Topic: Third Party Strategies
Why A New Libertarian Political Party Is Needed... The LP notwithstanding, a political party will always occupy that unique space that represents the chance to actually enact change and restore freedom to our daily lives. In a nutshell, why should we bother with one at all and how do we make it work?by Spencer Jayden
(libertarian)
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
One of the most honest libertarians I've met is Thomas M. Sipos. Some of you may know him by his Libertarian Peacenik blog and as editor for California Freedom. I had the privilege of knowing Mr. Sipos not because he lived in my homestate, but because of a political news blog Independent Political Report. Some of you may be readers.
I once engaged Mr. Sipos on the topic of the Libertarian Reform Caucus in May of 2008, fresh off the recent Denver LP convention. He struck me as an odd individual. Here was a writer who declared that because he had lost hope of making the LP viable, joining the radicals' cynical rank and file was better.
He once had similar optimism that libertarians had endless potential that remained untapped. Years later, he was conceding the Libertarian Party is not a real party, but a social club. It was not something he was ashamed of, it seemed, and he vehemently referred to his past idealism as only naivete and nothing more. Everyone wants to see some freedom in his lifetime, he admitted, but he was sick of hearing it.
Not to single Sipos out, but he had such a profound impact on me and my view of libertarians in general. We are a fragmented movement as it is. A pie that's divided so many ways: some in the LP, some are Republicans, others off-the-grid anarchists, ndependent, or rarer still, some Democrats. But there are further divisions we must observe. We have radicals and pragmatists, poofertarians- a blanket term for those hung up on the "education" efforts- tinfoilers, theists, atheists, etc. Then there are even "post-libertarians" like Carl Milsted. I myself, view Sipos as a poofer. That's fine, he has a name for us realists too: pragmatarians.
Case in point, a complex movement can never be served best by just one avenue of expression alone. Those erring more on the free market side join CATO, Reason, etc. Those who believe in securing our natural rights have smaller and more left-leaning places to turn, such as the ACLU. A rare area where both units of freedom converge is the Campaign for Liberty, a nonpartisan organization that in only a year, has garnered huge success in lobbying for HR 1207 and S 604. C4L has arguably dwarfed all other successes by other libertarian institutions combined, not counting the sheer number of people it has turned on to libertarianism in general. Talking about sound money, ending the drug war, scaling back the nanny state, and getting the government out of our lives are no longer concepts held in vogue.
Much of this, however, is just good timing. Whenever one faction in power overreaches, the other returns in full force. It has caused a predictable, yet not inevitable pendulum effect. After all, this is a center-right country, plus people are obsessed with their recent past. So we can probably assume that C4L's success outside of former Ron Paul supporters is mostly smoke and mirrors, part of a conservative resurgence, the "silent majority" kind Nixon was so fond of. Regardless of what the C4L can do for us in the future though, it will always be limited by the fact that its primary purpose is to lobby.
This is why a political party is the most effective tool in restoring freedom. That means we need to get ourselves elected, promote our message, and take transitive steps. A political party is the most effective means of doing this, unless you subscribe to the "poof!" theory.
Unfortunately, the current party that monopolizes the freedom franchise can't do better than a debate club for middle-aged men to grumble about the value of gold and collecting guns. Is this healthy for the freedom movement?
Here, the LP plods along as an abortion of circumstance. Every party has fringe elements, especially third parties, but the LP takes this a step further by rewarding fringe belief, and so it should not be viewed as a success. Radicals incorrectly labeled Barr and other LINOs as being reformers, taking it as further reason they can't trust pragmatists, and that gradualism means "settling for nothing - a little at a time".
What can't be denied is how liberals managed to move government policy in a left direction for almost a 100 years, so slowly that they never earned the scorn libertarians do. Much of this has to do with the fact that the public perceives the political continuum in purely left-right terms. The present libertarian party has also refused to acknowledge that it is in fact, a political party, where real compromise must be made, branding is essential, and humility is required. The following is a list of critiques that a "post-libertarian" party must fix to succeed:
The problem isn't one of standing firm on principle. If you don't want to protect principles, then don't put them where they're up for debate! This is what a mission statement is for, NOT a platform. Only principles that are unanimous may receive this honor. This symbolizes that all libertarians, moderate or "purist" share the same vision. This is what the current LP lacks, above all else, and to its utmost detriment.
Choosing Lady Liberty as a mascot is cute, but it also smacks of the elitism that so many leftists charge us with. If a future political party wants to capitalize on liberty, they must realize that it is just another choice. Liberals and conservatives both want to control your life. Freedom is merely a different option. If you still need more convincing, let me put it to you another way: who in their right minds is going to mock the LP besides Mad Magazine? Even the Modern Whigs have an animal mascot.
Similarly, no new party should ever use "Libertarian" in their party name. Observe the Democrats and Republicans, Federalists, etc. Never has a party, not at least excuding the Progressives/Populists, grown by naming itself after ideology. Only in Europe does this work, where there are dozens called Conservative, Liberal, Liberal Democrat, Green, Torie, etc... our political compass lags behind Europe's.A better name I suggest for a future party would be Sovereignty or something that promotes decentralization and freedom. The Constitution refers to the people as sovereigns; I think it's a good starting point. Also, this would cut down on infighting, as there are many degrees of libertarianism and purists wouldn't need be so defensive.
The words we use DO hurt our cause. Campaign lit that says we want a free market is nice, but it doesn't tell the little guy how this helps him at all. All platform planks, and "educational efforts" should stress this fact. It is NOT utilitarian to insist on freedoms that bear noble intentions, even if they may be similar to socialism. An example would be to argue that free market competition would actually promote smaller businesses and more localized cultures. This is a HUGE selling point for liberals who despise our wasteful, mainstream culture. Does the fact that liberals WANT smaller business and heterogeneity make it wrong to endorse the idea? No! Too many forget the free market is but the means, not the end.
Gradual policy change is the most palatable solution, not immediate action. Even the radical principle of No Particular Order has a methodology attached to it. Public pressure should be levied like a domino effect upon governmental institutions. For example, changing immigration policy is linked to changing the drug policy, which is linked to prison reform, etc. etc. Radicals act as if the NOP principle is a chaos theory, but it's not. Once we know WHERE the safest place to start cutting is, we can set policy in the direction that someday, everyone will be responsible for themselves, with the added perk of less taxes and more freedoms as the net becomes smaller. Streamline all welfare entitlements, downsize government employees. See how this is different than closing all agencies overnight, adding to the unemployment rate and straining the system further?
This list, as always, is nowhere near definitive. These points struck out at me the most, so naturally I thought of them first. When we can start to address these issues instead of getting wrapped up in a debate over whether settling for "initiation of force" in the short-term is acceptable or not, the freedom movement will have at last matured.
Note*: Now I'm not a socialist, but I know enough about it to know that it's not the option our leaders present. Not even Obama is a socialist, as so many claim.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 9 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Spencer Jayden only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Spencer Jayden 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: 2009-09-22 03:38:54
So why is a freedom-based party crucial? Despite your headline, I seem to have missed that point in your article. Instead, your article seems to be a diatribe about what you don't like about the LP and what you think a party should or should not be. I didn't get any clear idea from you, however, as to why a freedom-based party approach is crucial.
You argue that the problem isn't one of standing more firmly on principle. I agree. However, I do not think that principle should take a back seat either. Rather, I think principle should be the driving force behind our actions, and that we should make clear these principles as we take our actions.
The problem is actually a combination of problems. Those who argue for principle usually demonstrate ignorance of the importance of actual party organization. Those who argue for pragmatism emphasize party organization and overlook the importance of standing on principle. I have long been struck by the fact that so many people, including you apparently, seem to think that it's a choice between one or the other, but that you can't (or shouldn't) have both. In fact, party organization is not and never has been incompatible with standing on principle. It turns out that both are absolutely necessary in order for a party to achieve success.
As I look at your list of criteria for a party, I can't help but notice how little it has to do with the actual growth of a movement.
It's true that activists from both camps get hung up on a party's platform, but it's completely false to suggest that the average person cares a whit about the platform. People not directly involved in a party's leadership rarely read platforms. They listen to soundbytes instead. Emphasizing the platform as a tool for communication misses the point, no matter whether the point is being made by pragmatists or advocates of principle. Those who struggle over platforms say, "of course! That's why we emphasize the platform. It's where we're trying to write our soundbytes!" Fine, if you need a place to practice writing your soundbytes, the platform is as good a place to practice as any.
However, both sides need to abandon their concern with how carefully written the platform is and focus much more on how they are going to frame and then express their soundbytes to the public. What matters in those cases is what the party's leaders actually say, what the press releases say, what the candidates say, and what the activists say in public. What matters even more is where they say it. If they merely communicate to each other, they miss the point. It's the public they need to reach with their soundbytes, and the quality of those soundbytes depends heavily on both principle and how to implement that principle into practice.
It's true that some people get bent out of shape over being told what liberty is, but it's false that this tendency of theirs means that Lady Liberty should not be a mascot. Just because others don't think of liberty the same way we do doesn't mean we shouldn't claim the symbol for what we mean by it. Nor is it true that the mascot matters all that much. The message matters much more than the mascot.
It's completely false to claim that no party has grown by naming itself after an ideology. You overlook the fact that both Democracy and Republicanism were heated ideologies at the time of America's founding. Today, their heat is much more subdued in America, but Democracy continues to be a hot ideology in many countries where it is significantly lacking. China comes to mind as an example. Also, many people within the movement self-identify heavily with the idea of Republicanism, arguing heatedly that our government is a Republic and not a Democracy. While I have personally disputed that claim, there can be no doubt that for these people Republicanism is a very strong ideology. Also, during the time of the American Revolution and immediately afterward, being a "republican" in Great Britain was equated to being a traitor. Frankly, I think your argument that no party name ever worked that was based on an ideology falls apart completely. In fact, you'd be hard pressed to find a political party label, whether successful or unsuccessful, which didn't base its naming on ideology.
I agree that the words we use can either harm or hurt our cause. I disagree, however, that it's the words themselves which are the main problem. Rather, it's the intention behind the words which cause the most problems. Attitude counts just as much as content. So does emotion. However, instead of focusing on this useful distinction, you choose to focus on the following: "Angling ourselves to restore competition to the market is good and fine, but it doesn't show how this helps the little guy without another longwinded explanation. All platform planks, and 'educational efforts' should stress this fact." What fact do you want to stress in platform planks: that explanations are longwinded? Shall a party put that phrase in every plank? If so, what will it accomplish?
You then go on to say, "It is NOT utilitarian to insist on freedoms that bear noble intentions, even if they may be similar to socialism." Really? So advocacy of freedom makes it similar to socialism? Or is it noble intentions that are socialistic? What on earth are you saying here? It's not at all clear to this reader.
I agree that change cannot happen in one big gulp, but I suspect you and I might disagree as to how "gradual" change must be. In my experience, most pragmatists gladly settle for tiny changes in exchange for huge tradeoffs of principle, earned wealth, rights, and liberties. This happens precisely because they have long abandoned principle as a driving force in their own minds. The net result is that principle gets lost entirely as the pragmatists make bad deals for minimal gain at best. The long-term result is usually tremendous net loss for everyone. It is true that some who advocate principle remain inflexible and unrealistic in their applications of it, but one is equally mistaken if he throws principle to the winds in favor of a few crumbs.
You write: "But it is still follows basic logical deduction. Once we know WHERE the safest place to start cutting the safety net is, we can set policy in the direction that someday, everyone will be responsible for themselves, with the added perk of less taxes and more freedoms as the net becomes smaller." Of course, that's the real question, isn't it: where do we start to cut the safety net? Neither principled nor pragmatic libertarians typically know the best answer to that question. It is a question that is very much open to debate. Why, then, should principle be eviscerated in favor of pragmatism on this point when even the pragmatists don't know how to get us from point A to point B?
We have a new libertarian party: it's the Modern Whig party. I'd be on board myself, but as you pointed out, I am a postlibertarian. A full Nolan Chart quadrant libertarian party would be far more effective than the LP, but there is a better niche yet.
BTW: when linking offsite, remember to put in the http:// at the beginning of the href. Many of your links are bad; they point to nonexistent subdirectories on this site.
"What can't be denied is how liberals managed to move government policy in a left direction for almost a 100 years".
Hi Spencer,
interesting article, but your above quote is so off base that it challenges the legitimacy of the entire article. It is Liberal philosophy that Libertarianism is grounded in. And the only liberalism that you may be referring to, what I call neo-liberalism, hasn't been around even close to a hundred years.
The wholesale donation of the nation's natural wealth to special interests that began in the middle of the 19th century can hardly be called "liberal" as neither can the formation of the federal reserve, the income tax, the subsequent warfare state and the intensifying redistribution of wealth from the working citizens to the banking and corporate elite. While there certainly has been much welfare at the hands of the "neo liberals", probably originating with hoover and rockerfeller, your statement gives the impression of an extremely shallow understanding of the problem.
It makes one wonder what you really mean by pragmatic?
Here you go again, Walt. Oversimplifying the argument as always. A full response to your illegitimate criticisms could be another article in and of itself, because you overlook the context of my argument way too many times. I should have expected as much.
"I have long been struck by the fact that so many people, including you apparently, seem to think that it's a choice between one or the other, but that you can't (or shouldn't) have both. In fact, party organization is not and never has been incompatible with standing on principle. It turns out that both are absolutely necessary in order for a party to achieve success."
Wrong again. As I've told you time and time before, I am one of the few people who wishes to reconcile the radical moderate divide. I ACCEPT the principles, but don't think they should be the forefront of our movement. It appauls me that you can mess up in comprehending that so obviously. As I said before in Milsted's column a few weeks ago, if you believe as you claim, then we wouldn't be having an argument at all.
"Your article seems to be a diatribe about what you don't like about the LP and what you think a party should or should not be. I didn't get any clear idea from you, however, as to why a freedom-based party approach is crucial."
It is clearly elucidated in the middle of this article:
"This is why a political party is the most effective tool in restoring freedom. That means we need to get ourselves elected, promote our message, and take transitive steps. A political party is the most effective means of doing this, unless you subscribe to the "poof!" theory."
As to your accusations that the bulk of my post is critical of the LP, are you that shocked? I freely admit that I'm highly critical of the LP in each and every article! And how can you talk about forming a successful party without talking about the mistakes we've made in the past? Ignoring failure means you're bound to repeat it again.
As such, where you try to dismiss my claims that such things like a clear division between "platform" and "statement of principles", dropping harsh language from party literature, rebranding the party, etc. all as unnecessary, you're only communicating further why the current LP has failed: it comes from this same mindset.
Does the Bill of Rights go onto enumerate every single right that man possesses? No! Similarly, my list was only condensing criticisms of the current LP. You send mixed messages. You say you agree that certain radicals need to learn how to communicate better, but you bash the need for libertarians to temper their message and approach it strategically! Every organization does this! Except the LP in its past (under the radicals) and present (under the LINOs). I don't think you're aware of your own contradictions here. I'm only using this example as it highlights a recurring theme in your reply and that is of you reaching too much to debunk my observations.
Where else do your claims go astray?
"It's completely false to claim that no party has grown by naming itself after an ideology. You overlook the fact that both Democracy and Republicanism were heated ideologies at the time of America's founding."
This is all good and well until you examine how political ideology and PHILOSOPHY are different. See here for more information: http://www.greaterdemocracy.org/archives/000170.html. Republicanism and democracy are philosophies, so this is where your argument falls apart, I'm afraid.
"What fact do you want to stress in platform planks: that explanations are longwinded? Shall a party put that phrase in every plank? If so, what will it accomplish?"
The fact of the matter is this: if I walk up to a 20-something hipster in front of a Starbucks, waving around fliers to buy carbon offsets, and tell him that he should be supporting laissez faire capitalism, it A) doesn't address his concerns B) immediately makes him hostile to me.
This is what libertarians like to do. Oh sure they go to hempfests and preservation rallies trying to recruit people, but they're overwhelming failures. What I'm suggesting is to save yourself from lecturing 6+ hours to address liberals' concerns. How does a typical libertarian try to convince others the free market is not the evil they've been taught to feel contempt for all their life?
"The free market would restore competition!"
Ok, but so what? What is so freakin' great about competition? (Now think here, Walt, I don't actually want you to answer this, it's just food for thought.)
"Advocacy of freedom makes it similar to socialism? Or is it noble intentions that are socialistic? What on earth are you saying here? It's not at all clear to this reader."
You're merely demonstrating your ignorance again. Socialism , communism, and libertarianism etc. have similar end-goals. Higher wages, less corporations as an example. Going straight to the point isn't so evil that many radicals suggest it is. Many radicals place huge emphasis on justifying actions. If force could be proven rationally justifiable, then I predict half of them would experience an identity crisis and the other half would become statists. This is partially what happened to the boomer generation in their shift from free-spirited liberals to skeptical conservatives. Why? Because they misunderstand the point of their positions. They get caught up in the how and not so much the why. This is also what's happened to the LP as a whole, as it argues for purism of truth, instead of trying to IMPLEMENT said truth.
"Of course, that's the real question, isn't it: where do we start to cut the safety net? Neither principled nor pragmatic libertarians typically know the best answer to that question. It is a question that is very much open to debate. Why, then, should principle be eviscerated in favor of pragmatism on this point when even the pragmatists don't know how to get us from point A to point B?"
The real key is that pragmatists admit that there should be a guided approach, poofertarian radicals assume they already know the answer.
All in all, I thank you for allowing me to explain further my positions, as it is clear that your overarching problem with them stems from a lack of comprehension, just as confined to rigid ideology as the radicals are.
Thank you for pointing this out. It is a bug with the web processor I use to write articles. I have fixed the links in question. To add, I'm also watching the Modern Whig Party for further development and what I've heard so far is good, but should be taken with a grain of salt. I'm not here to advocate any party in particular, mainly that other options are more viable than the LP at this point in time.
Gene:
I understand where you're coming from. Liberalism and conservatism have all changed hands semantically several times. But for simplicity's sake, my argument does not address this because it is a subject for another article itself. Thank you for reading.
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2009-09-22 18:52:16
Hi Spencer,
Nicely written article.
Poor Mr Sipos. The shame of the LP is that anyone would be allowed to join with unrealistic expectations of the potential of the LP. The constitution defines the character of US politics by its mathematics. I find it continually amusing that constitution thumping 3rd party members have no idea that the document they worship makes their political behavior a study in futility. The constitution defines US politics as having the paramount characteristic of requiring coalition building prior to the election. This single absolute mathematical and constitutional fact makes irrelevant any and all suggestions about how to grow the LP or turn it into a viable party.
I see the LP as a spontaneous experiment, just one of numerous possible manifestations of generations of progressive indoctrination. In the case of the LP this is obvious by the incessant, voluntary divide and conquer tactic libertarians apparently thrive on. Dividing and defining and filtering the herd down to a tiny useless choir. The humor in the situation, for me, is knowing that the very formation of the LP marked the failure of libertarianism as relevant factor in the future of US government...yet the endless dividing and defining and labeling and all the other nonsense that consumes libertarians implies the only problem with the LP's effectiveness is the words used to describe it. "Define it right and the future is yours!" Come on, that is funny! Put a little "Lady Liberty" logo on it and it would make a tremendous LP bumper sticker.
The LP is worse than a social club, it is a scam dependent on deceit to attract members...interesting that the percentage of voting age individuals who fall for that scam doesn't vary much over time. The scam is revealed by the fact that anyone would be allowed to join the LP without knowing the following things: 1. How US politics works. (coalition building prior to the election) 2. What a political party is. (A tool for electing its candidates to public office) 3. What purpose party affiliation serves. (Allows the individual to vote in the party primary...mostly) 4. That their relevance to the struggle for the defense of liberty has been mooted by the progressive divide and conquer strategy the day the abandoned the most powerful and effective political tool the world has ever seen, the GOP, into the hands of the enemies of liberty. (No one gives a whit what any 3rd party does...except the members of those parties.) 5. The enormous difference between optimism and unrealistic expectations. (optimism is power in understanding reality and consequences, unrealist exepectations arise from mistaking intentions for likely consequences)
Instead of the LP taking responsibility for making sure voters know these things, it fools folks into joining by playing falsely with their emotions, passion and faith. The lure of endless debate and ever fractionalizing divide and conquer games ensures the quest for the "libertarian quark" goes on.
Posted By: Steven A. Rosile
Date: 2009-09-23 00:03:30
While many of these comments disparaging the Libertarian Party (LP) have some validity, we are, and have been for some time, the most successful third party currently functioning in the United States by a wide margin.
In my opinion, politics is not a game for independents, at least not unless you have tremendous wealth. A Perot, Bloomberg, Gates, or Buffet may have the resources to mount a serious political campaign for a position that could make a difference in the nation (or a state or large city) but people with the means necessary to be successful as independents running for higher office are few.
What the Libertarian Party has been about, at least for many of us that have labored so hard for the past several decades, is to have a structure in place, on the ballot in many states and with at least some national organization, so that when the masses wake up to the fact that the Democrats and Republicans have taken them for fools and bankrupted them and the nation of our forebears these many years - that many of them will realize that the philosophy and policies espoused by the LP are the solutions to our problems. In fact, will realize not only that they are the solutions but in large part they are the same philosophy and policies that the nation was founded on and that made us the envy of the world. This is why we strive to educate today, in our often disappointing political campaigns and elsewhere, so that we can be more successful in the future.
The developments of the last few years are such that many people have now wakened up to the fact that the two wings of the Incumbent Party, i.e., the Democrats and Republicans, have betrayed our trust (as well as their oath to support and defend the Constitution).
I agree that the current state of the LP is not what it should be. Despite that, the LP is the strongest and best choice among the existing minor parties. Any new party (actually, new parties are formed continually) has a long lead time, especially under the Bi-partisan Campaign Finance Reform Act (BCRA) additions to the Federal Elections Commission (FEC). There are a lot of hoops to jump through before they can even appear on the ballot in enough states to have a mathematical chance to win, let alone enough states to be taken seriously.
As I have done and will continue to do, I support the Libertarian Party and its candidates. I have and will continue to work to make it a better and stronger political party in my state and nationally.
Even with all its faults, in my opinion the Libertarian Party is still the best hope for "We, The People of the United States of America" to reclaim our liberty, our heritage, our honor, and our country.
Rather than denigrate and disparage this admittedly flawed vehicle, the Libertarian Party, I invite you to join with us and make it better and stronger so that it is the party of the future, and so help insure that the future holds the promise of freedom.
The last thing we need is a new political party. The Libertarians are too fragmented as is, what is so new about fragmenting them further? I don't even see a point in a Libertarian Party at all. What is so strange about limited government and less taxation. It was what this country's foundations were built on. It just took over 200 years of crooks and polticians to degenerate it.
Why make it harder for ourselves by beeing some fringe 3rd wheel left outside the dance without a partner? Just suck it up and run in Republican Primaries and differentiate candidates by their views not their allegiance to a party. Has Ron Paul tought you nothing?
A political party without registrations and credible people to run as candidates is a political party not worth starting. This is perhaps one of the many lessons one can learn from the LP's failure.
I see Russell Kirk as being right about most of the old-time libertarians but that has no bearing on the exciting modern libertarians (eg Wilkinson, Cowen, Epstein). Another question one must answer is how to keep a new party from being brought down by the "chirping sectaries", with their unsatisfiable-even-by-anarcho-capitalism Noninitation of Force Dogma, their hasty "principles", their anti-scientific mentality on issues from mental illness to global warming, their nonempirical "Austrian economics", and such. I don't equate these people with the common libertarian, but these are the people who make a hobby of being a libertarian and will thus be present.
The atmosphere must first be right in the LP. It has to want to change. The reason the LP is terminally ill is because it does not want to change. Whenever someone escapes this matrix of "you have to choose compromise or pure, rigid principled pooferarianism", someone traps them back in - or attemps to do so. They may not even be in the LP, but they're still the ones framing the debate on what the LP and libertarianism as a whole should mean. Look at Walt's first post.
It may seem awkward at first, but that's part of maturity. The LP has no decent reformers in power. They're either LINOs like Redpath or vehemently anarchist fools like Starchild. One of the few candidates that understood what ailed the LP last May was George Phillies. Even Steve Kubby recognized how to play ball and reconcile differences with pragmatists.
But somewhat symbolic of the LP's rejection of their ideas, they struck both of them down from any hope of party leadership. Both occassionally mosey on over here, but not to say anything substantial of the LP. And why should they? The LP no longer is the party of principle. Its members to often believe they are forced to look at each other in black-and-white, binary views.
Does anyone see the irony? Is this not what we deride mainstream Americans for? Not seeing there is a middle-ground? Another choice, a higher dimension of thinking?
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.
