Perry Willis: An Open Letter to the Libertarian Movement

By Perry Willis

[Originally published on the “Zero Aggression” website.

I’ve heard it for forty years: “Libertarians have a marketing problem.” Never mind that…

Even more incredible — all of this was achieved with little visibility and despite outright hostility from the media and academia. Yet somehow libertarians still think their ideas aren’t being accepted. That’s because…

But that third thing is a consequence of the second thing which is a result of the first thing!

The media only covers the Left and the Right. People then vote defensively between those two choices — for the “lesser of two evils.” Even most libertarians vote this way! It’s a natural “game theory” consequence of “media agenda setting” and “winner-takes-all” elections.

So we libertarians are judging our progress by what our enemies say about us. That’s like the Boston Red Sox deciding they’re no good because the New York Yankees say so. Meanwhile…

follow site animal cruelty essay introduction cialis pro online with out presciption college essa how to write on photos on my ipad cialis online australia paypal Doxycycline Next Day Delivery https://glennfoundation.org/drugstore/blood-tests-effects-from-prednisone/25/ viagra race car title page thesis http://floatinglotus.com/prescription/diflucan-cost-cvs/50/ https://geneseelandlordassoc.org/category/help-to-do-assignment/44/ http://phillipscountymuseum.org/exhibits/how-to-organise-coursework/39/ https://speciosa.org/viagra-corporate-office/ order in essay viagra trade name in bangladesh canadian med store viagra real or fake https://www.flseagrant.org/news/creative-writing-uq/29/ https://www.dimensionsdance.org/pack/6881-does-viagra-give-semen-a-flavor.html https://casci.umd.edu/2019/viagra-in-pakistan-price/50/ prednisone and aspirin rx corp cialis dissertation consulting http://flahertyseminar.org/graduate/assignment-service/28/ source link follow site upenn sample essay viagra and mexico ou acheter du viagra au maroc http://skatehousemedia.com/cv/how-do-i-add-a-mail-folder-on-iphone/12/ can women use viagra or levitra The entire country has actually moved in our direction!

It bears repeating…

  • Many millions self-identify as libertarian.
  • Many millions more hold mostly libertarian views.
  • Majorities agree with the general libertarian approach on most issues.

We libertarians are winning the intellectual war without even realizing it.

Then, having misdiagnosed the disease we apply the wrong cure. Every libertarian “doctor” has the same basic idea: better marketing. This means different things to different libertarians, but a few ideas are evergreen…

  • Ditch our most unpopular positions
  • Drop electoral politics
  • Get more serious about electoral politics
  • Run in the major parties
  • Don’t run in the major parties
  • Use only utilitarian arguments
  • Use only moral arguments
  • Use both utilitarian and moral arguments
  • Use less logic and more emotion
  • Adopt a new name
  • Be more positive
  • Use simpler language

Taking them one-by-one…

Ditch our most unpopular positions

Drug legalization used to be the main position we were supposed to drop. We emphasized it instead. And opinion moved in our direction!

Now we’re supposed to abandon open borders. Wrong. Learn from history. We should emphasize open borders!

Tom Paine was right, “Time makes more converts than reason.” Fifty years of being consistent and persistent has led to 30-60 million libertarians, plus movement toward the libertarian position on most issues, including drugs. The same thing can happen with open borders and our overall philosophy, if we realize that….

Consistent persistence is the best marketing stance we have!

Don’t run in the major parties

But we now have more libertarians in Congress than ever — Justin Amash, Thomas Massie, and Rand Paul. All of them ran as Republicans. We should do more of this, not less.

Give-up on the Libertarian Party

But the LP is a huge entry point for many new libertarians. It gave a powerful platform to people like Harry Browne. It’s attracted people like Gary Johnson, William Weld, and Laura Ebke away from the establishment parties. Why throw that away?

Only use moral arguments

Well, the movement has mostly used utilitarian arguments for the past half-century, during which time the entire culture has slowly moved our direction. Why should we stop doing something that works?

Could we benefit from using the moral argument more? Absolutely. That’s why Jim Babka and I created the Zero Aggression Project. But…

Most people who accept our moral argument will still want to test the practical consequences. This means utilitarian arguments can’t be avoided.

Use less logic and more emotion

This is another popular idea. When I hear libertarians propose it, I ask for examples. They usually respond with some logical argument that provokes an emotion. Sorry, but that doesn’t meet the claim. The proposal was to use emotion more and logic less. Wedding logic and emotion together is something different! Here’s what I think…

Libertarianism joins thinking and feeling together in a unified whole.

Things like the Golden Rule, the Zero Aggression Principle, the self-ownership principle, and the equal liberty rule are all logical constructs. But violating them provokes emotion. This intellectual-emotional holism differentiates us from doctrines like Fascism and Communism, where logic and emotion are divorced from each other.

But there’s no new marketing scheme to try here. Libertarians already excel at deploying logic, emotion, and humor in a potent blend. If you don’t think so, spend a few hours reviewing the clever memes libertarians post on Facebook. No one does it better. No one!

We need a new name!

Does it help to close the barn after the cow escapes? Surveys and studies show that 30-million people have already embraced the word libertarian. Should we really use scarce resources to persuade them they made a mistake?

And will it really help us persuade statists if we keep having to admit that our new coolitarian label is what they used to call libertarian?

We should be more positive

I’ve heard this one a thousand times: How come libertarians are always against stuff? Why do we use negative terms like aggression and abolish? Well…

  • How did the anti-slavery movement ever triumph using downer terms like “anti-slavery” and “abolition?”
  • How did Volkswagen gain market share for the Beetle with ads that asked “Lemon?”
  • How did Avis succeed by admitting they were only number two?
  • Why did 7-Up spend millions calling itself the “un-cola?”
  • Why are political ads so harsh? Don’t campaign consultants know negativity doesn’t work?

In reality, the negative position can be smart marketing. And being against bad things is often the most positive thing you can do. The intuition to use only positive words sounds right, but it fails the market test.

Use simpler language

This has been the marketing Holy Grail for libertarians since I joined the movement. But after four decades I’ve yet to see any “simple explanation” achieve special results. I’ve personally gained some traction with my own “simple pitch”…

Don’t use state aggression to impose your personal preferences on others.

But it’s not a magic bullet that ends the need for further conversation, let alone lengthy utilitarian debates.

Statists have many reasons for being statists, and they want those reasons addressed, one-by-one. There’s no way to shortcut this process. It’s inherently complex and time-consuming.

It’s also possible to make our language too simple. Consider the current most popular super-simple libertarian explanation…

Don’t hurt people or take their stuff.

Any child can understand it, and everyone agrees with it. But that’s precisely why it fails. Because any statist can accept it without changing a single position. They can even claim that the statement perfectly describes their own politics. They want to protect people and give them stuff! To counter this you must then show them all the ways that they don’t protect people, and the hidden costs of the things they give. Insto-presto, your super-simple libertarian presentation is no longer simple.

The idea that we can use words that everyone likes to better persuade people is attractive but wrong! New ideas often require new formulations to make them memorable. A phrase like “initiated force” can impart a new idea in a way that “don’t hurt people” simply can’t. Indeed, we must use words that a statist would not use, so as to clearly differentiate our product. In short…

Words that will conquer must first divide!

So, given all of the above…

Are there no new trails to blaze for libertarian marketing?

Yes, there are new trails to blaze.

Step one — Learn to take “Yes” for an answer.

Realize that more than half-a-century of consistent, persistent effort, using multiple tactics and strategies, has brought us to the following situation…

  • 30 million Americans self-identify as libertarian.
  • 30 million more hold mostly libertarian views.
  • Huge portions of the statist population agree with us on enough things to make our position the majority stance on most issues.

All of these people are saying yes to us in a variety of ways. We need to accept, embrace, and celebrate this. It represents incredible progress! We should feel good about it. And we need to stop judging our progress based on…

  • How the media treats us.
  • How LP candidates fare in a system designed to punish third parties.
  • All the bad laws being passed in Congress (change on the political front will be the lagging indicator).

Step two — locate every person who agrees with us.

Create a database of the 30 million who self-identify as libertarian, and the other 30 million who hold mostly libertarian positions.

Better yet, create a database of the entire country! Take note of each person who holds any view that would move things in a libertarian direction. It’s a big project, of course. But the major parties have already done this. They have massive “get out the vote” databases. We must do the same.

Step three — activate as many of these people as we can.

Use every tactic we can think of to cause action — jury nullification, grassroots lobbying, initiatives, running in major party primaries, or supporting Libertarian Party campaigns. Every tactic and marketing approach should be deployed because they all have something to contribute.

Step four — gain visibility parity with the Left and Right.

We won’t start to persuade statists to any significant degree until we achieve this goal. Our ideas must be heard at the same volume as statist ideas.

Zero Aggression PrincipleStep five — keep pushing the moral argument.

This will move our libertarian recruits in a more voluntaryist direction, and American culture will eventually follow.

So the libertarian market myth boils down to this — there is no magic bullet.

There is no one best way. We will succeed in the future the same way we have in the past. We gained the agreement (total or partial) of 30-60 million Americans through strategic and tactical pluralism, using marketing diversity and principled consistency wedded to persistence. As it was in the past, so shall it be in the future.

Now go forth and conquer.


Perry Willis is a Co-founder of Downsize DC and the Zero Aggression Project, Former Libertarian Party National Director, Harry Browne for President Campaign Manager, and a long-time LP activist, beginning in the early 80’s.

Follow him on Twitter: https://twitter.com/perrywwillis

Find him on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/perry.willis.31

24 thoughts on “Perry Willis: An Open Letter to the Libertarian Movement

  1. Aiden

    30-million Americans now self-identify as libertarian.
    Another 30-million hold mostly libertarian views.

    And those are the problems…. About 90% of the 30 million that self-identify are either confused neo-conservatives (largely thanks to Reagan making the statement that “the heart of conservatism is libertarianism”) or they’re paleo-conservatives; neither is classical liberal, minarchist or anarchist.

    And holding MOSTLY libertarian views is effectively consistent with not holding ANY. Most that hold “some” will NOT vote for the party because they’re NOT libertarian on the issues that actually matter to them the most; aka Abortion, border restrictions, or corporate regulation.

    What people actually want is a center party that is libertarian-ish that does NOT favor things like open borders, ending taxation, ending environmental regulation, closing public schools, etc. It needs to also have no formal position on abortion or guns; meaning it shouldn’t even be mentioned in the platform at all (i.e; let each candidate make up their minds and then let the public determine which candidate should have the nomination in each district/state via primary).

    In shorter words, people want more capitalist Democrats…. which are actually just real Republicans (not the Federalists, Traditionalists, and Nationalists that currently control the Republican Party). The public wants socially moderate Republicans.

    I was a member of the LP for a while, was registered to vote as a Libertarian…. I’m no longer a member, changed my registration to Ind. and voted Dem down ballot in 2018; my political positions didn’t change…. I just realized that without Proportional Representation the LP is NOT electable no matter who runs it. There are too many die-hards in the party for the platform to be changed to a party that is palatable to the majority; which means in a plurality election system, you don’t win.

  2. dL

    Perry Willis is a Co-founder of Downsize DC

    And the ostensible objective of that organization–the downsizing of the federal government–has been a spectacular failure, although Downsize DC itself has been growing quite nicely. Failure==growth works well in politics but not in business. Politics does not follow the same principles as business marketing.

    But we now have more libertarians in Congress than ever — Justin Amash, Thomas Massie, and Rand Paul. All of them ran as Republicans. We should do more of this, not less.

    If we give Amash the benefit of the doubt, we have exactly one.

    30 million Americans self-identify as libertarian.

    That’s taken from Nate Silver, but it is not an accurate summary take-away from Silver’s post.

    [There Are Few Libertarians. But Many Americans Have Libertarian Views.]
    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/there-are-few-libertarians-but-many-americans-have-libertarian-views/

    Silver’s point was to debunk Paul Krugman’s claim that the electorate is a binary conservative/progressive axis. The republican and democratic primaries are engineered to generate that candidate outcome in a general election, but the electorate itself is much more malleable than that. But in an inconsistent way. The takeaway is not that there is some reliable electoral base of 30 million self-identified libertarians. 4o years of election results have made it pretty clear that the reliable libertarian electoral base is ~ 1%.

  3. David Pratt Demarest

    Thank you, Perry Willis! This is by far the best article I have seen that tackles Libertarian strategy head on. The author presents a fresh perspective that takes into account the political impact of the Libertarian movement beyond electoral success. But does it go far enough and in the right laser-focused strategy direction?

    While the article highlights the number of people who support Libertarian ideas, my takeaway is that Libertarians should not be disheartened and should redouble efforts to achieve electoral success. To me, the persistent theme of this article is that final victory will be achieved only when the large numbers of those that hold Libertarian views is enough to garner sufficient votes to win elections. Pardon me, but I thought the goal of the Libertarian movement was freedom, not election victories. I must ask, have we gotten the political cart before the freedom horse?

    From a Libertarian perspective, what does freedom translate to at the practical level of economics and human interactions? What freedom omissions do we find fault with in our welfare state at a practical level? Is it the cronyism and corruption in terribly expensive but failed government social service monopolies?

    If failed government social services are the problem at the practical level, what would happen if Libertarians focused on moving all social services back into the private sector where they belong? Is that not the practical essence of Libertarian freedom? Might that also result in more election victories?

    Is now the time to put the social service privatization ‘horse’ before the electoral success ‘cart’? If so, how would we go about this horse before the cart strategy? By pouring all our efforts into the public sector electoral process? Excuse me, but when is the last time your heard of a politician that created a private social service that could out-compete a government social service? Am I missing something? Am I under the mistaken impression that all private-sector social services were built by entrepreneurs?

    Are these the kind of questions that Libertarians should be asking if they seriously intend to reduce the size of government, achieve freedom, and accelerate regulatory relief by winning elections from the bottom up, in that order? Do we have our work cut out for us to get the social service privatization horse before the electoral process cart?

    Armed with a redirected ‘horse before the cart’ strategy, are we are ready, In the word of the author. to “go forth and conquer”?

    Thoughts?

  4. Richard Winger

    Perry, I think you would be an excellent Libertarian candidate for Congress or Governor or some other office. I don’t hink you have ever run before, have you? Do you ever think about it?

  5. paulie

    And those are the problems…. About 90% of the 30 million that self-identify are either confused neo-conservatives (largely thanks to Reagan making the statement that “the heart of conservatism is libertarianism”) or they’re paleo-conservatives;

    A lot are closer to left-center-libertarian as well, especially among younger people and non-white folks.

    What people actually want…

    Different people want different things. No one is 100% happy with any real life party, or virtually no one. There’s tons of untapped potential for the LP, but I think the lion’s share is on the left flank for several reasons:

    1) The LP and LM have been concentrating on reaching out to the right, so the low hanging fruit has already been picked. Less so on the left.

    2) Conservative-leaners may also be libertarian leaners, but every demographic factor that makes someone more likely to be conservative also makes that person more likely to be temperamentally conservative, thus less likely to change anything, including their voting patterns or party self-identification, no matter how much they have in common with libertarians and how disgruntled they may be with Republicans.

    3) Everyone who is least likely to be firmly entrenched with an establishment party – young people, immigrants etc – is more likely to be left-leaning, but many are also libertarian-leaning or open to it.

    4) For the younger folks, they are more likely to be alive longer than the older people, so if we get them now while they are young that’s more years as future LP voters, activists, donors and candidates ahead of them.

    I think Perry Willis makes a great point about the need to catch up on the voter identification, data mapping and get out the vote front with the bigger parties.

  6. Just Some Random Guy

    Drug legalization used to be the main position we were supposed to drop. We emphasized it instead. And opinion moved in our direction!

    Now we’re supposed to abandon open borders. Wrong. Learn from history. We should emphasize open borders!

    Tom Paine was right, “Time makes more converts than reason.” Fifty years of being consistent and persistent has led to 30-60 million libertarians, plus movement toward the libertarian position on most issues, including drugs. The same thing can happen with open borders and our overall philosophy, if we realize that….

    So the argument is that open borders hurts the libertarian cause now, but it should be emphasized because *probably* 50 years down the line it might be beneficial? That seems a weak argument.

    I also believe that the claim that the years of being “consistent and persistent” led to popular opinion changing on issues like drugs is a considerable overestimation of the effect libertarianism actually had on those issues.

  7. paulie

    I think you considerably underestimate the effect we’ve had, and that it’s just as true of open borders now as it was of drugs then.

  8. dL

    So the argument is that open borders hurts the libertarian cause now, but it should be emphasized because *probably* 50 years down the line it might be beneficial? That seems a weak argument.

    Open borders is the libertarian cause, just as drug legalization is the libertarian cause, just as the right to self-defense is the libertarian cause. The argument that we must abandon the cause in order to save the cause is the weak argument.

  9. dL

    I also believe that the claim that the years of being “consistent and persistent” led to popular opinion changing on issues like drugs is a considerable overestimation of the effect libertarianism actually had on those issues.

    You’re wrong. For example, Steve Kubby played a prominent role in the drafting and passage of California Prop 215, which got the ball rolling on pot legalization…

  10. Jared

    “Drug legalization used to be the main position we were supposed to drop. We emphasized it instead. And opinion moved in our direction!”

    We are seeing a lot more support for marijuana legalization, but the masses remain uninterested in ending the war on hard drugs, such as heroin. But for Libertarians to credit ourselves with this shift in popular opinion is akin to a fly landing on a lead horse’s nose and imagining himself directing the parade.

    “Now we’re supposed to abandon open borders. Wrong. Learn from history. We should emphasize open borders!”

    Ending pot prohibition at the State level and effectively redefining the nation-state by a policy of open borders are goals of entirely different magnitudes.

    In general, I liked Mr. Willis’s article and think he made a lot of great points.

  11. dL

    Ending pot prohibition at the State level and effectively redefining the nation-state by a policy of open borders are goals of entirely different magnitudes.

    Well, we would be restoring the old definition of the nation-state vis a vis open borders b/c a policy of statist border control is largely a post WW II phenomenon. Even up until 1980 it was not illegal to leave the US w/o a passport.

  12. Just Some Random Guy

    You’re wrong. For example, Steve Kubby played a prominent role in the drafting and passage of California Prop 215, which got the ball rolling on pot legalization…

    At most, that would prove that someone who happened to be a libertarian had a big impact on that. That doesn’t indicate that libertarianism or libertarians as a whole being “consistent and persistent” actually played any kind of notable role in it. As Jared said, “But for Libertarians to credit ourselves with this shift in popular opinion is akin to a fly landing on a lead horse’s nose and imagining himself directing the parade.”

  13. Aiden

    “Different people want different things. No one is 100% happy with any real life party, or virtually no one. There’s tons of untapped potential for the LP, but I think the lion’s share is on the left flank for several reasons:”

    My comment is predicated on reading comment sections in replies to Libertarian Party social media posts….. I’m not pulling data from anywhere other than from people that have shown prior interest in the party…. they actually have taken time to engage with the social media accounts of the party itself. To reject that feedback is to literally reject what the market is telling you. The LP is losing because it is literally rejecting market feedback. There is zero market-product fit for the party in the current platform and current political environment. If you want to see how a third-party could actually win, read “The Lean Start-Up”…. parties have to start thinking of themselves as businesses….. not groups that beat people over the head with ‘facts’…. that won’t win people over; in fact, 9/10 times it makes people defensive and turns off their ability to apply critical reasoning skills to what is being said…. people immediately go from listening to what your saying to preparing their next rebuttal (i.e; they’re spending most of their mental capacity thinking about what to say next, not listening to what you’re saying).

    Winning arguments doesn’t change minds. Libertarians are really good at winning arguments, we’re awful at winning votes. Really should be asking why the prior isn’t leading to the latter. Like I said in my prior comment, the LP will not win without either a major shift in party platform (which would likely mean making changes that have discrepancies with the core components of the ideology – so I know it won’t happen), or a fundamental change in the electoral system.

  14. Gina

    The social comment media sections are a bad place to pull information from. Facebook classifies libertarian as conservative and pulls suggested likes from conservative/tea party followers. Additionally, many of the followers of the LP page were acquired through paid advertising which either the party or facebook itself appears to have targeted at conservatives.

    In social media the maxim is that those who like posts leave likes and shares (retweets etc) while those who don’t are more likely to leave comments. Thus, when you add the targeting of social media follower acquisition with the tendency to comment more when one disagrees you get the “feedback” you are referring to. It’s a very poor barometer, because it is very easy for conservatives to be disgruntled with the Republican Party and join LP facebook groups and pages, follow the LP on twitter, etc, as well as conservatives and Republican groups/sites/pages/etc. It’s another thing entirely for someone to actually vote LP, become active in the LP or donate money to the LP.

    And even that is skewed, because most of the recruiting the LP does is passive which means it creams the froth of conservative disgruntlement with Republicans and churns those same people back to the Republicans, further right, or principled/cynical anti-voting while doing little to reach the larger and more diverse left-center-libertarian youth, minority and immigrant audience that may be more open minded to libertarianism but will take *active* outreach to reach, including phrasing appeals in ways that appeal to them rather than to disgruntled conservatives.

    Marketing conservative-libertarian fusionism with an unhealthy smattering of alt right in the comment sections to a passively recruited audience skewed by media bias and social media algorithms which affiliate libertarianism with the right and asking them primarily for financial contributions yields the subpar results we have seen so far. Ed Clark and Gary Johnson came the closest to crafting a message that appeals to a left-center-libertarian audience out of LP candidates so far, and did better at getting votes, while Harry Browne was best at converting votes and interest in his campaign into active membership in the LP as a whole. The LP needs to learn to combine those two things, without the Aleppo gaffes and what seemed like Hillary Clinton endorsements.

  15. Gina

    Jared and Just Some Random Guy,

    You vastly underestimate the important impact of libertarians on the drug debate. Many people pivotal in the anti-prohibition movement have been libertarians and LP members. To take just one of many examples, MPP co-founder and long time head Rob Kampia was (is? not sure) also an LP activist, delegate and candidate for office. Libertarians were prominent in cannabis rallies in the 1980s and probably even 1970s (before my time). LP candidates were often called on to speak to the anti-drug war side on talk shows even back then. The LP did a great deal to plant and nurture the seeds; it was more the establishment party politicians who are the flies landing on the nose to lead the parade.

    Nor is ending the drug war going to end with cannabis. Harm reduction from hard drugs is an important part of criminal justice policy reform, and that fight is just starting. The European model of harm reduction will come to be considered eventually. Psychedelics decrim is starting to be discussed, along with medicinal applications. The edifice of the drug war has started to crack, and will continue to do so until the whole ugly thing comes down like an old statue of Lenin. We’re not there yet but we are on the way there and the LP will again have played an important role in planting and nurturing the seeds. Not a direct role, but the ripple that played an important part in starting an avalanche or a cascade.

  16. Gina

    Opening borders to migration and trade is not “redefining the nation state.” The US-Mexico border was virtually open with regular season migration commonplace and basically unimpeded until Nixon’s drug war. US citizens could visit the border region of Mexico and come back with nothing more than their state ID until just a few years ago. The Canadian border was similarly lax into the early years of this century. There were no immigration quotas in the US until the late 19th century and very few until the 1920s, and they were imposed for explicitly racist reasons. US states, cities and counties manage to have open borders now, as do many foreign nations.

    There’s simply no good reason not to advocate for open borders and make it a central issue for the LP now. Even the Democrats are starting to call for abolishing ICE, albeit weakly and inconsistently. As with the drug war, the border war will end. It’s a matter of when, not if, and the LP would do well to emphasize its stand and nurture those seeds much as it has with ending drug prohibition.

  17. dL

    Libertarians are really good at winning arguments

    If that was true, then there wouldn’t be any conflicting divisions within libertarianism. It would all be settled. The usual adage is “herding cats,” which means they are good starting arguments but not winning them.

  18. Aiden

    Welp… have it your way. I’m starting a new party in either 2020 or 2022… we’ll see who gets elected first to a partisan office above state legislature.

  19. Aiden

    “If that was true, then there wouldn’t be any conflicting divisions within libertarianism. It would all be settled. The usual adage is “herding cats,” which means they are good starting arguments but not winning them”…

    That’s over semantics and subtle details… the normal inter-ideology debate stuff… I’m talking about against conservatives and egalitarians on high level macro arguments. Any time a libertarian is in a debate with other parties 9/10 times polls almost always say the lib won the debate, but then they proceed to get no more than 5% in the polls. People don’t vote for intellectual arguments, in fact most people find intelligence as off putting, it comes across as condescending and arrogant…. why do you think Trump and Bush Jr got elected?

  20. dL

    why do you think Trump and Bush Jr got elected?

    electoral college. Both lost the popular vote. So much for that theory. The only profession that thrives under a perception of stupidity is a mark…

  21. dL

    At most, that would prove that someone who happened to be a libertarian had a big impact on that.

    At most, you just conceded the point. In this case, libertarianism would not be an incidental property along the lines of, say, the dude who won the 100m dash just happened to be a libertarian. Billy Sunday is credited with playing a big role in the passage of Prohibition but no one would claim that Christianity’s role was just as incidental as, say, Billy’s hair color.

  22. Gina

    Aiden will certainly exceed the performance of all third parties in the US since ballot access laws were made more difficult in the 1930s. Never mind how many efforts have been made to provide alternatives from the left, right, center, libertarians, populists, etc… they were all waiting on Aiden to show everyone how it’s done.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *