tom Woods that elicited this comment had nothing to do with Murray Rothbard’s political strategies, but rather was about Woods reminiscing about Rothbard the person from the time that he spent with him (Woods described him as a very friendly person with a good sense of humor), and learning things about economics and philosophy from him.
I think that the libertarian philosophy is broad enough to appeal to wide groups of people, as in people with different social preferences. So a person could be a gay multi-culturalist, or a straight conservative who does not want to associate with anyone from a different culture, and as long as they both adhere to the Non_Aggression Principe, they can each have their preferences, and peacefully co-exist.
A lot of the problems that we have today, such as the big controversy with statues/memorials/historic sites from the Confederate States of America, and the Founding Fathers, are culture clashes, that would not exist, or would be far less likely to exist, if we lived in a libertarian anarcho-capitalist society.
Under our present system, people with different preferences are forced to live under the same government, where they are forced to associate with people whom they may not want to associate, and they are forced to pay taxes that get spent on things that various people oppose. Just about everything gets turned into a political issue to one degree or another, and various groups battle for who is going to get control of government, so they can impose their preferences onto others.
Libertarians offer the only real solution to this problem, and that is to abolish coercive government, and to establish a voluntary, private property based, anarchist society, where people agree to adhere to the Non-Aggression Principle, and where the free market would hopefully develop defense mechanisms to maintain such a society (if it did not, then mankind would likely end up back where we are today with government).
Stapleton made some comments criticizing the current state of the Libertarian Party, and I agree with him on most of these points, although I don’t really agree with his comment about Arvin Vohra, and I also don’t think that Stapleton has enough information about what all has gone on in the Libertarian Party over the years to make the most informed comments,
I do agree with Stapleton that Johnson/Weld was a terrible ticket, and that the Libertarian Party blew a major opportunity last year, and it seems rather counter-productive to me to go after guys like Tom Woods and Jeff Deist, when the Libertarian Party associated with a political establishment big government shill like Bill Weld, and put him on its presidential ticket. I would take Woods and Deist any day over Johnson/Weld, and I’d take also take Stapleton over Johnson/Weld.
I do agree with the point that Sarwark made to Stapleton, that if he is not happy with the way the Libertarian Party is operating, or if he is not happy with the candidates whom the party is nominating, that he and others like him should get involved in the party and come to the conventions.
Stapleton said that he is not a member of the LP, but I recall hearing that he was at the national convention in Orlando last year. I did not see him there, but he could have been there and I just did not see him. If he was there, I don’t know if he was there as a delegate or not.
I would welcome Jason Stapleton, and Tom Woods, and Jeff Deist, as well as anyone else who could reasonably be called a libertarian, to join the Libertarian Party if they are not already a member.
Like members of any organization, we are not going to agree on every detail of everything all of the time, but as long as we agree most of the time, and as long as we remain committed to radically reducing the size and scope of government (we can debate just how much, and how to go about doing this), then we can all find common ground and work together.
Libertarians, even when they disagree, should agree with other libertarians more than they agree with Democrats or Republicans. The Democrats and the Republicans are the real enemy.
This reminds me of the following quote: “We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately.” Benjamin Franklin
dL,
Wow, you are paying attention. But, hmm, so much fallacy in your post that I’m sure, on reflection, you’ll recognize.
Poli-sci is not economics. I didn’t say it was a commie plot, rather I said most poli-sci courses I took were from far left profs. I do recall a Straussian one, probably a proto-neo-con.
Mostly, though, this IPR dialog is not an academic exercise. It is surprisingly scintillating political conversation that we might have engaged in at the corner bars in decades past. I and many here use shorthand terms and spellings. We don’t proofread and we’re not subject to peer review.
During the election, I was watching some Jones youtubes, mostly because it seemed relevant to the rise of Trump. I liked hearing from Roger Stone directly, and provided great insight into Trump, having been on the inside of that campaign. Jones has become unwatchable in recent months for me.
I think it’s safe to say that I am NOT a conspiracy theorist. I watch MSNBC and Fox youtubes, too, mostly as a means to triangulating toward truth. All three invest in profoundly false premises, and for me it’s amusing to hear them and notice that they seem oblivious to the mistakes they make.
Still unwilling to offer me an NAPster alternative?
Bob, you’ve previously claimed you took master level courses instructed by Gordon Tullock. Perhaps your college experience memory is a bit hazy these days, but I assure you that Tullock was neither a left-liberal nor a commie.
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2017/01/caryn-ann-harlos-the-2016-lp-convention-and-taxation-is-theft/#comment-1520373
FYI: i consider it badge of honor to be called an extremist by anyone who claims the field of political science is a commie plot. Have you been watching a bit too much of Alex Jones lately?
yep…thanx for the correction, Gene.
Never mind ill will. Here’s Ill Bill:
“…heimatsutz national security state…” heimatsutz should be “Heimatschutz” if you mean “Homeland Protection.”
When President Bush announced the creation of the Department of Homeland Security I determined that the original German name is “Heimatsicherheitsdienst.”
In the Third Reich the Security Service was “Sicherheitsdienst.”
In the German Democratic Republic, the State Security Service was “Staatsicherheitsdienst” so clearly Homeland Security Department would be “Heimatsicherheitsdienst.”
If you google it, after a variety of references in libertarian websites is shown, google will take you to the DHS website.
tk,
Never ill will on my part, except maybe in my weakest moments. I note that I sometimes agree with one set of NAPsters on balance and disagree with others. For ex., on Charleson I was totally with PF, and totally opposed to Cantwell, until recently and possibly still is a NAPster. There are some NAPsters who are quite hawkish with whom I disagree. I think it’s fair to say I disagree to some extent with you and AJ on immigration.
Don’t forget that I’m a Randian/Rothbardian in recovery. I once bought the NAP as the One True Way toward liberty. It’s fractured applications might be an opportunity for the radical inquiry into whether it’s a useful standard to view civil society.
Still, I surely don’t want you to be uncomfortable. If the term NAPster triggers you, and you won’t or can’t offer a better descriptor, would NIOFster work better for you?
“Feels like ill will to me”
Well, you’re the one you would know that, since the population of “NAPsters” has nearly 100% overlap with “people in the libertarian movement with whom Robert Capozzi disagrees at any given moment.” Only you can really know whether that nearly 100% overlap is confirmation bias or ill will.
dL: …explaining this a thousand times from political science standpoint, I keep hearing the same “NAPster” broken record from you.
me: Coming at this from another angle, first, I’m not terribly concerned by taxonomies employed by poli-sci profs. In my college days, they were either Marxists or far left-liberals, and I generally disagreed with their “scholarly” perspectives. Second, I use NAPster as short-hand for NAP Adherents because it’s short and it riffs off TK’s Kn@ppster blog. Third, if you don’t like my short-hand, I’ve invited you to offer up another short-hand term that you find less grating. Repeating your objection doesn’t work since you have repeated your whining about my short-hand term for non-obvious reasons.
dL: I’m further amused that opposition to the heimatsutz national security state is somehow an extremist position.
me: I’m really at a loss as to how this is relevant. For me, I don’t like the vibe of the “homeland security” term, but, yes, I would say that overnight abolition of all those functions would qualify as extremist.
We could pass the hat and poll test support for abolishing the Coast Guard, but we all know the result would be highly predictable, gaining maybe 5% support at most. In fact, most asked might think the poll is a joke of some sort! 😉
rc.
“To be fair to our NAPster brothers and sisters, they will not necessarily savage and otherwise ostracize a more moderate L candidate or individual. ”
You are right, they won’t. Those who are genuine in their purity won’t.
ad,
“Purist” doesn’t work for me. It implies that NAPsters are pure and non-NAPsters are impure. This is inaccurate and false.
“Please don’t become the second person on the planet to adopt RC’s “NAPster” delusion. You’ve got enough bizarre delusions running around in your head already.”
I could go back to “Purist.” Would that be better.
I blame the delusions on you getting me hooked on Kentucky straight bourbon. I used to be a rational scotch drinker, like GovWeld and the rest of the Eastern Establishment.
tk: RC’s “NAPster” delusion
me: Still waiting for an alternative term, after repeated requests. Feels like ill will to me, but I hope I’m wrong.
Anthony,
Please don’t become the second person on the planet to adopt RC’s “NAPster” delusion. You’ve got enough bizarre delusions running around in your head already.
It amuses me that despite explaining this a thousand times from political science standpoint, I keep hearing the same “NAPster” broken record from you. I’m further amused that opposition to the heimatsutz national security state is somehow an extremist position.
ad,
To be fair to our NAPster brothers and sisters, they will not necessarily savage and otherwise ostracize a more moderate L candidate or individual. As I understand it, so long as the candidate never advocates or implies even qualified support of any aspect of the State and never advocate that any of the State to grow, they will not foam at the mouth. This is not to say that they would be ENTHUSIASTIC about a moderate L candidate, but so long as the NAP plumbline is toed, they will keep their long knives sheathed.
Emblematic of this is the “governments — when instituted — ” clause in the SoP. “When instituted” needed to be inserted to avoid the implication that nonarchy is not an option, iirc.
It all gets quite tortured, but such is the nature of the LM-osphere.
A possible explanation is that for the according to the NAPster (and other) dogmatist mindset, holding high the banner of “principle” is itself a “win.”
Not only is that a possible explanation, it is THE explanation, in my opinion. Which is a big problem for any number of reasons when it comes to a political party, not the least of which is that judging success is purely in the eye of the beholder, unconcerned with such philistine concerns like vote totals.
I would probably be willing to just let the NAP-ster/radical set have the 2020 nomination, if they would be willing to abide by the vote total result and either agree to take a pragmatic stance going forward, or leave (and I would be willing to accept the same deal).
But that would be pointless, because they could always default to “well, 300,000 votes is okay, because it was the right message!”
“This Angrytarian attitude opens the door to the Cantwells, Invictuses, and Spencers, who (probably unconsciously) are in it less to win and more to raise their fists in anger, in public and with pronounced and vocal self-righteousness.”
100% correct. NAPsters don’t see this because everything is viewed through the lens of philosophy. The idea that the Cantwells and Invicutses can just lie about their adherence to the philosophy in order to gain the platform doesn’t enter into consideration.
ad: What kind of defeatist thinking is that?
me: A possible explanation is that for the according to the NAPster (and other) dogmatist mindset, holding high the banner of “principle” is itself a “win.” Spouting out unfiltered utopianisms, I suspect, is supremely satisfying to them. Indeed, actual winning elections (or even acting AS IF you are running to win) represents proof that of Libertarian-lite-ness. This rains on the NAPster parade, where defiant, neck-vein-bulging is the goal.
This Angrytarian attitude opens the door to the Cantwells, Invictuses, and Spencers, who (probably unconsciously) are in it less to win and more to raise their fists in anger, in public and with pronounced and vocal self-righteousness.
They don’t seem interested in truth, which for me is the higher principle.
“Hmmm, I recall the term “moonbat” being a popular slur in the early 2000s to describe those who opposed the Iraq War. Well, the moonbat position was the correct one. And if one supported that war at the time merely on the basis of overton window optics, one would have no credibility on any anti-war position today.”
In the matter of public accommodations, the equivalent moonbat position would not be opposition to the Iraq War. It would be to respond to the decision to go into Iraq by arguing to disband the military and turn defense over to the free market and private defense firms. Which, again, might be an interesting avenue for, say, a think tank, but not for a political party.
“Overton window==stick your finger in the fucking wind. That may work for a major party candidate. But that’s farting in the wind for a 3rd party.”
That’s good to know, because I don’t want to be a 3rd party. What kind of defeatist thinking is that?
dL,
It amuses and puzzles me that you and many proponents of extremist L-ism seem to be unable to see things as all black or all white. “Principled” full-throated and bombastic vs. finger in the wind.
It runs counter to life. People make adjustments in how they behave. Appropriate locker room behavior contrasts with funeral behavior contrasts with al child’s birthday party, etc. I would think NAPsters and dogmatists recognize the concept of appropriate behavior, except, apparently, when it comes to politics.
Help me understand why?
Hmmm, I recall the term “moonbat” being a popular slur in the early 2000s to describe those who opposed the Iraq War. Well, the moonbat position was the correct one. And if one supported that war at the time merely on the basis of overton window optics, one would have no credibility on any anti-war position today.
Overton window==stick your finger in the fucking wind. That may work for a major party candidate. But that’s farting in the wind for a 3rd party. The only thing of substance that wind farts will produce is skid marks…
tk: The Overton Window, like all windows, is opened from its edge.
me: 100%.
The edge, not the moon! 😉
cm: Again, if your yardstick for success is winning, then Obama and George W. Bush are great libertarians.
me: I don’t have a “yardstick.” BHO and GWB were not Ls in my book as neither seemed interested in advancing liberty and shrinking the State.
I was pleased to see RP1 doing well for a while in the R prez nom races. I was profoundly disappointed by his handling of NewsletterGate1.0 and 2.0, and there are aspects of Paul-ism that I find off-key on many levels.
I was pleased to see GJ run a reasonably professional campaign with an often compelling message.
One key to success that some point to is the willingness to take risks and experiment with different approaches. Applied NAPsterism might work under the right conditions, I suppose, but my sense is its obvious theoretical flaws lead to almost certain failure.
aj: Robert Capozzi, did Gary Johnson win the presidential election by giving mealy mouthed, watered down, and in some cases, anti-libertarian, answers to questions?
me: Obviously not. I disagreed with some of GJ’s positions, if you recall. I didn’t find the “mealy mouthed” or “watered down,” though. Those are your words and your characterization. I would never expect a campaign — especially a third party one — to be 100% in line with my views. I would never expect a third party candidate to win, either. To me, though, I’d like to see a well-balanced campaign that acts as if it COULD win.
aj: Ron Paul did not win the Republican presidential nomination, but he did win the hearts and minds of a lot of people over to the cause of liberty.
me: I have tremendous respect for RP1. Like GJ, he takes positions I don’t agree with. I would have voted for him had he secured the R nomination, and I did vote for him in 88.
I also appreciate adult conversation, and it’s really important to be clear-eyed about some of his associations with unsavory characters and how this Hater, Racist Right nonsense has infected the reputation of the LM.
—–
Here’s a good place to start: the property rights of homophobic bakers are getting kicked down to the bottom of the to-do list. They’ll have to wait. Period. I am truly sorry for the honestly religious baker who is going to have to bake a cake for someone they hate, but they should have been helping us every day of the past 45 years, up to and including today, when OTHER people’s property rights were being infringed upon. I have sympathy for their situation. Actually, I don’t They should have been helping. Now they’ll have to wait.
—-
Actually, no, they won’t. The Supreme Court will be taking up their case next month.
The LP doesn’t get to decide which issues are important. It just gets to decide whether to be right or wrong on those issues. And being wrong on those issues is wrong from a marketing standpoint as well. Lying about what we are will NEVER fool people into voting for us because they think we’re something else.
The Overton Window, like all windows, is opened from its edge.
Andy, anyone who has been paying attention has long since stopped following any of your whackadoodle troofer tin foil hat links. When I read your comments (which I rarely do and always regret), I end my reading with your actual words.
The Ron Paul campaign continued to gain steam while remaining libertarian on message. Again, if your yardstick for success is winning, then Obama and George W. Bush are great libertarians.
Robert Capozzi, did Gary Johnson win the presidential election by giving mealy mouthed, watered down, and in some cases, anti-libertarian, answers to questions?
Ron Paul did not win the Republican presidential nomination, but he did win the hearts and minds of a lot of people over to the cause of liberty. Ron Paul has done more than anyone else in this regard.
cm: “Ron Paul answered tough questions on heroin legalization in Republican presidential debates without running away from libertarian principles.”
Me: And?
Did he get the nomination? Has there been a mass consciousness shift on the issue? Did it somehow create an inflection point where tens of millions of minds are now wanting liberty in their lifetimes?
Nope.
He did meet Richard Spencer in that timeframe, I do believe. It doesn’t seem like much of a consolation prize!! 😉
Why can’t pompous jackass Chuck Moulton actually read the comment and see that I cut and pasted the YouTube description that was posted by That Guy T, aka-Taleed Brown, who is the person who made and posted that video, and who is also the person who posted that description where he mentioned that he is black, in the comment that I cut and pasted from him from YouTube?
The relevance of the quote is that it has been alleged that one must be a racist/”white supremist” if one opposes anti-discrimination laws, yet That Guy T, aka-Taleed Brown, correctly takes the same position.
Anthony, clearly you have not been listening to LP moderates, who have been telling radicals for decades that we need to back off drug legalization and only talk about medical marijuana.
It’s always the same refrain: not the right time for liberty… pretend we are centrists to get elected, then we can govern like libertarians — except if they get elected they need to keep shying away from libertarianism so they can get re-elected. The time for embracing liberty always seems to be in the future if moderates have anything to say about it.
I’m with Barry Goldwater: extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.
“Ron Paul answered tough questions on heroin legalization in Republican presidential debates without running away from libertarian principles.”
Public opinion is moving closer to drug re-legalization. Proposing an end to drug prohibition is in no way the political suicide that would come with arguing for the rights of a racist restaurants to put a “no n**ggers allowed sign” in the window.
Philosophically, they are obviously the same. However, electoral politics has to account for the frame of reference of the voters, and the limited time frame of an electoral campaign. The voters you don’t lose on the issue itself (which includes the ones who misunderstand the libertarian position), you will lose via their realization that you have no intention of speaking to their issues of importance at the given moment and would rather engage in flights of philosophical fancy that tell them you’re not serious about the office itself, because not even the President, let alone any lower office, has within himself or herself the power to overturn decades of legal precedents and who knows how many laws and institute by unilateral decree an immediate regime of absolute property rights. How exactly could a president accomplish this? For one thing, who are the judges he could nominate to federal benches that would hold such an extreme position on property rights? They don’t exist.
At least Vermin Supreme’s “free pony for everyone” has a sense of whimsy.
I hate to keep bringing up the quotidian.
optics
Because, obviously, black people, Jews and Hispanics would never join up or agree with white supremacists.
Therefore, the KKK is not racist anymore….
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2828425/The-Ku-Klux-Klan-opens-door-Jews-black-people-homosexuals-new-recruits-wear-white-robes-hats.html
And neither are nazis…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7744966.stm
Jail terms for Israeli neo-Nazis
cm: less time coming up with excuses to embrace statism and abandon principle.
me: The Stiff Arm tactic does not, as I see it, “embrace statism.” It would be fairer to say that it avoids getting bogged down in gotcha questions where there is virtually no chance for highly theoretical destinational goals that some Ls seem fascinated with. I don’t feel in any way Unprincipled when employing a Stiff Arm.
Then, again, I’m more interested in truth first and progress second than I am in engaging in academic speculation in public. Nothing per se “wrong” with such speculation, but it seems to have almost nothing to do with rolling back the State.
I completely agree with Starchild. You can answer tough questions about libertarian policies without denying the LP 3 times like Judas.
Less Antman is one of many masters of pivoting tough questions into principled answers without sounding inhumane or rascist. Libertarians should spend more time learning how to defend and promote liberty, less time coming up with excuses to embrace statism and abandon principle.
Ron Paul answered tough questions on heroin legalization in Republican presidential debates without running away from libertarian principles.
Why does whackadoodle Andy keep mentioning that people who agree with him on a given position are black?
dL: Well, it gets me a bit bracing when I read the optics of a thing is the only criterion for justice.
me: I’m sorry if you have the impression that optics is the only consideration, although I’m not sure how you came to that conclusion.
A holistic lessarchist approach would be to assess where progress can be made toward maximizing social peace and liberty, including where the optics work to our advantage, tabling them where they are to our disadvantage, where we are likely to garner the most support, and where the interests against enhanced liberty are currently insurmountable.
dL: If its any consolation, I don’t consider being forced to do what you already doing to be the worst type of libertarian violation, given that one is being fairly compensated for doing it. However, the means of accomplishing it, in this case, an expansionist use of the commerce clause, leads to a plethora of new injustices.
me: Yes, if I understand your point, I agree. Since all laws and their enforcement (or even reparations!) are imperfect and prone to collateral unintended consequences, all we can do is exercise our best judgment to press for enhanced liberty in the areas most likely to bear the most fruit.
Well, it gets me a bit bracing when I read the optics of a thing is the only criterion for justice.
If its any consolation, I don’t consider being forced to do what you already doing to be the worst type of libertarian violation, given that one is being fairly compensated for doing it. However, the means of accomplishing it, in this case, an expansionist use of the commerce clause, leads to a plethora of new injustices.
That’s why I prefer the more truthful “Look, anyone paying attention can have legitimate concerns about ANY law,” approach followed up with “no I don’t advocate changes at this time.”
This approach stiff-arms the baiting-type questions that have been used to expose Ls as heartless extremists.
Not bad at all.
dL: The correct libertarian position would have been the repeal of the State enforced Jim Crow laws and restitution/reparations for those who were harmed(so, instead, say, a 1964 Civil Reparations Act).
me: I think I’m with you in theory IF reparations and damages could be sorted out. I’m very skeptical that they could be sorted, though.
It gets me a bit bracing for me when I hear the phrase “the correct L position.” Has a Talmudic/College of Cardinals vibe.
That’s why I prefer the more truthful “Look, anyone paying attention can have legitimate concerns about ANY law,” approach followed up with “no I don’t advocate changes at this time.”
This approach stiff-arms the baiting-type questions that have been used to expose Ls as heartless extremists.
I can’t say this is the “correct” position, but I do think it would work much better in a political context. It states the obvious: no law is perfect. It recognizes that in politics ideas need to be prioritized and ripened. Even NAPsters (I don’t think) can really object to the Stiff Arm.
The Stiff Arm avoids the gotchas. It positions a L as reasonable but it also doesn’t alienate those who have concerns about things like the CRA and other toxic subjects. And, wonderfully for me at least, it is true.
Anthony Dlugos writes in part (September 4, 2017 at 10:25):
“I didn’t say it was impossible to be principled and be involved in electoral politics. I am principled. I have the right principles for advocating the reduction of the size and scope of government and increasing individual liberty in the realm of electoral politics…”
Anthony, I appreciate your kind words about me (September 4, 2017 at 19:49), and I have no grounds to call you unprincipled or reason to doubt your good intentions. However I confess I don’t know what your political principles are. Compromising in order to cobble together electoral majorities of 50%+1 vote is a strategy, not a principle. Where laws exist, what do you think they should ideally say when it comes to freedom of association?
“In the face of a qualified, moderate Libertarian candidate, the representative of radical libertarianism ends up with 7% of the delegates.”
That’s a misleading observation. Darryl Perry didn’t get a small share of the delgates’ votes at the 2016 LP convention because the delegates disagreed with what he was saying. He got probably more passionate applause than Gary Johnson did, and I think most of the people in that room understood public policy ought, with few if any exceptions, to be based on the Non-Aggression Principle.
I believe Gary Johnson was nominated for multiple interrelated reasons, but I’m pretty sure one major reason is that delegates based their decisions more on who they believed would appeal to others (primarily the media) than on which candidate’s positions best reflected their own. In other words, they voted using the same kind of thinking that led millions of people to vote for Clinton or Trump despite realizing they really would have rather had Johnson in office than either of them!
If we want voters to vote Libertarian in public elections, we in the LP need to set a good example by voting for who we believe is best, not who we think other people will like. When people vote based on how they expect other people to vote, election outcomes will fail the test of wisdom by not reflecting our best judgements, and they will fail the test of democracy by not reflecting the actual opinions of the electorate.
“…your principles are not well-suited for electoral politics. They ignore the plain facts of current voter preference in favor of advocating for a particular set of set-in-stone policy prescription, never to be adjusted based on current political conditions.”
I’m not sure how different our actual principles are. Obviously our approaches are different. My approach is to be honest and not try to mislead voters. Not to make people think, for instance, that I only want to decriminalize marijuana when really I want people to have the freedom to put whatever they want into their own bodies, harmful or not, without being criminalized for those choices.
This doesn’t mean I’m “ignoring” the (often highly nuanced and not-so-plain) facts of current voter preferences, and it doesn’t mean I won’t support decriminalizing marijuana when that’s the proposal on the table (assuming it’s a “clean” proposal, and not something like California’s Prop. 64 or worse!). Radicals will usually support incremental steps in the right direction, so long as these steps do not involve violating our principles or harming the chances for further progress. It just means that I will push to make sure what’s on the table is as pro-freedom as possible, and not pretend anything less than a free world is my goal.
“I know, you’re going to argue how to explain said absolute property rights in a thirty-second answer in the midst of a 6-month campaign in a way that distills a mountain of libertarian argumentation going back decades, and I am telling you that this is absurd and you’re not that good, I’m not that good, no one in this party is that good. Given their current frame of reference, voters are just gonna look at us as a bunch of enablers for racists [if we tell the truth about freedom of association]”
If a candidate frames their responses to questions about freedom of association in a way that supports the rights of people to take a stand against offensive bigotry, it’s going to be difficult to frame him or her as an enabler of racism, and responding this way is not hard to do.
For instance if someone asks our candidate, “Should a homophobic baker be legally compelled to bake a cake for a customer who wants it for his gay wedding?”, the candidate might respond by turning it around and asking, “Should a gay baker be legally compelled to bake a cake for a customer who wants it for celebrating Hitler’s birthday? I say no, what do you say?” If the interviewer tries to press the question, the candidate can say, “My support for freedom of association should be clear from the example I gave. Please don’t try to force me to answer the question in a way that would be used to falsely make me look bigoted when I am not.”
The key is to simply refuse to use the interviewer’s biased question as the measure by which the right of freedom of association should be evaluated.
Also, if a candidate has strong, anti-bigoted positions on other culturally sensitive issues – passionately condemning the “War on Drugs”, police abuses against minorities, anti-immigrant policies, etc., it will be difficult to convincingly smear him or her as a bigot even if s/he were to answer the “cake” question or some similar query exactly as asked.
Well, if you are arguing w/ bigots, alt-right apologists or emasculated, victimized snowflakes, forever…or at least until white Jesus returns…whichever event happens first.
Actually, I addressed that sort of clarity head on a number of years ago
[Libertarian Talking Points]
https://rulingclass.wordpress.com/2010/10/13/libertarian-talking-points/
“Anthony Dlugos
September 4, 2017 at 21:58
‘You act as though this was the first time that a Libertarian Party candidate ever got asked any difficult questions. Libertarians have been asked difficult and controversial questions in interviews for years.’
Andy, your conspiracy theory nutteries and wackadoodle political philosophy gives you the sense of perspective of a drunken sailor. Harry Browne was a virtual nobody,”
Harry Browne was just one example of a Libertarian getting asked difficult and controversial questions in interviews. The fact of the matter is that Harry Browne was on several TV shows, and multiple radio shows, and he was asked all kinds of questions, some on controversial topics, and he always gave a libertarian answer, and he never sounded stupid or uninformed.
“and Ron Paul’s only actual presidential run was ignored. His runs for the GOP nomination simply weren’t as high profile as a town hall for an atual presidential nominee. Not to mention the fact that I don’t recall him ever getting asked the sort of controversial question I suggested…specifically about a hypothetical racist restaurant. In any case, Ron Paul’s newsletters pretty much gave everyone the idea he was perhaps a closet racist anyway, whether that was true or not.”
Here is an interview Ron Paul did with black comedian, DL Hughley, where Hughley talks about how Ron Paul won him over after Ron Paul answered a controversial question about the Civil War.
D.L. Hughley explains how Ron Paul won him over
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hwypqXX3JA
from press release: Rachel Maddow asked whether the 1964 Civil Rights Act properly outlawed racial segregation at privately owned lunch counters.
me: Possible lessarchist answer: Proper? Look, anyone paying attention can have legitimate concerns about ANY law. The Constitution once supported slavery, and our nation had the good sense to change the Constitution. Jim Crow laws were overturned, and that’s a good thing. Could the 64 CRA been written better? Absolutely. Do I advocate changing it? No, no I don’t, but I do look forward to the day when it is utterly irrelevant.
“Also, from talking to random members of the public who saw the Stossel debates last year, I heard more positive feedback about Austin Petersen and John McAfee than I did about Gary Johnson.”
Must have been people in drug-induced psychosis. Anyway, your 35-year old blogger (funny Andy defends a guy who is now a republican), and your Belizean murder suspect together ended up receiving fewer delegates than Johnson on both votes anyway so who cares?
“You act as though this was the first time that a Libertarian Party candidate ever got asked any difficult questions. Libertarians have been asked difficult and controversial questions in interviews for years.”
Andy, your conspiracy theory nutteries and wackadoodle political philosophy gives you the sense of perspective of a drunken sailor. Harry Browne was a virtual nobody, and Ron Paul’s only actual presidential run was ignored. His runs for the GOP nomination simply weren’t as high profile as a town hall for an atual presidential nominee. Not to mention the fact that I don’t recall him ever getting asked the sort of controversial question I suggested…specifically about a hypothetical racist restaurant. In any case, Ron Paul’s newsletters pretty much gave everyone the idea he was perhaps a closet racist anyway, whether that was true or not.
This is what would ACTUALLY happen if the news media sinks its teeth into someone standing their ground on an absolute property rights defense, or something similar. And mind you, this wasn’t only a senatorial primary, not a presidential campaign:
https://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2010/0526/Rand-Paul-and-the-Civil-Rights-Act-Was-he-right
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS — Fresh from his victory in last week’s Kentucky Republican senatorial primary, Rand Paul found himself caught in a whirlwind when MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow asked whether the 1964 Civil Rights Act properly outlawed racial segregation at privately owned lunch counters. Speaking circuitously if not evasively, Mr. Paul finally said:
“[O]ne of the things freedom requires is that we allow people to be boorish and uncivilized. But that doesn’t mean we approve of it.”
So although he supports striking down segregationist state Jim Crow laws, he objected to Title II of the Act, outlawing racial discrimination in “public accommodations.” “Had I been around I would have tried to modify that,” he said.
—>However, after a torrent of media and blogospheric criticism, he changed course,<— telling CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, “I would have voted yes…. I think that there was an overriding problem in the South, so big that it did require federal intervention in the sixties.”
Anthony Dlugos said: “he has no idea the hell we would be in if Governor Johnson had answered the Bake The Cake Question with an absolute defense of property rights, then doubled down on that in a high profile cable tv Town Hall event by defending the same absolute property rights of racist restaurant owners. (He surely would hear the same question in EVERY subsequent interview, asked in a hundred different ways. Weld would have long since left the ticket. It would be a descent into madness. NAPsters have the ironic benefit that they generally have no audience outside of other Libertarians listening to them. Skilled reporters would have skewered them so effectively, they end up in the witness protection program.)”
You act as though this was the first time that a Libertarian Party candidate ever got asked any difficult questions. Libertarians have been asked difficult and controversial questions in interviews for years. I have a VHS tape buried away in a box that has some of Harry Browne’s TV appearances from his 2000 campaign, and in two of them, he was hounded by by Hannity & Colmes and in the other one by Bill O’Reilly. Ron Paul was asked difficult questions on controversial topics when he ran for President in the Republican primaries in 2008 and in 2012. The fact of the matter is that other candidates handled the difficult questions on controversial topics better than Gary Johnson did. Getting asked difficult questions on controversial topics is not a reason for Libertarian candidates to shy away from libertarianism, it is a reason to get candidates who are more capable of giving well reasoned, principled libertarian answers to these questions than Gary Johnson was.
Also, from talking to random members of the public who saw the Stossel debates last year, I heard more positive feedback about Austin Petersen and John McAfee than I did about Gary Johnson.
That’s okay. Unlike you, I’m not on a witch hunt determining everyone’s purity level.
I briefly met Governor Weld in Orlando, and I shook his hand all I said was, “Welcome aboard.” He said thanks and that was it.
Later, I witnessed someone who certainly WOULD pass your test yelling at him like a deranged lunatic.
Anthony Dlugos said: ” I know that his dedication to an uncompromising libertarianism is genuine…which is more than I can say for Woods and even Stapleton.”
This coming from a guy who supports Bill Weld. Not exactly a credible person for determining libertarian purity.
That Guy T: Anti-Discrimination Laws Are Stupid
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzXXvUjg8Fo
Video description from YouTube: “That Guy T
Published on May 12, 2014
A black guy against anti-discrimination laws… Only in Obama’s America right? lol :p”
Robert Capozzi, a private restaurant owner should have the right to put up such a sign.
The response to this that can get those horrified by such an idea to come around to the libertarian side is by asking why one would you want to patronize this restaurant.
Sure, some people may like this or may not care, but a restaurant that has such a policy is obviously going to lose some customers.
The solution is to spend your money at a restaurant that does not have this policy.
RCapozzi,
I do honestly appreciate the thoughtful and impassioned responses Starchild gave me in this thread. I only know him via reputation and on this site, but as sure as the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, I know that his dedication to an uncompromising libertarianism is genuine…which is more than I can say for Woods and even Stapleton.
But that devotion blinds some to political reality. I think a lot of the NAPsters don’t have the political savvy you refer to, so dedicated are they to the NAP and radical libertarianism. They honestly think a candidate CAN pivot with regard to the public accommodations/private property rights issue.
To say that ignores the history of the Jim Crow South doesn’t even begin to scratch the surface of the problem.
In any event, if Starchild thinks the LP has a problem now with connections to the alt-right, extreme conservatives, and disaffected republicans in general, he has no idea the hell we would be in if Governor Johnson had answered the Bake The Cake Question with an absolute defense of property rights, then doubled down on that in a high profile cable tv Town Hall event by defending the same absolute property rights of racist restaurant owners. (He surely would hear the same question in EVERY subsequent interview, asked in a hundred different ways. Weld would have long since left the ticket. It would be a descent into madness. NAPsters have the ironic benefit that they generally have no audience outside of other Libertarians listening to them. Skilled reporters would have skewered them so effectively, they end up in the witness protection program.)
In that case, we wouldn’t even have the saving grace that no one would be watching or the “out” that the candidate saying it was an insignificant peon running for a peon office. The blow to both Johnson and the LP itself would be possibly fatal.
Then again, he wouldn’t be Governor Johnson if he ever thought to handle that question in a NAP-pure way anyway.
ad: the NEXT question would have been about whether or not a white restaurant owner in Mississippi could put up a “No N**gers Allowed” sign in his window, and had he stuck to absolute property rights AGAIN, the campaign would have been OVER, period.
me: Well framed. NAPsters generally won’t address this sort of clarity head on, because they have enough self-awareness and political savvy to recognize how fatal this position is. They often attempt a pivot, but there of course is no effective way to pivot on the matter.
“But in conclusion Anthony, if you don’t agree with anything else I say here, please consider this: If you believe it is impossible to be principled, and agitate for freedom and justice while involved in electoral politics, and that to get anything done within it, you must compromise your good beliefs and limit yourself to short-term thinking, for the sake of the movement please don’t involve or concern yourself with electoral politics, and instead focus on the areas of life in which you believe you can do the right thing.”
I didn’t say it was impossible to be principled and be involved in electoral politics. I am principled. I have the right principles for advocating the reduction of the size and scope of government and increasing individual liberty in the realm of electoral politics, an arena where the frame of reference of the voters matters. I will continue to concern myself with electoral politics, because my principles involve accounting for voter preference in designing libertarian solutions.
You are also principled. However, your principles are not well-suited for electoral politics. They ignore the plain facts of current voter preference in favor of advocating for a particular set of set-in-stone policy prescription, never to be adjusted based on current political conditions. As I have noted multiple times, this is an admirable stance to take in other arenas of activism. However, the overwhelming evidence of politics dictates its wholly inapplicable in the arena of electoral politics. The fact that your models that the Libertarian Party should look to are MLK Jr, Ghandi, and even Bernie Sanders just demonstrates that you are looking to outliers in an arena of competition that rewards cobbling together majorities, roughly speaking, of 50% + 1 vote.
So I offer you the same advice: if ignoring the revealed preference of voters and advocating for immutable principles of right and wrong are principles that drive your work, please don’t involve or concern yourself with electoral politics, and instead focus on the areas of life in which you believe you can do the right thing.
I’m not sure exactly what your two examples (the gay bar example and the NAACP example) are supposed to be suggesting to me. All I know is this: had Governor Johnson answered the “Bake the Cake” question in the way you argue, I with ABSOLUTE certainty…as Governor Johnson did as well…that he would have surely been asked the same question in one of his cable tv Town Halls, and had he stuck to an absolute property rights defense, the NEXT question would have been about whether or not a white restaurant owner in Mississippi could put up a “No N**gers Allowed” sign in his window, and had he stuck to absolute property rights AGAIN, the campaign would have been OVER, period. And the Libertarian Party would simply be viewed, best case scenario, as totally out of touch, and worst case scenario, condoning racist behavior. There would have been no way for Governor Johnson, given the time constraints involved in a campaign for public office and current revealed preference of voters, to talk his way out of that corner. No way at all. Understanding this, as I do, is NOT a lack of principles, it demonstrates a DIFFERENT set of principles than your’s. It comes from a humility about what is possible in the midst of a campaign for public office.
By the same token, digging in your heels on the property rights issue does NOT mean you are more principled, it means you are applying a set of principles wholly inappropriate for the setting of electoral politics, because it ignores, by your own admission, where voters are right now, and argues…nonsensically. I might add… that a thirty second answer on a cable t.v. Town Hall, advocating for absolute property rights is gonna do anything other than convince voters that they are looking at a racist or a racist enabler. That’s not humility about the limits the arena set on us. Frankly speaking, its a form of audacity that does far more harm than good and is a flat-out refusal to understand where voters and potential voters are at right now.
“You seem to have a very narrow view of what a political party can do…”
Yes, I do. Electoral politics is not an arena for radical change. But that’s okay. Even tiny changes can have HUGE positive impacts in this arena. That’s the good news. The decriminalization of marijuana across the country, a tiny step in the right direction of full drug prohibition repeal, would have monumental positive effects.
“Obsessing over how others see you is not the best way for a political party (or any other group or individual, really) to get a positive reputation. The best way to get a positive reputation is to conduct oneself in such a manner as to deserve one.”
Obsessing? No one is obsessing. I’m merely suggesting we account for it. If you’re arguing that GovJohnson should have answered the Bake The Cake question in the Petersen way, you’re suggesting we ignore it completely. Oh, I know, you’re going to argue how to explain said absolute property rights in a thirty-second answer in the midst of a 6-month campaign in a way that distills a mountain of libertarian argumentation going back decades, and I am telling you that this is absurd and you’re not that good, I’m not that good, no one in this party is that good. Given their current frame of reference, voters are just gonna look at us as a bunch of enablers for racists. (Again, at best).
“Yes, he [Invictus] said we should have nominated the polished, conservative-leaning Austin Petersen, who has now gone over to the GOP, not the radical candidate Darryl Perry.”
You’re right, he didn’t suggest we should have nominated Perry.
The party has been around for 46 years. Libertarianism as a philosophy has bloomed fully in this country since then. Multiple think tanks, media outlets, blogs, podcasters; countless campaigns all over the country, including a dozen Presidential campaigns, untold numbers of volunteers going out into this country in various venues, advocating for the LP and libertarian solutions; letters to the editor, calls to talk shows, appearances on t.v, and in public office debates.
All this, and, when you distill all that down, and at the other end of the pot still, out comes a room in Orlando of 1,000 of the most dedicated Libertarians in the country, the most knowledgeable libertarians around, the most likely to know of and thus be amenable to a radical formulation of libertarianism…what do we find? In the face of a qualified, moderate Libertarian candidate, the representative of radical libertarianism ends up with 7% of the delegates. 7%. The idea that such radicalism would play better in the population at large is…willful ignorance.
Anyway, my point is that you will forgive me if I don’t see that the solution to the incursion of the alt-reich into our midst is to define libertarianism so narrowly and so radically that it appeals to just 7% of a room full of actual party members.
That must be the ultimate example of cutting off our nose to spite our face.
My previous post got too long for IPR’s rules apparently (first time I think I’ve reached that barrier!), so the second part of my response to Anthony Dlugos is continued here…
I’ll remind you: when Invictus gave us his fare-thee-well speech, he made it a point to suggest we should have nominated Petersen, who DID make it a point to say Governor Johnson should have answered the question the way you suggest he should have. He knows the surest way to run himself and his crew out of the party is for us present a moderated Libertarian message emanating from a party that makes winning a priority.
Yes, he said we should have nominated the polished, conservative-leaning Austin Petersen, who has now gone over to the GOP, not the radical candidate Darryl Perry. Fascists, by the way, also tend to be overly enamored of “strong leaders” and “winners”, so it is natural for them to make winning a priority. I think that’s one reason they’ve tended to embrace Trump instead of trying to build their own independent party.
“Libertarian leadership is about getting out in front of public opinion and moving it in a pro-freedom direction, not just accepting the bulk of the status quo as you find it.”
As I noted, electoral politics is not the place for moving public opinion. Politicians are late adopters, not early adopters. This is fact. If you want to move public opinion in a libertarian direction, (an admirable goal) you’re wasting your time in a political party.
You seem to have a very narrow view of what a political party can do, and little conception of how electoral politics can overlap with other approaches. It may be useful to look overseas, and at history, for some eye-opening examples. The campaign to free India from British rule, for instance:
“A campaign of mass non-cooperation against imperial rule had spread throughout the country, initiated earlier that year when Mohandas Gandhi and approximately 80 followers from his religious community set out on a Salt March protesting the British monopoly on the mineral. Before the campaign was through, more than 60,000 people would be arrested, with as many as 29,000 proudly filling the jails at one time. Among their ranks were many of the most prominent figures from the Indian National Congress, including politicians that had once been reluctant to support nonviolent direct action.”
That article goes on to note some lessons for our own era:
“For people seeking to generate change today, the landscape of social movements can appear fragmented and confusing. Responding to the myriad challenges of racial oppression, economic exploitation and environmental catastrophe, different groups pursue widely varying organizing strategies. Some people work to create mass mobilizations — actions such as the Women’s March, Occupy Wall Street, or large immigrant rights protests — that draw significant public attention, but that can fade away quickly. Others focus on the slow-and-steady work of building long-term institutions, such as unions or political parties. Still other groups foster countercultural communities and alternative institutions outside of the mainstream. Often, there is little contact between groups employing different strategies — and little sense of common purpose.
“However, these different efforts need not see themselves at odds with one another. Movements function best when they recognize diverse roles and find ways to employ the contributions of each in constructive ways. In fact, this can be a key to success…”
“Gandhi is one of the most revered public figures of the 20th century. Yet, for all of his renown, Gandhi’s actual strategies for promoting social change in India are much less known. Some people think of him as a spiritual figure who led through moral persuasion alone. Others have heard of the most famous acts of civil disobedience undertaken by him and his followers, protests that have been celebrated widely and dramatized in Hollywood movies. Still others picture him as a political figure, sitting at the negotiating table across from officers of the British Empire.
“All of these ideas reflect aspects of Gandhi’s political life. However, each portrait by itself is incomplete.
“Gandhi’s methodology for bringing about social transformation was more interesting than any one of these facets suggests. What makes him such a unique figure to examine within the history of social movements is his ability to bring together a variety of different types of organizing. Gandhi was able to cultivate what can be called a healthy ‘ecology of change,’ in which groups with diverse theories and practices for changing their society could each expand the capabilities of the movement as a whole.
“In particular, he united three strains of activity — strains which parallel those present today in the U.S. and beyond: First, large-scale mobilizations that employed nonviolent direct action (what Gandhi called satyagraha). Second, efforts to build a lasting organizational structure (the Indian National Congress) that could influence dominant institutions. And third, the creation of alternatives outside of the mainstream (such as Gandhi’s ashrams and the ‘constructive program’).”
But Gandhi also faced resistance from more politically and culturally conservative elements within organizations like his Congress Party:
“Many members of Congress, particularly those of a more moderate and lawyerly disposition, were distrustful of mass mobilization. Lata Singh describes how these tensions played out in the lead-up to the Non-Cooperation Movement in 1920. In Bihar, senior members of Congress ‘who believed strongly in constitutional methods of struggle opposed [passing a] resolution [to authorize the noncooperation campaign] and expressed strong doubts and apprehensions about the strategy of launching such a movement,’ Singh writes. The resolution only passed after “these senior members had left the meeting in ‘disgust.’’”
“In subsequent decades, even as Congress repeatedly relied on Gandhi for his expertise in galvanizing public sentiment, only a portion of its members would identify as ‘Gandhians.’ Brown argues that many in Congress extended ‘ambivalent and conditional support’ for his nonviolent campaigns, and they were eager to return to constitutional politics as soon as mass mobilizations died down.”(above excerpts from (from https://wagingnonviolence.org/feature/gandhi-strategy-success/)
They lacked Gandhi’s grassroots sensibilities and radical commitment to principle, but his approach worked.
“The last three LP nominees for President were: Barr, Johnson, and Johnson. VP nominees were Root, Gray, and Weld. The party is already operating in a pragmatic, moderated way. If it ever gets larger, this is only going to become more obvious. This is the nature of electoral politics. The only way to stop that would be to turn the party into some other type of organization, where entry is strictly managed, and only those concerned with right and wrong are ‘hired.’”
I’m glad to hear you acknowledge that the LP has been “operating in a pragmatic, moderated way”. Some critics have falsely claimed that radicals have been calling the shots, and accordingly tried to blame radicals for the party not having more success. While our ideology has mostly been fairly balanced between radical anarchists and more moderate supporters of limited government, we have not been radical in our methodology, operations, and tactics, and I believe this has limited the party’s ability to inspire more people, expose more people to the ideas of freedom, and take it to the next level.
We don’t need to stop being a political party in order to fix this problem, we just need to be a different, more outside-the-box kind of political party when it comes to our methods.
“Actually there is, and I’ve already given you two examples, which you ignored in your response.”
What were your two examples?
The owners of a gay bar prohibiting heterosexual (but not homosexual) displays of affection in their establishment, and the NAACP choosing to hire only black employees.
But in conclusion Anthony, if you don’t agree with anything else I say here, please consider this: If you believe it is impossible to be principled, and agitate for freedom and justice while involved in electoral politics, and that to get anything done within it, you must compromise your good beliefs and limit yourself to short-term thinking, for the sake of the movement please don’t involve or concern yourself with electoral politics, and instead focus on the areas of life in which you believe you can do the right thing.
My comments below in plain text, Anthony Dlugos’s in italics, and article excerpts in boldface…
Anthony writes, In electoral politics, given the immutable fact that success is determined by who has the most votes, not by who’s right and who’s wrong; its ALWAYS triage time. What can get done in any given moment is always constrained by the mindset of the voters we are trying to appeal to.
You may be confusing success in conventional terms with success in libertarian terms. Success in libertarian terms means increasing the net amount of freedom in the world. Simply getting someone elected is not a success in libertarian terms unless it translates into advancing the cause of freedom. Those who are narrowly focused on trying to get votes, and are willing to violate principle in order to do so, for instance by throwing the rights of others under the bus when they find it politically convenient, deserve to be viewed with suspicion. In most cases they turn out to be politicians who are more in it for the money, the power, and/or their careers, than for the cause.
“MLK Jr is a good example. He was an activist, not a politician His organization, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, was not a political party, it was an activist organization. His methods and tactics, such as civil disobedience, are essentially useless in electoral politics. Good activist organizations understand this, and specifically AVOID entering electoral politics since they know compromise and short-term thinking is simply unavoidable. The model of MLK Jr, then, is wholly inapplicable to electoral politics.”
MLK is indeed a good example. His vision isn’t inapplicable to electoral politics, but it does encompass a broader and more radical approach to politics than favored by most conventional politicians. Compare his attitude to that of Hillary Clinton, as recounted in a Rolling Stone article from last year (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-martin-luther-king-didnt-run-for-president-20160118):
“One day this past August, Clinton learned Black Lives Matter activists planned to protest one of her campaign appearances in New Hampshire, so she agreed to meet demonstrators backstage. During a roughly 15-minute exchange, the former secretary of state pressured activists to focus on specific policy proposals that might be viable in Congress or in the courts. She argued, ‘I don’t believe you change hearts. I believe you change laws, you change allocation of resources, you change the way systems operate.’
“Her position was consistent with her career of pressing for reform (or failing to do so) within the confines of Beltway debate. Essentially, she told the activists they needed to work within the system to get anything done.
“This is not an uncommon position. But King had a very different perspective, one consistent with the field now known as ‘civil resistance.’ Drawing from the work of theorists such as Gene Sharp, scholars in this field argue that power is more widely distributed than is typically believed — and that CEOs, generals and senators do not hold all the cards. Even entrenched dictators rely on the compliance of the people in order to maintain power. If a sufficient number of people choose not to cooperate with an existing order, the standing of these leaders crumbles.
“Civil resistance movements can look beyond a ‘transactional’ model of politics that attempts to exact small gains based on conventional wisdom about what is feasible within Washington. Instead, through disruptive and dramatic protest, they alter the political climate and create new possibilities for change – turning impractical demands into urgent priorities.”
I disagree that one can’t build a political party, or be involved in the electoral arena, without surrendering to compromise and short-term thinking. That’s only true when one is too focused on conventional winning – in which case, as previously noted, one shouldn’t be entrusted with power.
Mind you, this does NOT mean that the tactics of activists can’t be successful. They absolutely can be. Nor does it mean the tactics of compromise and a mindset of going after only what’s pragmatically possible at this time can’t accomplish some good. They absolutely can.
Agreed, with the caveat that libertarians compromising on principle is likely to overall do more harm than good.
“It does mean that we understand what works in one arena will not work in the other. MLK Jr would never have been elected to public office. His success was predicated on the fact that he and his organization stayed outside direct electoral politics and agitated for change.”
This is where we really disagree. The arenas of politics and activism are not separate and distinct, but most effective when used together to build a dynamic, multifaceted movement. It is possible to campaign for public office, and have a political party that embraces Martin Luther King style agitation for change. The Rolling Stone piece also cites Bernie Sanders as understanding this dynamic more than most:
“In choosing the path of a career politician, Bernie Sanders has opted for a different route than King. But he shows more understanding than most about how social movements can reshape the terrain of the politically possible. Calling for a ‘political revolution,’ Sanders has argued that ‘no matter who is elected to be president, that person will not be able to address the enormous problems facing the working families of our country.’ Instead, grassroots movements are needed to change the focus on the national discussion.”
“Electoral politics ain’t primarily an education business. It CAN educate in an ancillary matter, but we aren’t professors at the front of a college class educating a captive audience; we aren’t preachers at a pulpit commanding our parishioners on what’s right and what’s wrong. In this arena, we serve at the pleasure of the voters; we assimilate the constraints upon public policy that the voters demand, and we fashion our solutions…which can be libertarian solutions…within the constraints that the voters give us. It can operate no other way.”
Trying to get elected is just a means to an end, not an end in itself. Insisting that we must fashion our solutions within the constraints that voters give us is just another way of saying, “Be ruled by the Overton Window, don’t question conventional wisdom.” But this is indeed short-sighted, and unimaginative. It’s not wise to set your watch by a clock that is broken. Nor does one “serve at the pleasure of the voters” unless one is elected to public office. As party leaders making decisions for the Libertarian Party, we serve at the pleasure of party members. And that’s a good thing, because LP members who have signed the Non-Aggression pledge and identify as Libertarians are generally much more committed to freedom than is the average U.S. voter who supported either Trump or Clinton.
“I’m not particularly aware of appeals to libertarians from members of the alt-reich to help protect their legal rights to bigotry, but whatever.”
You’re right. They don’t couch their appeals in those terms, because they are skilled enough to understand that wouldn’t work. They see us as a party willing to chuck electoral success in order to defend “principle,” and so couch their appeals in terms of what’s “right and wrong” without regard to its political viability.
Libertarians have been talking about freedom of association long before the alt reich was “a thing”. We would still be talking about it now regardless of whether they were the flavor of the month or not. When even our political opponents recognize us as principled and not simply willing to unethically do whatever it takes to win, like the power-addicted leaders of the cartel parties, I consider that a good thing.
And frankly, we have an element that gets duped into sacrificing our brand image to what’s presently getting them in a twist. And if you’re willing to suggest that Governor Johnson should have answered the Bake the Cake question without regard to political calculations, you’re their target, no offense intended.
None taken. But I think Gary Johnson should have given the question in a principled, libertarian response. That doesn’t require ignoring his audience’s biases and misunderstandings, but it also doesn’t mean buying into them.
“Brand image” as far as I am concerned is for commercial brands – libertarianism is not a “brand”, and freedom is not for sale! Obsessing over how others see you is not the best way for a political party (or any other group or individual, really) to get a positive reputation. The best way to get a positive reputation is to conduct oneself in such a manner as to deserve one.
starchild,
“I don’t think it should ever be “triage time” when it comes to the political defense of inalienable human rights. As MLK said, “The time is always right to do the right thing.””
In electoral politics, given the immutable fact that success is determined by who has the most votes, not by who’s right and who’s wrong; its ALWAYS triage time. What can get done in any given moment is always constrained by the mindset of the voters we are trying to appeal to.
MLK Jr is a good example. He was an activist, not a politician His organization, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, was not a political party, it was an activist organization. His methods and tactics, such as civil disobedience, are essentially useless in electoral politics. Good activist organizations understand this, and specifically AVOID entering electoral politics since they know compromise and short-term thinking is simply unavoidable. The model of MLK Jr, then, is wholly inapplicable to electoral politics.
Mind you, this does NOT mean that the tactics of activists can’t be successful. They absolutely can be. Nor does it mean the tactics of compromise and a mindset of going after only what’s pragmatically possible at this time can’t accomplish some good. They absolutely can. It does mean that we understand what works in one arena will not work in the other. MLK Jr would never have been elected to public office. His success was predicated on the fact that he and his organization stayed outside direct electoral politics and agitated for change.
“If you don’t like them seeking “our help in the VERY specific instance of homophobic bakery owners”, then don’t focus your educational efforts on that specific instance.”
Electoral politics ain’t primarily an education business. It CAN educate in an ancillary matter, but we aren’t professors at the front of a college class educating a captive audience; we aren’t preachers at a pulpit commanding our parishioners on what’s right and what’s wrong. In this arena, we serve at the pleasure of the voters; we assimilate the constraints upon public policy that the voters demand, and we fashion our solutions…which can be libertarian solutions…within the constraints that the voters give us. It can operate no other way.
“I’m not particularly aware of appeals to libertarians from members of the alt-reich to help protect their legal rights to bigotry, but whatever.”
You’re right. They don’t couch their appeals in those terms, because they are skilled enough to understand that wouldn’t work. They see us as a party willing to chuck electoral success in order to defend “principle,” and so couch their appeals in terms of what’s “right and wrong” without regard to its political viability. And frankly, we have an element that gets duped into sacrificing our brand image to what’s presently getting them in a twist. And if you’re willing to suggest that Governor Johnson should have answered the Bake the Cake question without regard to political calculations, you’re their target, no offense intended.
I’ll remind you: when Invictus gave us his fare-thee-well speech, he made it a point to suggest we should have nominated Petersen, who DID make it a point to say Governor Johnson should have answered the question the way you suggest he should have. He knows the surest way to run himself and his crew out of the party is for us present a moderated Libertarian message emanating from a party that makes winning a priority.
“Libertarian leadership is about getting out in front of public opinion and moving it in a pro-freedom direction, not just accepting the bulk of the status quo as you find it.”
As I noted, electoral politics is not the place for moving public opinion. Politicians are late adopters, not early adopters. This is fact. If you want to move public opinion in a libertarian direction, (an admirable goal) you’re wasting your time in a political party. The last three LP nominees for President were: Barr, Johnson, and Johnson. VP nominees were Root, Gray, and Weld. The party is already operating in a pragmatic, moderated way. If it ever gets larger, this is only going to become more obvious. This is the nature of electoral politics. The only way to stop that would be to turn the party into some other type of organization, where entry is strictly managed, and only those concerned with right and wrong are “hired.”
“Actually there is, and I’ve already given you two examples, which you ignored in your response.”
What were your two examples?
How many times do we have to go over this? When you bloody and soil yourself at the end of a speech, whatever you said before that point stops mattering. It’s equally true whether you bloody and soil yourself literally and physically or whether you do it verbally and metaphorically as Deist did.
Once again they only oppose it when they have centralized power. If Hitler opposed decentralism under all circumstances he would not have staged the Beer Hall Putsch, which would have installed him as the head of a secessionist Bavarian regime had it succeeded. We can find many Hitler fans today in the radically decentralist parts of the back to nature fascist Third Position movement.
Hitler and the CSA were for things like free speech and decentralism only when it suited them – that is when they are out of power. The CSA was not for decentralism when it came to counties that wanted to secede from its states or slaves who wanted to secede from slaveowners. Alabama’s segregationists were not for home rule for cities and counties. Hitler wanted free speech when he was a candidate and protester, not so much when he was fuehrer. Right now, at this point in time, decentralism and free speech are useful to the white nationalist movement. If they should take power on a large scale again they will no longer find these things to be useful.
Unfortunately he died during his “paleo” alliance with the far right and his less savory followers have carried that on, now spawning the altreich bowel movement. “Blood and soil” is just the natural culmination of all that.
And in this case he was correct.
Some responses to what Anthony Dlugos writes in part (September 2, 2017 at 10:30), follow…
“Tactically speaking, I think strengthening the immigration plank at New Orleans 2018 would be the single most significant thing we could do to shake ourselves free of association with the right/republicans.”
When it comes to amending the LP Platform, I agree that taking a strong stand for freedom of movement might indeed be the best thing we could do.
“In any event, odd isn’t it, then, that the people we agree are toxic elements in our movement (white nationalists), or who enable/condone the behavior of toxic elements (Woods, Stapleton, the paleos), were in full-throated agreement with much of the radical set about what a mistake it was to nominate Johnson and Weld. Can you explain that?”
If you can explain the phenomenon that the people I hope we agree are toxic elements in society at large, those at the top levels of power in government, are in full-throated agreement with much of the non-radical set about what a mistake it is to take strong stands against police abuse, taxation, government militarism, drug laws, etc., I’ll take a stab at it.
“There is no way, GIVEN THE CURRENT CONSTRAINTS OF POPULAR OPINION , to come off as anything other than a bigot or pandering to the bigots by standing up for absolute property rights in the area of public accommodations. There just isn’t.”
Actually there is, and I’ve already given you two examples, which you ignored in your response.
“This is the hardest reality of electoral politics that the typical radical, as genuine in their beliefs as they might be, has trouble accepting, and why they end up making common cause (inadvertently so) with the white nationalist: in the political arena, our range of options is limited by the frame of reference of the general population, by the overton window. That window CAN move, but it hasn’t yet. And anyone who chooses to engage in the libertarian movement via the vehicle of the Libertarian Party HAS to accept that reality.”
Libertarian leadership is about getting out in front of public opinion and moving it in a pro-freedom direction, not just accepting the bulk of the status quo as you find it. And the typical libertarian radical does not make common cause with white nationalists. In my experience, the typical libertarian radical is in fact more anti-nationalist than the typical libertarian moderate.
“This is why I am immediately worried by any Libertarian who says our mission is “a world set free in our lifetimes” or some such messianic cause.”
That language is in the Libertarian Party platform and has been since around the time of the party’s founding, so it sounds like you have a problem with the Libertarian Party itself.
I don’t see wanting freedom for everyone as a “messianic cause”; no more so than the misguided “cause” of trying to get everyone to stay inside the Overton Window. As a radical who is very skeptical of following leaders, I don’t have a political messiah – do you?
“It ignores the practical realities of politics.
It doesn’t “ignore” the abysmal state of current politics; it seeks to shift the paradigm.
“It draws in the white nationalist element because they see a movement willing to sacrifice itself to their cause by taking a stand on a hill not worth dying for at this time.”
You can help avoid drawing them in by using better examples when talking about property rights, like the ones I gave, and by framing the debate in terms of helping the poor and marginalized instead of accommodating the bigoted. The law as it stands is tilted in favor of the wealthy and well-connected; true respect for property rights (not having to get permission from those in power in order to exercise them) would change that.
“If the white nationalists wanted a world where they are able to put a “No N**gers Allowed” sign in their restaurant, then they should have spent the last several decades fighting against the encroachment of the state into property rights, and their defense of property rights should have been a universal, consistent one, not one that gets them in a twist NOW.”
Sure, but if they were that sensible and principled, they probably wouldn’t be ethno-nationalists.
“Where were they when the rights of gay men were being trampled by the state? When the reproductive rights of women were being trampled by the state? Now they want our help? Now they want our help in the VERY specific instance of homophobic bakery owners. I don’t think so. I don’t think I’ll have our future sacrificed to a bunch of johnnie-come-lately racists. This is triage time, and their desires go to the bottom of the to-do list. They’ll have to wait, and we may never get to their concerns. And if that makes them upset, tough shit. TOUGH SHIT! Leave.”
One might just as readily ask, where have leftists been when the rights of people in communist countries have been trampled by the State? The reality is that virtually nobody on the left or on the right has been anything like consistent in standing against oppression. I’m not particularly aware of appeals to libertarians from members of the alt-reich to help protect their legal rights to bigotry, but whatever. Our focus should be on doing the right thing, not on the fact that some people with odious beliefs might happen to agree with us. If you don’t like them seeking “our help in the VERY specific instance of homophobic bakery owners”, then don’t focus your educational efforts on that specific instance.
I don’t think it should ever be “triage time” when it comes to the political defense of inalienable human rights. As MLK said, “The time is always right to do the right thing.”
“paulie
September 2, 2017 at 15:18
‘Dave is Jewish.
This flies in the face of the “Ron Paul and Jeff Deist and Tom Woods and anyone else connected with the Mises Institute are mean, nasty even Nazi racists who want to do all kinds of bad things.’”
First up no one here is saying anything like that. Second, Rothbard was Jewish yet praised David Duke. So, the fact that some of them have Jewish ancestry is not a real answer to anything”
It was claimed that Jeff Deist gave a “Nazi speech,” even though if you actually listen to the speech, he was talking about decentralization of power, which, as I have proven, was something that actual Nazis opposed.
Also, as noted here before, Rothbard tried different political strategies throughout his life, including working with the leftist/Marxist Peace and Freedom Party at one point.
Anthony Dlugos said: “oh dear god that’s a whole lotta derp right there”
This from a guy who likes to throw around accusations, and who thinks that Bill Weld is a libertarian.
Avis,
“While I do find the LP’s “herding cats” routine most amusing, this silly little Golden Calf Worshippers vs. Filthy Libertine Degenerates civil war you’ve got going on makes me so glad I stopped being enamoured with it or its various philosophies long ago.”
Good riddance and please take the rest of your kind with you.
“Sarwak was utterly disingenuous and intellectually dishonest. Project & Deflect seems to be his entire M.O.”
Yeah…I’m going to say that would be you, Stapleton, Woods et al.
“If this is the leadership the LP is choosing, maybe this pituful party is finally getting ready to put itself out of all of our misery.”
In your dreams, not in reality.
“As for keeping alt-right types out of the LP: who needs the LP? We’re not far out now from legitimate alt-right style political parties in the U.S.. And I will enjoy the salty tears when they eclipse the LP overnight.”
More dreaming, fash. Time for a reality check. The alt right already has its own alt parties: American “Freedom” Party, American Eagle Party, Traditionalist Workers Party…I’m going to go ahead and say National Socialism Movement, Knights Party and American Nazi Party too since the only difference is…well, there is none. So how are your parties doing? Let’s just say not as well as the LP. Unless you count Trump and the GOP in which case you may have a point…but it’s more than a bit of a reach to claim them as wholly an alt right party even if you sometimes seem to be the tail that’s wagging that elephant.
The sad reality is that it is far more difficult to organize a third party in real life than you or Stapleton can even begin to grasp. It’s easy to snipe from the sidelines but go ahead and try to create your alt right party. Contrary to your arrogant fantasies you will find that far from eclipsing the LP overnight you will be flailing and failing as you fall flat on your flabbergasted fash faces. I have my marshmellows ready.
First up no one here is saying anything like that. Second, Rothbard was Jewish yet praised David Duke. So, the fact that some of them have Jewish ancestry is not a real answer to anything.
“Dave Smith is a libertarian comedian from New York City. Dave was raised in a leftist environment, but was inspired to get into libertarianism after hearing Ron Paul speak while Ron was running in the Republican presidential primaries. Although his last name does not imply it, Dave is Jewish.”
oh dear god that’s a whole lotta derp right there.
” nasty even Nazi ”
Should read, “nasty, evil Nazis…”
Check out this excellent interview that Jeff Deist recently conducted with Dave Smith. Dave Smith is a libertarian comedian from New York City. Dave was raised in a leftist environment, but was inspired to get into libertarianism after hearing Ron Paul speak while Ron was running in the Republican presidential primaries. Although his last name does not imply it, Dave is Jewish.
This flies in the face of the “Ron Paul and Jeff Deist and Tom Woods and anyone else connected with the Mises Institute are mean, nasty even Nazi racists who want to do all kinds of bad things.” hysteria that is being repeated by some people.
Dave Smith: Libertarians and the Culture Wars
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhTQAzE4raI
I like the jpg title there, too…”paleo-dorks”
haha. if that’s all they wanted, it would have been easier just to go to backpage.c0m rather than waste money on a tiki torch.
i.e., those not dependent on a government program to get laid
ad: They don’t have our best interests at heart.
me: I hear this, but I would contend that to be a Hater is by definition to be insane. Haters know not what they do. They don’t know their OWN interests, much less an organization’s, even lesser still the interests of a free, peaceful society.
“Sarwak [sic] was utterly disingenuous and intellectually dishonest.”
Care to elaborate, or do you just drop assertions and run?
While I do find the LP’s “herding cats” routine most amusing, this silly little Golden Calf Worshippers vs. Filthy Libertine Degenerates civil war you’ve got going on makes me so glad I stopped being enamoured with it or its various philosophies long ago.
I’m not a huge Stapleton fan, but he’s a decent interviewer. Still, he left some pretty salient points on the table unaddressed. Maybe this was intentional, but it’s a bit of a waste.
Sarwak was utterly disingenuous and intellectually dishonest. Project & Deflect seems to be his entire M.O.. If this is the leadership the LP is choosing, maybe this pituful party is finally getting ready to put itself out of all of our misery.
As for keeping alt-right types out of the LP: who needs the LP? We’re not far out now from legitimate alt-right style political parties in the U.S.. And I will enjoy the salty tears when they eclipse the LP overnight.
“We are taking on water at a rapid pace and emergency measures are called for.”
I might not be quite as alarmed, but measures imbued with alacrity are called for.
Here’s a good place to start: the property rights of homophobic bakers are getting kicked down to the bottom of the to-do list. They’ll have to wait. Period. I am truly sorry for the honestly religious baker who is going to have to bake a cake for someone they hate, but they should have been helping us every day of the past 45 years, up to and including today, when OTHER people’s property rights were being infringed upon. I have sympathy for their situation. Actually, I don’t They should have been helping. Now they’ll have to wait.
Anyone who stays is probably someone we can trust. Anyone who gets upset needs a swift kick in the ass out the door. Out! Out! They don’t have our best interests at heart.
It’s worse than that. It’s already being taken to mean “Tea Party” and is now on the verge of being taken to mean altreich. We are not just seen as being on the right but on the far right. Tea Party is identified with Republicans, so who or what is to the right of that? We urgently need to throw the entire right flank out of being associated with libertarianism – the “moderate” fusionist right, the T(rump)-Party right and the bigot altreich far right alike (especially, but not only, the last one). We are taking on water at a rapid pace and emergency measures are called for.
starchild,
I share your concern about the association with the right that we have to shake ourselves from. The fact that, “Republicans who want to smoke pot,” is one of the common monikers thrown around in political circles is testament to the reality of our situation now. Likely as a result of the Ron Paul Effect, which I have come to believe did more harm than good. Tactically speaking, I think strengthening the immigration plank at New Orleans 2018 would be the single most significant thing we could do to shake ourselves free of association with the right/republicans. Strengthening the abortion plank would help as well. White nationalists don’t have a real hang up with abortion, but their fellow-traveling paleocons do.
In any event, odd isn’t it, then, that the people we agree are toxic elements in our movement (white nationalists), or who enable/condone the behavior of toxic elements (Woods, Stapleton, the paleos), were in full-throated agreement with much of the radical set about what a mistake it was to nominate Johnson and Weld. Can you explain that?
I can. Here’s where you’re wrong:
“Jason Stapleton and his radio engineer aren’t wrong to stand up for the libertarian principle of property rights; Gary Johnson by contrast was flat-out wrong to say during the 2016 campaign that a baker should be forced to make a wedding cake for a gay marriage that violated his beliefs. But there are ways to articulate this principle which do not require pandering to bigots on the right.”
Gary was right, Jason is wrong, and you are wrong. There is no way, GIVEN THE CURRENT CONSTRAINTS OF POPULAR OPINION , to come off as anything other than a bigot or pandering to the bigots by standing up for absolute property rights in the area of public accommodations. There just isn’t.
This is the hardest reality of electoral politics that the typical radical, as genuine in their beliefs as they might be, has trouble accepting, and why they end up making common cause (inadvertently so) with the white nationalist: in the political arena, our range of options is limited by the frame of reference of the general population, by the overton window. That window CAN move, but it hasn’t yet. And anyone who chooses to engage in the libertarian movement via the vehicle of the Libertarian Party HAS to accept that reality.
This is why I am immediately worried by any Libertarian who says our mission is “a world set free in our lifetimes” or some such messianic cause. It ignores the practical realities of politics. It draws in the white nationalist element because they see a movement willing to sacrifice itself to their cause by taking a stand on a hill not worth dying for at this time.
If the white nationalists wanted a world where they are able to put a “No N**gers Allowed” sign in their restaurant, then they should have spent the last several decades fighting against the encroachment of the state into property rights, and their defense of property rights should have been a universal, consistent one, not one that gets them in a twist NOW. Where were they when the rights of gay men were being trampled by the state? When the reproductive rights of women were being trampled by the state? Now they want our help? Now they want our help in the VERY specific instance of homophobic bakery owners. I don’t think so. I don’t think I’ll have our future sacrificed to a bunch of johnnie-come-lately racists. This is triage time, and their desires go to the bottom of the to-do list. They’ll have to wait, and we may never get to their concerns. And if that makes them upset, tough shit. TOUGH SHIT! Leave.
ad,
Yes, great point. It’s also possible that there are paleo leaders who encourage the association with Haters with winks and nods, and other paleos — perhaps JS — who are simply hyper-defensive and therefore dense, lacking self awareness.
And, yes, there might be some devolving, too. Perhaps because issues like immigration have become SO inflamed that some Paleo NAPsters are willing to be in league with Haters because they have an overlapping interest on the subject. To me, though, those who fall more or less into this category must have some serious perceptual blocks, since being in league with overt Haters is so obviously toxic and therefore counter-productive.
Lots of good comments in this thread, including from commenters whose remarks here I often disagree with, like Robert Capozzi and Anthony Dlugos.
Paulie’s posts (September 1, 2017 at 16:22, September 1, 2017 at 16:23) about the kind of search results that are coming up right now in web searches related to the term “libertarian” provide a vital reality check about the backdrop to this debate, and why Nick Sarwark wasn’t wrong to speak out and urge other prominent libertarians to denounce fascism and the alt-reich.
Although I winced a little when Nick said this was “a fight that needed to be picked”, overall I think he handled this interview very well, calmly making clear that he is not saying Tom Woods, Jeff Deist, or others are white supremacists, etc., despite Jason Stapleton’s repeatedly misunderstanding him on this (or hearing what he wanted to hear), and making clear that Tom in particular, like Jason himself, is doing valuable work.
I’m with Anthony in seeing Jason as sincere in his devotion to freedom, I just don’t think he understands the danger to the libertarian movement, and to the Libertarian Party, of pandering to people on the right.
David Demarest makes a good point (September 1, 2017 at 06:38) about Jason Stapleton’s prescription for the Libertarian Party apparently involving the LP speaking with a much more unified voice (presumably his) being unrealistic. Doesn’t Jason realize that lots of us would have a similar contrarian reaction to being asked to get with (his) program, that he defends when it comes to Tom Woods and others refusing to sign a petition that lots of prominent libertarian leaders have signed? He may be under the impression that a democratic, mass-participatory organization like the LP can or should be run in the top-down matter of a radio show. To my mind that is not only impractical, but if it could somehow be achieved I think the party’s days as a libertarian organization would be numbered.
That desire for a party with more top-down control, in which everybody acts “professional” and stays “on message”, is an attitude that seems more common among those who have some conservative or right-leaning tendencies than among other libertarians. I believe these libertarians are forgetting that power corrupts, and that enforced conformity is dangerous. They can generally see this when it comes to the “political correctness” of the left, and clearly some will react against even the perceived taint of it when asked to sign an anti-fascism petition, but when it comes to the Libertarian Party, not so much.
But the problem here goes beyond the tendency of right-leaning libertarians to favor more top-down control which could prevent the LP from realizing its potential as vehicle for the manifestation of a real popular mass movement. As Paulie’s posts clearly show, the LP – indeed I would argue the libertarian movement as a whole – is more commonly associated with the right than with the left. If we do not make an effort to keep our message balanced to appeal at least as much to people on the left as those on the right, we risk entering a vicious downward spiral to the right in which more people from that side of the political spectrum get involved, and with their involvement tilt the character of the party and movement further in that direction, which would increase the appeal to those on the right while correspondingly decreasing the appeal to those on the left, until “Libertarian” is seen to mean something like “Tea Party” and no longer represents a genuinely independent third voice in politics.
If that were to occur, the LP would lose its chance of shifting the political paradigm from right/left on the Nolan Chart, to up/down (libertarian vs. authoritarian). The movement would be stuck with a LINO type (Libertarian-In-Name-Only) party using and tarnishing its name. It could set the entire freedom movement back by decades.
Jason Stapleton and his radio engineer aren’t wrong to stand up for the libertarian principle of property rights; Gary Johnson by contrast was flat-out wrong to say during the 2016 campaign that a baker should be forced to make a wedding cake for a gay marriage that violated his beliefs. But there are ways to articulate this principle which do not require pandering to bigots on the right. We can talk instead about the right of a bar owner to disallow heterosexual (but not homosexual) displays of affection in his bar*, the NAACP’s right to hire only black employees if they choose, etc.
*This actually happened some years ago at a gay bar here in San Francisco
Unless, as we speculate, that the refusal to sign is intentional. Maybe they like the association, and their “principle” is merely smokescreen.
I guess it’s also possible that what started as principle devolved into identifying with the poor, downtrodden white nationalists.
I think the response to my suggestion there is that this paleo strategy appears too planned out for it to be some version of the Stockholm Syndrome.
Starchild: I don’t think that’s the proper way to view the petition. When I signed it, I didn’t for a moment see doing so as being about defending myself.
Me: Great catch, S. Indeed, one sees what psychologist might identify as a severe case of arrested development among paleos and sometimes Randians. Anything that strikes them as potentially contrary to their interests in any way requires a hyper-defense. That extreme defensiveness leads to an emotional denseness, where they somehow cannot see just ridiculous they come across.
It distorts their worldview so much that a request to sign a petition against fascism becomes a personal affront! They get stuck in a perceptual loop, and cannot even be reasoned with, as their defensiveness goes on high alert.
Jason Stapleton (to Nick Sarwark): “You’re asking him [Tom Woods] to defend himself [by asking him to sign the anti-fascism petition].”
I don’t think that’s the proper way to view the petition. When I signed it, I didn’t for a moment see doing so as being about defending myself.
To me, signing the petition was about speaking out against a bad ideology which has been getting a lot of play in the news lately, and at the same time defending the libertarian movement from association with it.
It would be nice if all the movement’s critics were smart (or honest) enough to render such a defense as unnecessary as Tom Woods apparently thinks it is, but in my experience that’s sadly not the case.
It’s not guilt by association when there actually is an association. And FYI: those who use the term “SJW” are almost assuredly themselves primary purveyors/consumers of group identity victimhood. I had to laugh at the first paragraph of the article Sarwark linked to:
Although Spencer probably got that from Hoppe, not Gottfried.
not anymore….
Saying “blood and soil” has the problem that most Americans will have no idea what is being referenced, nor will they care. It’s up there with Hoch Hapsburg! On the same line of no idea, I have no idea who this Stapledon fellow is, and doubt his influence.
Source for my Gottfried comments: http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/218712/spencer-gottfried-alt-right
Source for my American Renaissance comments: https://www.amren.com/features/2013/10/libertarians-and-race-realism/
Woods and Rockwell discussing the Daily Stormer losing their hosting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfdnRH97XIs (note the YouTube comments)
You may not like what I have to say or the inferences I draw, but I do my best not to lie.
ad,
I think JS was saying TW is the L equivalent of Limbaugh to the Rs. He wasn’t referring to himself, I don’t think. While I find JS to be articulate enough, he comes across as one-dimensional and far too quick to express opinions about things he knows very little of.
In the podcast, he actually 1) favorably compares his influence on the LP to Rush Limbaugh’s influence on the GOP and 2) suggests Sarwark picking a fight with the Mises/paleo crowd was a bad idea. Why? They’ll stop donating money they haven’t been donating in the first place? They’ll take their ball and go to the Constitution Party? They’ll threaten to take Petersen’s 20% and…go? Where? He already left.
He’s gotta be on drugs.
Yep.
re: Andy’s 21:12 with the link to JS show today.
Boy, Stapleton REALLY has an unwarrantedly high opinion of his influence in the Libertarian Party.
I’m also perplexed by what he thinks was a contentious interview. Hardly.
Don’t be dense to the Nth power. Do a google news search on Republican or Republican Party. They are not being smeared with this crap nearly as much as we are.
Not that long. He rejoined in 2015. For all we know he may be a member right now. But you and I both know this is not just about the party since all these people were or are associated with “libertarian” including self-associating and associated by others. Again look at the google news headlines – just from the very first page of results only – that I posted earlier.
Some people obviously do. But more importantly a lot of people who don’t associate him with libertarianism. That’s not what we want.
He was a Ron Paul supporter. I guess his economic views evolved.
No, you haven’t paid attention. If Deist delivered his whole speech and then right at the end pulled down his pants, squatted down in the middle of the stage, took a shit, wiped it with his hand and licked it clean right in front of everyone and the cameras, that’s what his speech would have been about. Anyone who pretends otherwise just has no idea because that would be far more significant than anything he had said. Saying “blood and soil” is just like that. It’s the same thing. Nothing he said before that has any significance whatsoever in light of that.
During the first several minutes of this show, Jason Stapleton talks about his show yesterday where he interviewed Sarwark.
The Jason Stapleton Program: America Has a Tax Problem…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6f6b5KHWZQ
“robert capozzi
September 1, 2017 at 18:44
‘aj: I have never suggested this, nor has Jason Stapleton, nor has Tom Woods, nor has Jeff Deist, nor has anyone else with any credibility.’
me: Don’t be dense. Cantwell, Spencer, and others…explicitly so. ”
Cantwell quit the LP awhile ago. I don’t think that anyone thinks that Cantwell should be emulated. I don’t think that Spencer was ever an LP member, and from what I have heard about Spencer’s views on economics, I don’t think anyone would mistake him for a libertarian.
There were people who participated in that Unite the Right rally who are registered Republicans. So how about go after the Republican Party?
“Deist alludes to it with his ‘blood and soil’ statement.”
Only to people who didn’t pay listen to or pay attention to his entire speech.
His speech was about decentralization of power, which, ironically, was something that actual Nazis opposed.
“Woods plays it coy. Hoppe more than alludes to it. Stapleton plays sanctimoniously dumb on the matter.”
I disagree.
And when it comes to marketing, Tom Woods and Jason Stapleton are doing pretty darn well, as they both have popular podcasts, and Woods has sold a lot of books.
Some people tried to pull this same crap on Ron Paul, and Ron Paul did more to spread the libertarian message to more people than anybody.
“‘Hate’ means bigoted in this context.”
Once again, libertarianism is about the Non-Aggression Principle, and applying it to person and property.
I fail to see what any of this has to do with libertarianism.
Talk to me about the NAP. Talk to me about property rights.
If you are trying to turn this into a marketing lecture, it is kind of funny for people with little to no success in marketing to be giving guys who are actually successful at marketing, like Tom Woods and Jason Stapleton, a lecture on the subject.
aj: I have never suggested this, nor has Jason Stapleton, nor has Tom Woods, nor has Jeff Deist, nor has anyone else with any credibility.
me: Don’t be dense. Cantwell, Spencer, and others…explicitly so. Deist alludes to it with his “blood and soil” statement. Woods plays it coy. Hoppe more than alludes to it. Stapleton plays sanctimoniously dumb on the matter.
“Hate” means bigoted in this context.
That is the whole paleo strategy in a nutshell. The altreich is the twisted spawn of this unholy coupling.
Agreed. Sooner or later one of these who was formerly involved in the LP, maybe even as a candidate, will be the one driving his car into a crowd or his U Haul truck full of explosives into a building or whatever. We need maximum dissociation before that happens, not after.
Mix of all those with the mix being different depending on which person we are talking about.
Robert Capozzi, who is suggesting that a “hate message” be attached to libertarianism (unless you mean hate the government, or hate the initiation of force and fraud)? I have never suggested this, nor has Jason Stapleton, nor has Tom Woods, nor has Jeff Deist, nor has anyone else with any credibility.
Libertarianism is about the Non-Aggression Principle, and more specifically, how it relates to person and property. We can debate how to apply the NAP, or what is the best way to achieve a society that is based on the NAP, but those are other issues.
Excellent work there, paulie. We may have some disagreements on strategy and tactics for the party, but you are on point with regarding to countering the alt-reich, and the need for immunizing the party from the white nationalists, xenophobes and racists.
Incidentally, from time to time I hop on YouTube and watch parts of videos emanating from the alt-right universe to hear what they are talking about. Last night, I watch some of a new one from some outfit called Red Ice TV. They interviewed the new CEO of Identity Evropa, a white nationalist group, and at 1:37, the host asks him about his background, whereupon the new CEO said he had always been involved in politics, and he started out in high school in…you guessed it…the “Ron Paul/libertarian movement.” Here you go:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsP1ZmCU2Ns&t=2825s
Yes, I know, this is only one anecdote. But anyone who happens to have any interest in the long term success of the LP and its brand image cannot be anything but terribly unsettled if not kept up at night with worry about where the tentacles of this monster are already sunk in if it pops up in unsuspecting places like the one I have now made everyone aware of.
This fight has to happen, until every rock is overturned and every lowlife accounted for.
pf, agreed, except we really can’t know what the motive of Mises-types is. Is it a financial motive? Perhaps partial affinity for the Haters? Maybe even unqualified affinity that they camouflage.
Could also be some kind of weird agenda involving the enemy’s enemy or something. Or they are exercising their “thin” side, as well as partial mutuality on immigration.
Honestly, I really can’t imagine how a person can get so turned around that they don’t immediately recognize the importance to drawing a sharp distinction between Ls and Haters.
So there you have it. Why do we need to denounce the white supremacists? Because the world at large is associating us with them, and them with the violence and murder in Charlottesville. And because many of the alt right’s leaders used to call themselves libertarians and some still do.
The world is not confusing us with socialists. The leaders of violent left wing riots, aside from the fact that they are not killing people, are not calling themselves libertarians. They’re not former LP congressional and senatorial candidates.
If anything the Mises Institute folks who have been fostering these people with their undead “paleo” strategy should denounce them more than anyone. But they won’t, because they want their money and support.
The LP is right to denounce them and absolutely needs to denounce them especially and not the less violent folks on the left that no one is confusing us with.
Google news suggestions for topics related to libertarian. Notice they include alt right and Richard Spencer:
Peter Thiel
Alt-right
Institutional review board
Florida
Richard B. Spencer
Sarasota
Ron Paul
Nick Gillespie
Republican Party
Democratic Party
On the *very first page of results* for libertarian right now:
Does libertarianism have an alt-right problem?
Washington Post Aug 23, 2017?
Is There Really an ‘Insidious Libertarian-To-Alt-Right Pipeline’?
Reason (blog) Aug 23, 2017?
Why Libertarians Go Alt-Right
The American Interest Aug 23, 2017?
View full coverage?
Trump – A Friend of Libertarianism
Being Libertarian Aug 29, 2017?
Libertarians wrestle with the alt-right – The Washington Post
Washington Post Aug 24, 2017?
The Insidious Libertarian-to-Alt-Right Pipeline
Daily Beast Aug 22, 2017
“Weeping Nazi” Christopher Cantwell went from libertarian to fascist — and he’s not alone
Salon Aug 26, 2017?
Libertarianism, Individualism, and Racism
Cato Institute (blog) Aug 25, 2017
RCapozzi,
“Yes, his discussion indicates a high level of ignorance on the subject. Of course, my view is that a Paleo-NAPster party would the current LP look Amazon.com-like in terms of its effectiveness.”
I do believe Stapleton means well.
As I noted regarding the Stapleton-Woods podcast, he asked Woods whether he sees himself as an educator or political activist, or something like that. Later, Stapleton volunteers that he hopes his 8,000-person strong forum or whatever it is is not just some “preaching to the choir” arena. He hopes people who want to find out about libertarianism are coming there.
This tells me he has some recognition of the idea of optics, and that they are important in the political arena.
His mistake is thinking that the LP can be on an educational mission. Ultimately, even if he means well, he will end up surrounded by the same lowlife scum Woods appears to be explicitly courting.
Agreed with virtually everything Sarwark said and virtually nothing Stapleton said, other than where they agreed.
aj: … it seems as though there is more concern about some associations than there is about others, which strikes me as being hypocritical.
me: Damn straight! CFR and the other associations are not nearly as politically toxic as allying IN ANY WAY with the Hater Right, in my estimation. You don’t see that?
aj: I also don’t think that Stapleton fully understands the difficulties involved with building a minor political party with all of the obstacles put up by the Democrats and the Republicans. Gaining success in politics, particularly as a minor political party, is more difficult than most people realize.
me: Yes, his discussion indicates a high level of ignorance on the subject. Of course, my view is that a Paleo-NAPster party would the current LP look Amazon.com-like in terms of its effectiveness. Or a Paleo-NAPster party would probably sink rather quickly below the Constitution Party in the current ranking. Combining rigid, dogmatic NAPsterism with a Hate message excludes something like 99.5% of the population.
very interesting backstory/info, Gene. Thanks.
I listened to about 20 minutes, and I want to offer some support to Nick Sarwark in his critique of Rothbard’s paleo strategy.
Rothbard’s paleo strategy was based on the fact that some conservatives came to oppose the first Iraq war, and Rothbard and other libertarians found this a hopeful sign.
Rothbard of course overestimated Pat Buchanan’s opposition to interventionist foreign policy. In his book “A Republic, Not an Empire” Buchanan defends President Nixon’s escalations in Vietnam; according to a source who has dealt with Buchanan on antiwar issues, Buchanan continues to think that America could have won the Vietnam War, and he continues to despise the antiwar movement of that era.
In the Rothbard-Rockwell Report, Rothbard went beyond that to praise the 1990 campaign of David Duke in Louisiana.
It is true that Rothbard attempted different strategies throughout his life. When I first heard of him, he was undertaking an “alliance with the new left.” I was in YAF at the time, but joined in the libertarian exodus, and I got involved with the antiwar movement. The new left had different tendencies, including a large group of people who were not very political, just opposed to war.
Rothbard went beyond allying with new left anarchists and apolitical antiwar activists. Rothbard favored working with Marxist groups against American imperialism, and at various times, he denounded left-anarchists. As late as the 1990s Rothbard denounced European left anarchists who, in contrast to American left anarchists, tend to be outspoken in opposition to communists.
Within the New York Peace & Freedom Party in 1968, Rothbard allied with the Progressive Labor Party, a Maoist grouplet, against a more mainstream new left group that was opposed to Soviet bureaucratic collectivism.
Jason Stapleton mentioned that Rothbard is Jewish, in defense against charges that Rothbardians are not willing to denounce Nazis. Rothbard never let his Jewish ancestry get in the way of denouncing Israel or applauding communists or right-populists who also opposed Israel. And he did not bring up his own Jewish background when he praised David Duke.
Lew Rockwell, Tom Woods and others consistently criticize Cato Institute as being run by “beltway libertarians” who are implied to be seeking to influence the government, and even charged with defending policies of the federal government. Lewrockwell.com continues its affiliate marking with Amazon.com, despite Amazon’s $600 million/year contract to provide computing services for the Central Intelligence Agency.
Ultimately, Jason Stapleton is an obscure host of an obscure podcast that nobody really pays attention to. I certainly will never pay attention to it again.
Keep in mind that sarwark’s tag came after Woods and his legion of trolls started volunteering they weren’t going to be “browbeaten” into signing anything.
As far as I can tell, Sarwark and Sean Haugh were the only ones contra-Woods involved in that spat, compared to legions of Hoppean/Woods trolls.
Robert Capozzi said: “Indeed, his ‘knock it out of the park’ discussion felt delusional — almost Trumpian in its arrogance — to me.”
Stapleton is doing a great job with his show. He has obviously gained a lot of viewers in a short period of time.
I agree with Stapleton’s overall point, that the Libertarian Party should be further along down the road to success than it is, but I also don’t think that Stapleton fully understands the difficulties involved with building a minor political party with all of the obstacles put up by the Democrats and the Republicans.
Gaining success in politics, particularly as a minor political party, is more difficult than most people realize.
Robert Cappozi said: “He doesn’t seem to ‘get’ that the optics of being associated — fairly or unfairly — with Haters is a HUGE FUCKING PROBLEM from an optical/political perspective. NS does get that.”
I agree with your concerns, but considering that the Libertarian Party has associated with and nominated for high level political office, Council on Foreign Relations political establishment shill Bill Weld, CIA drug warrior Bob Barr, and neo-con Wayne Allyn Root, it seems as though there is more concern about some associations than there is about others, which strikes me as being hypocritical.
The Republicans and Democrats have had plenty of “haters” among their ranks. The long time late US Senator from West Virginia, Robert Byrd was a former member of the KKK, yet he is admired to this day by Hillary Clinton, and there is a statue of him in West Virginia which nobody has demanded that it be taken down. Long time Republican US Senator from South Carolina, Strom Thurmond, had a history of being a “hater,” yet he held office until he died in 2003.
OK, so it looks like there were actually public invitations to Woods et al. to sign, and comments on them not signing, the statement.
I’m assuming from Sarwark’s “In case you’re wondering why people have a problem with …” reference that there was pressure, or at least encouragement, from elsewhere as well.
That answers that question, which was a big one for me: The first time I heard that Woods wasn’t signing the statement was when he threw his pity party about it on Stapleton’s show, so it rang to me about a guy yelling about how he wasn’t going to attend a party he hadn’t been invited to. And I really didn’t and don’t care whether or not he signs it. My own contribution was simply to answer the question he asked as to why he might want to.
running an advanced twitter search, it does appear Sarwark did tag Woods in a reply that included the link
This was it.
“Sarwark did tweet the petition link to Deist, but not to Woods.”
Hmm. OK. That’s a data point anyway.
“I think overall that NS exercises the better overall judgment in this matter, although I do think he probably should not have called out Deist and Woods for either blowing their dog whistle or not explicitly denouncing Haterism.”
I’m still waiting to see the evidence that he called them out for the latter, as opposed to responding to Woods’s melodrama about it.
I keep asking — did ANYONE publicly call on Woods to sign the “not a fascist” statement before he started whining about being pressured to sign it? If so, there should be a tweet or a blog post or SOMETHING to show that that was the case.
It never even occurred to me to know, or care, whether or not Woods had signed the “not a fascist statement” until Woods himself threw his little temper tantrum about it (also on Stapleton’s program).
No. Sarwark did tweet the petition link to Deist, but not to Woods. Of course, since Woods follows Deist, I’m pretty sure he saw that.
“Another great insight that NS makes here is that TW, JS, and most/all the paleo/alt-right crowd who call themselves “L” won’t denounce the Haterade coming from Cantwell, Spencer, Invictus, etc. Instead, they OFTEN say: It’s OK to be a Hater, so long as they don’t initiate force.
This paleo crowd WILL viciously attack leftists, cosmotariarns, banksters, etc., so we know that they are capable of issuing denunciations!”
That was a very good point that I noted as well.
sorry
It’s very difficult NOT to infer at least some fellow-feeling ….
I’ll say this about Stapleton: I think he means well. I think he is the classic case of a libertarian devoted to…in love with, even…his “product,” a principled libertarian message.
I base this on the few podcasts of his I have listened to. He is not unreasonable. He was the one who, during the 2016 campaign hubbub about the NAP, indicated that it wasn’t something that should be followed dogmatically. It is a rule of thumb, not meant to be anything more.
I give no such leeway to Woods and his Mises crew, people who are at the very least, as RCapozzi pointed out, tone deaf in the extreme, and (more likely in my opinion), at some level simpatico with white nationalist and alt-reichers.
In other woods, Stapleton’s devotion to the message blinds him to the optics in the electoral arena. Woods is either not bothered by the optics, or frankly likes them.
Another great insight that NS makes here is that TW, JS, and most/all the paleo/alt-right crowd who call themselves “L” won’t denounce the Haterade coming from Cantwell, Spencer, Invictus, etc. Instead, they OFTEN say: It’s OK to be a Hater, so long as they don’t initiate force.
This paleo crowd WILL viciously attack leftists, cosmotariarns, banksters, etc., so we know that they are capable of issuing denunciations!
Why?
It’s very difficult to infer at least some fellow-feeling between paleos and alt-right haters, even if the Woods of the world are careful not to actually explicitly embrace Spencer (who I learned yesterday was in some way a supporter of the Paleo God, RP1).
If there is no fire causing their smoke, why won’t they tell us: Nope, there’s no fire. Instead, the paleos deflect and simply will not answer the direct question. They will not distance themselves from the Hate Right.
Perhaps they think we are naive? Perhaps their self-delusion and lack of self-awareness is so powerful they simply don’t recognize the impression their silence generates.
Candidate averages have been going up slowly but steadily. Voter registration continues to rise. Non-dues paying membership hit new heights (now down from its peak, but only due to an overdue data cleanup). Dues paying membership went up significantly for the first time since Browne and while it has declined somewhat as expected, it’s still above the pre-Johnson level and for the first time since Browne the LNC is putting significant money into membership prospecting, so it will probably start to grow again. Party income is up (that is average giving per member also went up). I’d say Sarwark is correct, especially if he manages to pull off recruiting a lot more candidates in 2018. I don’t think there has been a really concerted effort to recruit large numbers of candidates since the days of Ron Crickenberger, RIP.
To be fair, I think it was closer to Ed Clark than John Anderson.
Exactly, and definitely a good thing. Make it so.
Yep.
Via FB comments on this post:
Sarwark’s being disingenuous about the “success” of the LP. There was no coattails for LP candidates under Johnson. Furthermore he basically ran as John Anderson 2.0 but got half as many votes. And Clinton/Trump is way crazier than Reagan/Carter.
“He doesn’t seem to “get” that the optics of being associated — fairly or unfairly — with Haters is a HUGE FUCKING PROBLEM from an optical/political perspective. NS does get that.”
Right again. JS seems to think he gets to decide how people view his messaging. Incorrect.
“JS seems to think that the paleo L message is profoundly attractive, and he also seems to believe that paleo Ls are already legion. I believe he’s incorrect on both counts, if so. Indeed, his “knock it out of the park” discussion felt delusional — almost Trumpian in its arrogance — to me. ”
Indeed. At one point towards the end, Stapleton asks forebodingly, “What would happen if my podcast, the Woods podcast, [and a few others I forgot -ed.], disavowed the Libertarian Party, and said ‘we’re now voting Republican.'”
The answer is quite simple: it wouldn’t mean a damn thing. It would be a blip, quite easily overcome, and probably…if it was a pied piper moment drawing away the alt-right and paleos, probably a good thing.
Actually, JS ultimately understands this, because he later says something to the effect of, “Maybe this party isn’t for me and my message.” He’s right.
Do more than 20 people in the LP know what this “fight” is all about? I’d rather read about where and how local LP groups have engaged in the free speech debate on their local campuses or town squares. That’s where “we will get the word out” about libertarian principles. And, it seems to me, the lack of local, active LP groups is the most severe problem the LP has.
Sarwark nails it as usual. Also Knapp is correct in comments above. Let’s get these paleo, alt right, white nationalist, white supremacist, libertarian-conservative fusionists and right-“libertarians” the hell out of the libertarian movement or anywhere near it as soon as possible.
Sarwark is a guilt by association SJW lunatic. But I’ll give him props for courage. Also he lied about Gottfried straight up.
sorry:
Other, LESS neutral, people should. As Chair, NS should maintain Honest Broker status when it comes to factions and factional disputes.
JS seems to think that the paleo L message is profoundly attractive, and he also seems to believe that paleo Ls are already legion. I believe he’s incorrect on both counts, if so. Indeed, his “knock it out of the park” discussion felt delusional — almost Trumpian in its arrogance — to me.
JS’s framing of the Woods/Sarwark spat is incomplete, either on purpose or by omission. He doesn’t seem to “get” that the optics of being associated — fairly or unfairly — with Haters is a HUGE FUCKING PROBLEM from an optical/political perspective. NS does get that.
Instead, JS and TW seem to just reply, “Woods has the right to NOT participate in denouncing Haterism.” This is, of course, correct.
I think overall that NS exercises the better overall judgment in this matter, although I do think he probably should not have called out Deist and Woods for either blowing their dog whistle or not explicitly denouncing Haterism. It IS NS’s job to protect and distance the LP and LM from being associated with Cantwell and the other defecting Haters, but not his job to call out the semi-complicits like Deist and Woods.
Other, more neutral, people should.
Yes, Rothbard came up with all kinds of strategy ideas during his life, and I suppose that it’s possible one or more of them might have turned out just as badly as the “paleo strategy” if he’d stuck with them. But it was the “paleo strategy” he was still hooked on when he suddenly died, and lesser minds in his circle seem to have been unwilling or unable to abandon it when it proved to be a gigantic loser politically (possibly because it seems to have been something of a winner financially).
One thing I did not hear covered in this interview/debate:
Did anyone actually ASK Woods to sign the “Libertarians United Against Fascism” letter, or criticize him for not doing so, especially prior to him going on Stapleton’s show and ranting about how he wouldn’t sign it and shouldn’t have to sign it and why would anyone think he should sign it?
Fascinating interview featuring two Libertarian forces to be reckoned with. Nick Sarwark has a knack of using clear logical statements while recognizing the right of others speak their mind. I particularly like Nick’s analysis of marketing strategies used by various segments of the Libertarian movement. Nick is absolutely right when he points out that what you say or do not say as part of your marketing strategy is important. Nick’s assertion gets to the heart of whether or not political correctness is appropriate in the Libertarian movement. I assert that political correctness is not appropriate in any context, particularly in the Libertarian movement.
Libertarians in general do a far better job of avoiding political correctness than the two major parties and their sycophant traditional media apologists. Libertarians, however, are not immune from political correctness when they focus on their target audiences with the aim of garnering or retaining votes or audience numbers. That is unfortunate.
I define political correctness as the misrepresentation of reality to achieve a political goal. Let me be even more blunt. Political correctness is nothing more than ‘means justifies ends’ lying for political purposes. Putting the military, police and even compulsory majority-rule representative democracy on pedestals they do not deserve in order to achieve political aims is not only morally reprehensible but also not productive in the long run.
Jason Stapleton’s strong and articulate message calls for the Libertarian Party to speak with one voice, preferably his voice. A noble goal, I am sure, but not based in reality. Despite a shared admirable predisposition toward individual liberty, the strength of the Libertarian movement is that is does not speak with one voice and it never will. Libertarians are or should be continuously immersed in deep-dive, root-cause analysis to improve their perception of reality and what it takes to advance the cause of freedom for all. Political correctness does a disservice to those who are willing to think outside the box for themselves rather than spout one-voice group-speak political correctness.
~David Pratt Demarest, September 1, 2017
Lots of interesting stuff covered in this interview.
I could be wrong, but I think that this “tiff” between Woods and Sarwark started after Woods posted a video of a speech he gave titled, “What I Learned From Murray Rothbard,” and Sawark made what came off as a negative comment about Rothard’s use of the “paleo” strategy (that is, libertarians reaching out to and forming coalitions with paleoconservatives) in the 1990’s. I would have to listen to the interview again, but I don’t think that this was discussed in the interview above with Stapleton.
Regardless of the merits or demerits of the “paleo” strategy, two things should be pointed out, 1) Rothbard tried different strategies throughout his life, and at one time, he tried to recruit from and coalition with people on the political left, and at other times he worked within the Libertarian Party, and 2) the speech given by Tom Woods that elicited this comment had nothing to do with Murray Rothbard’s political strategies, but rather was about Woods reminiscing about Rothbard the person from the time that he spent with him (Woods described him as a very friendly person with a good sense of humor), and learning things about economics and philosophy from him.
I think that the libertarian philosophy is broad enough to appeal to wide groups of people, as in people with different social preferences. So a person could be a gay multi-culturalist, or a straight conservative who does not want to associate with anyone from a different culture, and as long as they both adhere to the Non_Aggression Principe, they can each have their preferences, and peacefully co-exist.
A lot of the problems that we have today, such as the big controversy with statues/memorials/historic sites from the Confederate States of America, and the Founding Fathers, are culture clashes, that would not exist, or would be far less likely to exist, if we lived in a libertarian anarcho-capitalist society.
Under our present system, people with different preferences are forced to live under the same government, where they are forced to associate with people whom they may not want to associate, and they are forced to pay taxes that get spent on things that various people oppose. Just about everything gets turned into a political issue to one degree or another, and various groups battle for who is going to get control of government, so they can impose their preferences onto others.
Libertarians offer the only real solution to this problem, and that is to abolish coercive government, and to establish a voluntary, private property based, anarchist society, where people agree to adhere to the Non-Aggression Principle, and where the free market would hopefully develop defense mechanisms to maintain such a society (if it did not, then mankind would likely end up back where we are today with government).
Stapleton made some comments criticizing the current state of the Libertarian Party, and I agree with him on most of these points, although I don’t really agree with his comment about Arvin Vohra, and I also don’t think that Stapleton has enough information about what all has gone on in the Libertarian Party over the years to make the most informed comments,
I do agree with Stapleton that Johnson/Weld was a terrible ticket, and that the Libertarian Party blew a major opportunity last year, and it seems rather counter-productive to me to go after guys like Tom Woods and Jeff Deist, when the Libertarian Party associated with a political establishment big government shill like Bill Weld, and put him on its presidential ticket. I would take Woods and Deist any day over Johnson/Weld, and I’d take also take Stapleton over Johnson/Weld.
I do agree with the point that Sarwark made to Stapleton, that if he is not happy with the way the Libertarian Party is operating, or if he is not happy with the candidates whom the party is nominating, that he and others like him should get involved in the party and come to the conventions.
Stapleton said that he is not a member of the LP, but I recall hearing that he was at the national convention in Orlando last year. I did not see him there, but he could have been there and I just did not see him. If he was there, I don’t know if he was there as a delegate or not.
I would welcome Jason Stapleton, and Tom Woods, and Jeff Deist, as well as anyone else who could reasonably be called a libertarian, to join the Libertarian Party if they are not already a member.
Like members of any organization, we are not going to agree on every detail of everything all of the time, but as long as we agree most of the time, and as long as we remain committed to radically reducing the size and scope of government (we can debate just how much, and how to go about doing this), then we can all find common ground and work together.
Libertarians, even when they disagree, should agree with other libertarians more than they agree with Democrats or Republicans. The Democrats and the Republicans are the real enemy.
This reminds me of the following quote: “We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately.” Benjamin Franklin