Topic: Libertarianism
Lets Not Be Energy Vampires Libertarians are too negative, too angry, and too spiteful to be taken seriously by the mainstream, or perhaps to avoid dying from our own toxins.by John Wingspread Howell
(libertarian)
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Quick, without thinking, tell me a libertarian article, blog, public comment of any kind that is positive and upbeat! I thought so. You couldn't. Not without thinking. Really thinking.
I can think of one. Mary Ruwart's writings and presentations are primarily positive. I can't think of any others. Certainly the articles at Nolan Chart are negative. More often than not, Lew Rockwell's site screams negativity.
I'm not one of the first thousand to say this, no doubt, but since nothing's changed, it seems to need saying a few more times. We won't attract those soccer moms and NASCAR dads the Reformists in the party want to reach out to, as long as we're putting more passion into vitriol than vibrance, more energy into attacking those who disagree with us than affirming those in government and politics who make a difference for liberty, no matter how small; more verbage tearing down the statist point of view than building up a libertarian view.
The key to success, not to mention to better karma and mental health for all of us, is to be able to articlulate key libertarian positions, values and strategies, rather than attacking the sacred cows of the Big Government Duopoly. The best way to kill sacred cows is to starve them of attention, rather than violently slaughtering them. Even when the martyrdom is symbolic, political martyrdom has the effect of literal martyrdom. It makes saints and heroes out of scoundrels and sanctifies ideas that wouldn't survive on their own merits.
It may be easier for us to identify and express ourselves in terms of what we are not and what we oppose, but if our goal is to advance the cause of liberty, the electability of Libertarian candidates, the electoral competitiveness of the Libertarian Party, we must be the people with the best ideas, the most positive, creative, liberating message. This should not be difficult, since we are the people with the best ideas, the most potentially positive, creative, liberating message. So why do we continue to insist on festering in our own toxins?
The Reform Caucus would say they agree with all of this and that is why they have sought to water down, bury, and/or edit out the more "extreme" issues, policies, and positions espoused by libertarians. Legalizing drugs and prostitution are two examples they love to cite of things that turn off the mainstream public at first blush. But it isn't the ideas or the priciples behind our positions on these issues, it is the way we communicate them, with a chip on our shoulder, with a relish for shock value.
On the other hand, the Reform Caucus is often represented by people who are equally spiteful or negative toward those they disagree with inside the party as the traditionalist hard-liners are toward those inside or outside of the party. I'm not saying the so called "radicals" are any better about being positive and affirming, but I am saying many in the Reform Caucus who position themselves as increasing the retail appeal of the party fail at this end in two ways.
First, they can be at least as sinister, devious and negative as the radicals, and second, by being subversively so, they are even more toxic in their effect on the party.
In his book THE ENERGY BUS, author John Gordon, who identifies as a libertarian, warns against allowing ourselves to marinate in negative and critical (not critical in the intellectual or academic sense but in the relational sense) thinking. He also warns us against associating with others who do the same. He calls such people, "energy vampires." They suck the life and energy out of those they touch. He challenges us to get on the Energy Bus (choose a positive direction, a positive focus, choose to flow to the light not fall into the darkness) and to kick anyone off the bus who isn't with the program.
Don't mistake this for new age Polyannaism. Gordon doesn't attempt to claim (nor do I) that everything in the world is sweetness and light. He just cautions us to avoid the darkness and doom and challenges us to fly toward and remain in the light.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 3 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of John Wingspread Howell only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. John Wingspread Howell 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: Jake, the champion of the constitution
Date: 2009-01-27 19:04:08
Dear John Wingspread Howell,
Very valid point on the negativity thing. I wish I could share with you just how upbeat I am for the long-term future - the ascent of man will not be stopped, but that doesnt mean there wont be delays or troubles along the way. I spend much of my life amused, which may not be apparent from my articles if you read them.
Government, far from being an overall enabler, is in the way, inefficient, warmongering, etc, etc. These are by nature not very light topics, and probably if all Americans were provided with a point of view other than that in most of the typical media, things might be a tad different. I recently even had a brief bout of optimism in spite of my studies on Barack due to his exec orders on Gitmo - before he continued the War of Terror without hesitation a few days later.
One nice turn of phrase is that things are always darkest before the dawn :)
PS I think Lew heard you and wrote this fairly optimistic piece in advance
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2009-01-27 20:59:32
Hi JWH,
My articles are a testament to the fact that I don't take Libertarians seriously...but then I don't take anything too seriously. I take great pleasure in pointing out when someone has their own finger in their eye and can't see it.
No, I'm not going to heckle you for being one who believes the magic LP beans will one day become a stalk to a castle in the sky. Or that you think the party of individuals is suffering from negative group think. I think your message is sincere and it can't hurt to be upbeat.
However, I would encourage individuals to assess their own priorities and their own goals and choose behavior and attitudes that align with those objectives. Personally I wouldn't even help push a bus whose passengers have the attitude "kick anyone off the bus who isn't with the program." For crying out loud that sounds like George W. Bush.
I believe all government is force and all politics is fraud. Since they aren't going away, the best we can do is hack away at them relentlessly. Not just at the individuals who currently embody our elected government but also at the way of thinking that fosters the behavior of our current government.
Anyone who thinks the best approach to promoting liberty is to encourage herd-like behavior isn't likely to gain my trust or respect in this lifetime.
I agree with you and then some regarding the treatment of specific issues. Issue-oriented politics isn't effective because issues are determined by emotion, not reason. I think the LP should promote the benefits to the voter that are derived from upholding the principles of liberty. (Rule of Law, Individual Liberty, Limited Government, Free Enterprise and the Freedom to defend these principles from all enemies both foreign and domestic.) So, I would suggest the LP abandon issue-oriented party politics entirely.
In the end I suppose if Libertarians were more positive and less prone to fervent evangelical behavior they wouldn't be so much fun to poke fun at.
Somewhere between the Ayn Rand objectivo-libertarians, and the Bob Barr pseudo-libertarians we need Libertarians true to the ideals of the party who can at the same time put both positive and negative points in articulate language that is appealing to the masses...
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2009-01-28 11:32:13
I also support positive messages, having written a few myself. I agree that most articles published here tend to be negative. Writing positively is difficult, because it means thinking about things in a positive framework before writing them.
Your article strikes me as an example of the problem in microcosm. You identify negativism as a problem, yet your article focuses on the problem negatively, granting only that there have been a couple of sources that provide positive messages. The bulk of your own article is negative. How about putting forth some proposals of a positive nature? You won't have to show that they're positive rather than negative; they'll speak for themselves on that point.
Everything is wonderful. The country and the world are in wonderful shape. Now let's change everything to libertarianism. ??? Doesn't make much sense does it? If everything is perfect why would we want to change it?
Now let's do a reality check. Things are not perfect. Things are far from perfect. The country is mired in debt both in government and in the private sector, from years of fiscally unsound policies. And we have in office someone who could easily become a tyrant. Under Obama and the Democratic congress we could see tons of draconian gun control legislation. And we could see our young people being drafted into a civilian army.
Those are some of the problems. Libertarianism is the solution.
It's hard to starve the sacred cows of attention by ignoring them when the Big Government Duopoly has its hands in my pocket and its eyes in my windows. In fact, it would be foolish to ignore such behavior.
I agree with those who say that the current system must be criticized -- although such criticism does come across as negative. But such criticism should be balanced by the positive message of what our world could be like if libertarian principals were followed. In the difficult times in which we are living, it is not really necessary to complain about the current situation to make people want to change things -- most people will understand soon enough that the current system is fatally flawed. What is needed is a positive message about what could be.
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.
