The larger Revolution is won by countless smaller revolutions in the thinking of the people. It falls to Libertarians to make it happen. Here are some thoughts on how. by Kishi
(centrist)
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
I don't think I'm too far off the mark when I say that life is a series of transactions. One person is sold on something by another person and in turn buys it, which influences the decisions made thereafter. That doesn't necessarily mean merely money, though.
Selling means 'trading for profit,' and what is profitable is determined by the person who sells. That usually means money, yes. It can also mean a desired good or service. Those are the standard things one will find in a college economics textbook.
What is often missed, however, is the sale of an idea. That's right. Ideas do not sell themselves. They are not inherently capable of being absorbed into the collective consciousness. A good idea is a good idea, but that doesn't mean people buy it if they're convinced it's a bad idea. An idea, in order to transmit, needs to be sold.
There are no exceptions to this. Communism was sold by appealing to the lower class resentment of the upper class. Democracy appeals to a people's desire for self-rule. Even religions are built up and torn down on the watch of their salesmen. So, Libertarianism, as an idea, is not exempt from status as a commodity.
I think it's the lack of this understanding that's gotten in the way of Libertarians to win people over to their points of view. I'm going to offer a few of my observations about Libertarianism as it is presented, and a few ideas to help you guys get some kind of revolutionary or other in the White House.
Whatever you take away from this, if anything, please don't read it as an attack. I understand how easy it can be to write this off as some kind of anti-Lib rant, and that's simply not what I'm striving for. I'm merely offering my commentary, based on my own observations. You're free to take or leave them as you see fit.
Obstacle # 1: The Arrogance of Libertarians
Let's face it. It really, really helps a sale if the salesman believes in the product. And Libertarians are nothing if not believers. The amount of belief it takes to press on despite how very far off the revolution must seem is amazing, and I personally tip my hat to you.
Having said that, there comes a point where this dedication to the cause becomes an intellectual arrogance. It's evidenced in the repeated assertions I've heard that, "If everyone were really educated, they'd all be Libertarians." That's simply not true, on the basis that three hundred million people simply can't be that dumb. It just doesn't happen.
So as much as it hurts, I think it will benefit your cause if you admit to yourselves that your conviction has transformed into fanaticism. You have refused to hear other points of view, and in doing so have cut off a basic element of empathy with others. You must remember: selling is a transfer of feeling, and it's a two-way road. Coming at these others without the intention of hearing them in turn is disrespectful at best.
Honestly, take the time to slow down and talk to people instead of outright refusing them. Build bridges with these people, and learn to see where they're coming from. See it as they do, and you'll see how to sell them.
Obstacle # 2: Libertarian Individuality
While we're on the subject of convictions, I think it's interesting to note that no two Libertarians I've ever talked to have ever shared quite the same views on what exactly a Libertarian government should do. I've seen agreement on the big issues - individual accountability and such - but rarely do I see a consensus on all the smaller interests, like healthcare or education.
I know it flies in the face of all your instinctual individuality, but it would really help if you all could figure out what exactly you're going to do once you actually have power. I'm not saying you should get rid of all the variance within your collective points of view; even the two big parties have their different voices. I'm saying it would help you to have more at your core than "Individual Rights."
Obstacle # 3: Libertarian Laziness
I got hammered for this earlier, so I'll be brief. As of this article, the Facebook group directly supporting Ron Paul is almost at the 85,000 mark. As I said earlier, this is a group that is lazy to a fault. They believe they've given all the support they have to if they sit around on a site and talk about how great Dr. Paul is.
You surely know better than that. You owe it to yourselves to energize these students. If each student just went out and turned one supporter in one day, you'd have 170,000 student supporters. Each one of those goes out and turns one supporter, and you have 340,000. It's just one per day. It's not hard. In fact, it'll be easier if you follow the other two pieces of advice I've given you, which can be summed up as:
Find a common ground with people, and talk to them from there.
From there, have a position to talk them to.
Once people see that you care enough to see from their point of view, they will try to see it from yours. So have a concrete point of view to let them see from. Speak to them with an earnest belief and an honest compassion for them and their interests, and they will want to be like you.
It's just one a day. One a day. It's a numbers game, folks. You get those 85,000 students going, one a day, and at the end of the week you'd have over five million supporters. That's just one conversation a day. How's that for a grassroots movement?
Now, let me give you a warning with that: I can't tell you when that one conversation will happen. You might talk to one person and convince them. You might talk to five before you find the one. You might talk to thirty before you find the one. Or you might not find any at all on a given day. But I know for sure that you won't find that one if you do nothing.
What do you have to lose?
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 1
thumb so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Kishi only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Kishi is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2008-02-26 06:25:00
I think you make some good points in your article. However, there are a couple of points that are off base.
You wrote, "I've seen agreement on the big issues - individual accountability and such - but rarely do I see a consensus on all the smaller interests, like healthcare or education." Despite the fact that you also note that Republican and Democrats themselves disagree within their own parties about such issues, you seem to think that libertarians should somehow be more united.
This is a terribly ignorant position, because the Libertarian Party (as an example) did just that over the years...to its own detriment. Many ex-LP members have complained that they left the party because there were certain elements to the party platform that they just couldn't stomach. In other words, libertarians tried to do what you suggest, and it cost them their own supporters. Your desire that we should somehow come together on the specifics of political issues before we can be taken seriously as a political movement and a political philosophy simply defies the lessons of history.
The fact is that no broad political viewpoint can survive the stresses of political discord when everything is distilled down to one single interpretation that all adherents of the viewpoint must support, for the very same reason you cite: that people don't always agree even when they're on the same side.
Republicans have long been split on the role of the Federal government in education, but that doesn't seem to disturb you much. Some support "no child left behind" which was created by the Bush administration, while others oppose it vehemently.
Democrats have long been split about how exactly to socialize health care. They all broadly support socialism, but the specifics all fall apart when examined up close (in part because socialism itself falls apart when examined up close).
Why, then, should you expect libertarians to be any different about how to reduce the role of government in education or health care? Most of us agree that government's role should be reduced; we just disagree on the specifics about how to get there. Yet somehow you think that failure to achieve a clear consensus on how to accomplish this goal somehow separates us from the big boys.
Also, your claim that libertarians fail to hear other points of view rings hollow. Yes, there are SOME libertarians who won't listen to other points of view, just as there are SOME conservatives and SOME liberals with similar tendencies. However, your broad brush isn't accurate. There are also many libertarians who DO listen to other points of view. As just one example, this website was created by a libertarian precisely for the purpose of exchanging viewpoints among all political camps. I am that libertarian. Are you saying that I don't listen to other points of view? Your accusation simply doesn't measure up.
Finally, what you describe as libertarian laziness is really just libertarians learning how to spread the word and not yet knowing all the best ways to do that. Most libertarians are political neophytes. It's unrealistic to assume that they're all going to become instant experts in political communication overnight, particularaly since most have been divorced from the political process for most of their lives. There is a learning process involved about which you seem intolerant. From my viewpoint, the Revolution has moved forward much faster than I had ever expected. This is because the libertarians involved are NOT lazy. Instead, they took the bull by the horns and did what they already knew how to do.
Yes, there is more to be done. Yes, there is more to be learned, but I reject your idea that the fact that the Revolution is not yet won is due mainly to arrogance and laziness.
First off, thanks for reading. I always appreciate it, I really do. Now:
I was unaware of the fact that the Libertarian party had tried to come together on the issues. I apologize for speaking in ignorance of this, and I appreciate you pointing that out to me. On the other hand, I think that Libertarianism has such a low amount of members precisely because there is a lack of central definition.
Even with all the splintering that occurs naturally in the two big 'uns - which is necessary for them to stay flexible, which is why they're still around - they do have a central point in each issue that they can all come back to and agree on.
You note that Republicans are split on the role of government in education, but they all agree that government has that role. I haven't met two Libertarians yet who agree on whether the government has any place or not - you've said the kids should learn for themselves, a friend of mine said to amend the Constitution, another actually advocated the German system, even with the increased governmental role.
Democrats may not know how to socialize health care, but they agree that it should be socialized. I've heard differing accounts again on this too, like promoting corporate competition versus doing away with the corporations and bringing back the local practices.
The one point that you cite that you for the most part agree with is just that: the one point. It does not help your cause when I can talk to ten Libertarians and get ten different responses and each one be as valid as the other. I just think it would help you guys out to have a stand on every issue that you could all consolidate behind and get some momentum going. It doesn't have to be universal, because it only takes 51% consensus to get the ball moving. It's better than the 10-20% you people work with in general.
As regards Libertarian empathy, I've found you to be more the exception than the rule. I was reading one of Chad Underdonk's articles about harnessing debate, and he said much the same thing. I commented and applauded him, saying that this was a Libertarian site pandering to Libertarians. The next guy who came up said, 'Yeah, what of it?'
I mean, sure, one incident isn't enough to come to that conclusion, but this repeatedly demonstrates itself. Any time I talk to the Libertarians around where I live, the conversation isn't over until I've said, "You're right," or, "I'll vote for Ron Paul." I would say it's more than some Libertarians who are like that. I'd say it's the majority; and not that that's an indication of a failing. That's a human thing, wanting to be right, and I proposed that this tendency should be reined in.
Regarding your final point, I think you missed my own. These people are sitting around and doing as they do and feeling like they've satisfied their commitment. They don't have to be experts to tell people about taxes being too high and the government taking too many liberties and that the individual is worth more than that.
Like, just for example, it's tax season right now. A simple conversation:
"Hey man, you do your taxes?"
"Yeah man. God, it's such a pain."
"Word up. Wouldn't it be great if we didn't have the IRS?"
People have that conversation all the time. And unlike the big two, you Libertarians have a place to go with that question. It is so easy to do this, and I don't see it happening anywhere.
I'm not saying that the Libertarians involved in your Revolution are lazy. I'm saying 'Get all Libertarians to be involved.'
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2008-02-26 20:34:17
First of all, go to www.lp.org and read the LP platform in its current incarnation. I think it will show you that libertarians are quite capable of specificity. I'm not crazy about all parts of it...no one is...but I can agree that most of it is acceptable. For instance, just because I don't like any interference in the rights of students to decide for themselves what to study doesn't mean that I can't also support the LP's platform which essentially says that the Federal government should stay out of education. Indeed, most libertarians feel that way.
I think you're making the mistake of drawing conclusions about all libertarians based upon your experience with a few.
I'm more than a little confused by your little conversation about the IRS. You conclude by saying that you don't see libertarians finishing that conversation anywhere. Really? Frankly, I had the impression that that issue had been talked to death, particularly on this website.
I'm pretty sure that the next line in your imaginary conversation could be filled in by almost any libertarian who visits this website or other, similar websites. The line would take a form something like, "Sure it would. And we can. There's nothing preventing us except for a bunch of politicians who feel they own our money." In fact, there are a myriad number of ways to reply in that conversation.
I think what you're really complaining about is a lack of soundbites. Libertarians don't normally engage in soundbites, because they're usually so trite. Over time, I think certain soundbites have emerged, such as "end the war in Iraq," but they're the exception rather than the rule.
Righto, thanks for the link. I'll look into it. I don't like being wrong, and if I am, then I owe it to you and everyone to correct myself, so thank you.
And I apologize if it sounds like I'm coming to conclusions about all Libertarians. What would you like of me? I'll admit to using a small portion to draw my conclusions, and I'm willing to deal with each individual on their own merits. I can't change how these people deal with me. I try to be openminded and honest with them, I really do, but if I take an alternate view, I'm automatically wrong. And I wouldn't be so bitter about it except that it happens over and over and over again.
Honestly, I'm trying not to be judgmental about this. I just don't know what else is reasonable of me at this point.
Regarding that final point, that was exactly the point I was trying to make. It wasn't in regard to the site or anything like that.
Any Libertarian could take the next line of that conversation into a discussion about a platform. It was just such a conversation that guided me here.
And as it stands now, there are at least 84,791 students who can have that conversation. And they aren't doing it. They either won't make the time. or they try once, fail, and just lose faith, saying that "Surely the smart person who got me into this will come around to them. Let him/her handle it." You gotta admit, 85,000 such conversations would be really helpful to your cause right about now.
Soundbites work, but I agree - there's just a point where they outgrow their usefulness. You should be going for quality over quantity anyway.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2008-02-27 08:04:28
"Honestly, I'm trying not to be judgmental about this. I just don't know what else is reasonable of me at this point."
That's easy. Don't make broad brush claims unless you know they're true. Make qualified claims instead, and make sure they're accurate before you make them.
As for why "there are at least 84,791 students who can have that conversation. And they aren't doing it," that's easy to explain. That public school system you like so much trains students not to think for themselves and not to have confidence in their own conclusions, particularly when those conclusions are at odds with what the teachers want them to conclude. They are trained for 14 years (including pre-K and kindergarten) not to question adult authority on such topics, and that training continues into college.
What puzzles me is why you think that 85,000 students with such training would act any other way, given their training.
This is yet another reason why I advocate Sudbury model schools. When you control your own education, you are effectively trained from Day One to be responsible for your own thinking and your own conclusions, rather than giving up that responsibility to authority figures (teachers) who control everything about your life including what you'll study, where you'll be, and whether you can get a pass to go to the bathroom.
Fair enough. I'll make certain to address my complaints to 'local Libertarians' instead of 'Libertarians.' That should work for both of us, hopefully.
The reason I think that 85,000 students would do this, even with the 14 years of indoctrination, can be summed up in three words: the college experience. The disappearance of parental authority and absolution of responsibility leads to students spending the first few months going crazy as they rebel and get their urges out of their system. Once that's done, one of two things happens: either they think for themselves, or they submit to the authority. And even those who are thinking for themselves oftentimes wind up subscribing to the system as it is in some form or other.
I mean, the potential exists for these students to do it. Blaming it all on the system just seems like a cop-out. It certainly didn't stop you, did it? So, if the system isn't enough to stop you, and you are individually accountable, and these students are no different, why aren't they doing this? What other reason can there be except that they're just being lazy?
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2008-02-28 13:43:16
Well, actually yes, the system did stop me for awhile. Despite the fact that my college years represented the beginning of my own, personal revolution, and despite the fact that I adopted my libertarian beliefs within a year of graduating, it took me nearly a decade before I felt comfortable discussing those issues with friends and acquaintances. It certainly didn't help that my early attempts were usually rebuffed by people claiming that I was nuts or unrealistic or whatever. It took quite some time for me to develop a thick-enough skin to handle the transition successfully.
It wasn't until I reached my mid-30s that I started to feel confident in my opinions, enough to actually say what I believed and defend it, despite the fact that they seemed to be so out-of-step with the rest of the population.
You may think of it as a cop-out, but I don't think most people realize just how damaging those school years are, and how damaging all the conditioning is. Some people succeed in shaking it off quickly, but in my experience most people suffer from the dregs of it for years thereafter and in some cases even for the rest of their lives.
That doesn't contradict what I said. It delayed you, certainly, but it didn't stop you. You were determined, you stayed on your course, you made sure to be active, and in the end you came out firm in your beliefs.
I mean, I get that it's a damaging time. I've dealt with damaged people before. I've been damaged myself, in my own way. But if you believe so strongly then in the individual's ability to overcome, why is this an excuse? You're an example of individual victory that anybody can obtain, and people aren't. And maybe it's because they can't. I would posit, though, that the majority aren't even trying, just because they're comfortable with the familiarity of it.
Want to comment on
this article? Leave your comment
here. Your email address is required to track your
comment. However, we will neither publish your email
address nor distribute it to other organizations or
persons. The only reason we might use it would be if
we needed to contact you regarding your comment. All
comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
