TheAgitator.com
Hip? Have You Seen the Guy?
Sunday, July 11th, 2004Glen Whitman has a terrific response to the insulting argument that libertarians who’d like to see Bush lose in November are merely trying to appear hip and fashionable.
13 Responses to “Hip? Have You Seen the Guy?”
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial NoDerivs 2.5 License.
Poseurs for Kerry
Virginia Postrel has found me out. All my life, I’ve wanted nothing more than to be hip. To be cool. To be popular. For years social acceptance eluded me, and finally I was left with no choice but to start…
But realistically, since Badnarik hasnâ??t the slightest chance of winning
and his loss will be thanks in part to eternal pessimists like yourself.
LIBERTARIANS!
Idealism is beneath them.
LIBERTARIANS!
Continually contributing to the unchanging statist quo through a steady diet of defeatism.
LIBERTARIANS!
We’ll never win anything because we’re realists.
Kudos to you all.
Libertas -
Badnarik isn’t going to lose because of pessimism. If every Libertarian-leaning individual voted for him, he’d still lose. There aren’t that many of us.
This doesn’t mean Badnarik shouldn’t try to win. By running, he is making an effort to get the Libertarian idea out there. Hey, you never know – he might find himself at the right place at the right time and manage to win our side some supporters.
If we’re going to assume our vote means something (it doesn’t), a Libertarian vote for Kerry makes some sense: gridlock, firing Asscroft, exposure as spoilers, and maybe even the removal of the “Libertarians are just Republicans who smoke pot” stigma.
But not to worry, my earnest fellow. If I vote, it will be for Badnarik. So long as I’m not busy that day brushing my cat, or something.
By running, he is making an effort to get the Libertarian idea out there.
And by pissing on his efforts as a fruitless endeavor, you piss on any chance of your ideology gaining widespread acceptance.
If every Libertarian-leaning individual voted for him, he’d still lose.
This is how you refute your own pessimism?
Listen… perception is reality in the voting game, just as it is in the markets game, collectors game, and ponzi schemes.
What people believe to be true, is true to them. If your vote means nothing, then why do your enemies want it so badly? Because you can’t make a market without individuals, and a buzz.
The mainstream media has a stranglehold on the marketplace of ideas. They do not allow in the 3rd party ideas until its share goes up (see Nader or Perot).
You, Radley, Glen Whitman, and all the other advocates for “gridlock” continue to espouse about the libertarian principle in defeatist voting. I’m not buying it.
All you are doing is undermining the valuation of your ideology’s share in the marketplace of ideas by admitting defeat before you’ve even begun to fight, but mostly because YOU BROADCAST YOUR DEFEAT TO THE WORLD.
At one time there were only 12 christians (Jesus was a jew).
At one time there were only a handful of American colonial separatists.
You are killing your own ideology’s entrance into a larger forum.
Libertus -
Take it easy! You’re among friends!
First of all, I said if I vote, I’ll vote for Badnarik. I think Glen, Radley, and yourself are investing WAY too much brain power on hand-wringing over a – A, as in one, singular – vote. The more I think of it, the more I find the whole exercise embarrassing.
Which ties in to what you’re calling pessemism. Sure, I guess I’m pessemistic over the power of voting and *gasp* democracy. That doesn’t mean I’m pessemistic about Badnarik or liberty in general.
I think people will swing over to “our” side eventually. I just don’t think it will be done by the procedure we elect a Republicrat. It will be done with dollars.
Wait – scratch that. it IS being done with dollars, in spite of all the nannyist crapola the spenders (your neighbors and mine) claim to believe in and vote for. Find the most lefty pinko commie (I’m sure we all have friends that would be finalists in that contest) and I’ll show you a person who lives like a capitalist. They can’t help themselves. Because it’s the best way to spend a life on this crap-ass wonderful planet of ours.
I’m not pissing on anybody. Please don’t spend your encouraging enthusiasm freaking out about how like-minded people choose to participate in the pagentry we call “presidential elections.”
Radley and Glen do more to “further the cause (blech, I hate that term. It’s so humorless)” of liberty by getting intelligent, logical, Libertarian ideas published. I’d say that debating on how a Libertarian should vote and why in a public forum is more effective than actually voting.
It’s not about the politicians. Very few of us can do anything about them. It’s about us. Be a person worthy of envy. Be a role model. Be a living embodiment of Libertarian ideals. You’ll convince more people of the virtues of Libertarianism that way than you will by voting, and certainly more than by freaking out about how others vote.
I think I just stood on a soapbox and gave a sermon about not getting on a soapbox to give a sermon.
Never said I was perfect…
If Badnarik were to win, and hey, stranger things have happened (albeit not recently), that would kick serious ass. It would be like winning the lottery. But there is more than one way to become a millionaire, if you follow my analogy. Voting in this political climate is like buying a lottery ticket. Selling Libertarian ideals by living Libertarian ideals is like getting to work and earning the money.
Am I making sense? I really hate to hear fellow Libertarians busting a nut about something they have no control over when there is so much they do.
“The pro-Kerry argument is gridlock.” – Whitman
The gridlock argument is lousy. Why wouldn’t a Republican congress be willing to do business with Kerry?
Thank you John T Kennedy.
When it comes time to buy votes, the incumbents will work hand in glove with Kerry at the expense of any challengers and the rest of us.
Take it easy! You’re among friends!
I shout louder at friends who continue to shoot themselves in the foot, than I would some guy to which I’ve no discernible ties.
I think Glen, Radley, and yourself are investing WAY too much brain power on hand-wringing over a – A, as in one, singular – vote.
As I tried to convey in the “marketplace of ideas” blather; When you espouse a voting “strategy”, it can become an ideology, and this is one that is not consistent with liberty.
So, just as libertarian ideals espoused to a large audience may influence that audience to think libertarian, ADVOCATING THIS VOTING STRATEGY as well influences the audience to believe Libertarian Party victory is unthinkable, and thus forever will be so.
It is this meme that deems the dream forfeit.
I don’t give a shit who you vote for.
It is only one vote.
It makes far less difference than trying to sway an entire libertarian segment into thinking a vote for Kerry is a principled vote in favor of liberty.
if you’re from a state that is guaranteed to go one way, such as Massachussetts or Texas, it doesn’t matter if you vote republican or democrat. The least you can do is vote Libertarian and try to get a bit more support out there.
Titus-
I think the number of Libertarians is actually larger than you would think; they just refuse to be called Libertarians because the party has a tendency to take issues a bit far. If I recall correctly, they are titled “Neo-Republicans.” There are TONS (probably a group larger than either major party’s constituents) of people who would love to see the government toned down, with economic policies that make more sense and a more liberal stance to personal issues, and if given that option they would choose it.
Look at Perot. How many people know what the guy stood for? Probably not many. But he got a very large chunk of the vote just because he offered people a viable change. If he had had a known platform to stand on, I feel he could have had a chance.
The best way for Libertarians to get votes is to cater towards the moderates and get big business (read money and well-known people) on their side. As it stands, Libertarianism is seen as a fringe party, and businesses are cautious about putting their support behind a group that is seen as radical, pessimistic, and incapable of winning.
My question for the big ‘L’ libertarians is, why do they waste so much of their resources on trying to circumvent (thanks to the electoral college) an impossible process to break through, such as a Presidential campaign, when they might do better in local or state politics? Is it so hard to believe that, would they invest their resources on promoting popular vote candidates, they might stand a chance of getting the message out more efficiently? Granted, running for U.S. President is a big rush, and tons of folks are doing it these days, such as this guy, but that doesn’t take away from the fact that getting Libertarians into the statehouse or Congress would be a lot easier to begin with…
I’ve never really bought the gridlock argument anyways. There’s no way I’m voting for Kerry: http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040712-121948-6467r.htm
As a libertarian friend once told me: “It’s more important to vote the right guys into the House and Senate than it is the President”
It is pretty clear the PNAC (and the Jewish warlobby) are calling the shots for this war against real libertarians.
To quote another real libertarian, Mr. Noam Chomsky (as per the link on LewRockwell.com):
“Presumably, the Pax Americana of the future can be seen in the light of the apparent fabrications which lead to an oil war masquerading as an endless crusade against “terrorism.” It appears that the American state, with its unelected president, venal Supreme Court, silent Congress, gutted Bill of Rights and compliant media provides a pretext for the theocrat Ashcroft’s suspension of our civil rights. On the other hand, the unstated purpose of this war belies justifications given by the world’s leading apologists for an act of international violence that exceeds even those of the “liberal” Bill Clinton. As Norman Mailer pointed out, the appropriation of Arab resources is solid evidence of the predatory imperialist aims outlined by the crypto-fascist Project for a New American Century.”
And that’s all I have to say about that…
The upper income peeps are catered to, the lower income peeps are catered to. The middle-income peeps are the ones who get neglected and ultimately the shaft in each election. If someone can figure out a way to help the middle class optimize their current income without offering a handout, then he or she will have a fighting chance at the presidency, major party or not.