United Liberty
Some Libertarians Need Social Skills
Mon, 06/11/2012 - 11:50am | posted by Kevin Boyd
Twitter and the Internet in general have gone insane once Rand Paul endorsed Mitt Romney a day after his dad, Ron Paul, conceeded the Presidential race. All of a sudden, Rand Paul became a sellout, a traitor, a neo-con, etc. The same Rand Paul whose Senate record has nearly been perfect on issues from civil liberties to fiscal issues. If this is how we treat our own, imagine how we treat non-libertarians. This outburst only adds to the biggest problem most non-libertarians and some libertarians have with the Ron Paul movement, that we’re a lunatic fringe that demands 100% conformity. In order to broaden our outreach and persuade more people to become libertarians, some of us need to learn some basic social skills.
Why Should We Become More Sociable?
People do business with and vote for people they like. It’s human nature. In order to get more people to consider libertarian ideas and candidates, they have to like the people behind them whether it be the person on the phone or the door to door canvasser.
First things, first.
If your political discourse usually includes one or more of the following: Bilderbergers, Bohemian Grove, NWO, Illuminati, fluoride, conspiracy, 9/11 Truth, long form birth certificate, or anything like that; please keep it to yourself. You’re making all of us in the liberty movement look insane. (Full credit to a rant by @TPANick on Twitter for that) Plus, if your newssources are Infowars, Prison Planet, Lew Rockwell.com, or Russia Today (RT); you probably need to open your mind and find other news outlets. They’re all as much propaganda and agenda driven news outlets as the rest of the media. Do your own research and reach your own conclusions. Finally, if you believe that Reason magazine and the Cato Institute are statist, you probably need to find a more productive outlet for your time than politics.
How Should We Treat Our Enemies?
With respect and courtesy. Don’t boo their speeches or heckle them. Let them speak. If they win delegates or races, let them have them; there will be other ones. Be courteous to them, even when they’re not to us. When we are victorious, treat our defeated opponents honorably and try to make them friends. However, we should always argue our points and ideas forcefully and make sure we are treated fairly.
Always remember this: in politics, today’s enemy is tomorrow’s friend.
How Should We Treat Ourselves And Allies?
We need to always remember that someone who agrees with us 80% of the time or even 51% of the time is a friend, not an enemy. For example, even though I voted for Ron Paul, I’m sure there will be commentors who will attack me as a Mitt Romney shill, among other things. We should debate ideas amongst ourselves and being that we’re a very individualist ideology, we won’t agree on everything. Everyone in the battle for individual freedom is a friend and ally, even if we disagree on some issues. There is no need for purity tests or other such nonsense. The very idea of which are anti-libertarian. We should show our fellow libertarians respect, unless they do something so egregious such as show vile racism or urge violence or anything else along those lines, then we need to show them the door out of the movement.
What Should You Take From This?
Basically you attract more flies with honey than with vinegar. We shouldn’t irritate people who are not libertarians just for the sake of irritating them. Being buffoons and douchebags in general turn off people, most of whom are not ideological and are only looking to see how their lives will be made better. I’ll leave it to a future post for ideas how to reach out to average Americans, but we need to put our best foot forward and look and conduct ourselves professionally and honorably. Anything less than that does our movement a great disservice.
“They’re all as much propaganda and agenda driven news outlets as the rest of the media.” EXACTLY!
This guy sounds like a Romney shill (probably a Rand supporter also). About the GOPS, Santorum constantly voted against the 2nd Amendment but voted repeatedly to give Penn State pedophile Jerry Sandusky the congressional Angels in Adoption award. Newt loves illegals (amnesty) more than Americans (Newt wants to bring back child labor for US kids). Mitt thinks corporations are people (killing his general election chances). Ron Paul is the only candidate with a plan to end the TSA and end the endless wars for Israel, it all started a decade ago after a false flag attack.
9/11, US and Israel:
http://www.amazon.com/America-Deceived-II-Possession-interrogation/dp/14…
Please tell me this is sarcasm. Please?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
*starts crying*
Oh lord, this is great. This is wonderful. Just the entertainment I needed for today.
Only Ron Paul or Gary Johnson will be getting my vote this November.
I don’t think Kevin is saying otherwise. I believe the point is that not being a jerk toward people who disagree with you is the only way libertarians are going to be taken seriously
The claim that purity tests are anti-Libertarian is anti-Libertarian. Modern Libertarianism is a specific and comprehensive approach. One might as well say there’re no purity tests in arithmetic so it’s OK to claim 2+3=5
Considering Rand Paul ishas made a point to that he is not Libertarian, why is criticizing his in fact anti-Libertarian views impolite?
Consistency and courtesy are two different things. One can be both, but it seems the article is an attempt to conflate good manners with self-corruption. Why?
Last time I checked, 2+3=5 is true…right?
Love how this idiot groups LewRockwell,com in with Infowars. You wouldn’t have an axe to grind would you? And what the hell is wrong with RT? They make US media look like Pravda.
When Lew Rockwell stops linking to Alex Jones and the other conspiracy theorist nonsense, when he stops talking about Bilderberger nonsense, then maybe people will stop associating him with such nonsense
Please tell me more on how compromise on a position of no-compromise makes sense.
Oh right, IT DOESN’T.
If your idea of “social-skills” requires you to suck off a neo-con, then you have a whole lot more to learn about social-skills.
Perhaps you sir are the one who does not realize one simple fact:
If you want to play politics as usual, DO NOT EXPECT OUR VOTE.
Ron had our support because he didn’t kowtow to the powers that be.
Please keep shilling out. Because WE WILL NOT SUPPORT ROMNEY.
For our next act, you’ll have to see how many people vote Republican this election. I think you’ll see our votes doing a little magic disappearing act.
Here’s a lesson to establishment idiots like yourself.
If you honestly want our vote, YOU HAVE TO SELL US ON IT.
If all you have is school yard insults, we’ll just laugh at you as you throw a little fit in your sandbox.
Dear Libertarians, lets do the GOP and it’s media shills a favor by ensuring none of them get elected.
We are never going to have a world where libertarians control everything so, unless you’re willing to compromise somewhere, you advocate a course of action that guarantees that libertarians will accomplish nothing.
Take a look at Ron Paul’s legislative career? Has he gotten one bill signed into law that he championed? Not that I can recall
What is the problem with expressing my disappointment with Rand Paul? Past record notwithstanding, Rand Paul is not being a true Libertarian today supporting Romney who supports the wars, supports the Patriot Act and would leave the Federal Reserve alone.
One thing I thought true about Libertarians is that they stand on their principles. Today, the only Libertarian who I see as principled is Gary Johnson; he’s the only one who will carry the Ron Paul Revolution forward. Gary Johnson will change the political landscape. Go to www.GaryJohnson2012.com.
Interesting post. I Have Been wondering about this issue, so thanks for posting. Pretty cool post.It ‘s really very nice and Useful post.Thanks
3 free credit scores
Bilderbergers, Bohemian Grove, NWO, Illuminati, fluoride, conspiracy, 9/11 Truth, long form birth certificate, or anything like that; please keep it to yourself. You’re making all of us in the liberty movement look insane.
What?! If this is the “Liberty Movement”, I’m all out. Does anyone who has done ANY research into 9/11 believe the “official” story? Too much evidence of, not only an inside job but, outright conspiracy against the American people. And what, Bilderbergs, Bohemian Grove, NWO, Illuminatti, and the ABSOLUTE dangers of flouride are not real? Good God, RESEARCH!! Kevin Boyd is worse than ignorant… he is posing as an investigative reporter. I see a huge problem… he’s in bed with the NWO!!
People like you are why the general public thinks libertarians are crazy
And it is people like you who think the general public has a clue about anything other than American Idol!
And it’s people like you that convince most of the general public that doesn’t think libertarians that we’re just jerks.
LOL
#laughingatyounotwithyou
And, BTW, I will not lower my own standards of morality and integrity to vote for either of the offerrings of the the new world order. Although, after having researched, I don’t know this for certain, I heard that more than a 40% elligible voter participation is neccessary to make an election legitimate. I cannot, in good conscience, vote for either of the establishment picks. Besides, with electronic voting (= voter fraud), it wouldn’t matter, anyway. God bless and keep America!
“Although, after having researched, I don’t know this for certain, I heard that more than a 40% elligible voter participation is neccessary to make an election legitimate.”
False. Next.
what a stupid article - just pure rubbish
I love this post and I’m glad you said it. *enthusiastic applause* The fact that I need to make this comment anonymous is evidence of the problem you’re addressing. There are a few loons that really hamper the ability of the rest of us to advance the cause of Liberty. I wish they’d give it a rest. Truly.
That being said, I do think there are legitimate, non-kooky reasons for people to be pissed at Rand Paul and the Pauls, in general. The Pauls have repeatedly distanced themselves from the Libertarian Party and libertarianism. They don’t even want anything to do with the words. I have heard a Paul go out of his way to disparage “libertarians” with my own ears. My sense is that the Pauls are much more comfortable, culturally, with the GOP, generally, and the Romneys, specifically. (Listen to Rand’s endorsement of Romney - he means it.) They almost seem creeped out by the cultural diversity displayed among libertarians. (Watch Ron while mohawked, tattooed fans take photos with him.) You’ll notice the Pauls don’t lead with issues like the failed drug war or gay marriage. Perhaps the Pauls only want to distance from the L word because of the things Kevin is talking about in this post, but I happen to think it’s more. Just my opinion.
I think some folks who idolize Ron Paul need to consider the possibility that he is more about party than they want to believe. The Liberty message may not be above all else for him, if “all else” includes his son’s political career and/or the future of the Republican Party. Evidence that supported such a reality (Rand’s Romney endorsement) might cause me to go off, too, if I were heavily emotionally invested in Ron Paul, the man, rather than the message, as so many seem to be.
Kevin Boyd is on the money but the Cato Institute, Freedom Works, Right to Work and the Libertarian Party have similarly troubled, easily agitated associates and friends. Libertarians accept abuse, slander, and outbursts as normal.
Doug Mataconis is the moderate libertarian version of the LewRockwell blog’s Thomas diLorenzo or David Kramer. Sloppy with facts. Too general, shrill, angry and conspiratorial. Always complaining.
Criticism is healthy but if the only thing one has to offer is what one is against, one is part of the problem not part of the solution. What are you *for*?
People new to libertarianism are going to be turned off by internal feuding. They are looking for solutions to everyday problems like unemployment, food and gas prices, paying their mortgages, Islamic terrorism and national security.
Gary Johnson comes across as calm and measured candidate. He’s certainly a better candidate than Michael Badnarik but some of his supporters seem to be reactions to ‘Paultards’ as opposed to an alternative for adults.
Where are the normal libertarians? More importantly, how does libertarianism solve the problems of every day people?
TPLL
Do tell, which facts have I been sloppy with in this comment thread?
This is a great article. Thank you.
Here’s a better idea: how about not be part of any political movement at all. The problem I have had with movements is the idea that you have to compromise on your principles and that you have to go along to get along. And I don’t think Reason or Cato are statist, just not trustworthy at all on various topics.
If that’s the way you feel, then I really have to wonder why you are reading blog posts about politics and political movements.
I agree with gist of the article, but not the underlying subject matter, at least as it pertains to Rand Paul’s endorsement of Romney.
The endorsement was, and is, a purely political gesture that amounts to little more than a disavowal of Paul’s libertarian base. I would liken it to Obama’s frequent, casual affronts to those on the left of his base. For a leader to temper the more radical impulses of his party is one thing, but this is a direct affront, intended solely to curry favor within the Republican establishment. There was no need for Rand Paul to make an endorsement, and him doing so indicates, on no uncertain terms, that he is far more concerned with his standing in the Republican party, rather than those people who supported him and allowed him to win his Senate seat in the first place.
But the broader themes of intraparty warfare, intolerance, and ideological purity are quite valid points.
I wouldn’t agree with the assertion that there is no need for Rand Paul to make an endorsement. Many notable Republicans choose to endorse the Republican candidate for president - they don’t do it on a lark. His endorsement doesn’t change his votes or his past advocacy of issues that Ron Paul and his supporters wish to press forward on. Nearly everybody agrees that the endorsement likely involves a trade which will gain Rand Paul support on some issue important to him. Would an endorsement of Romney be worth it if the Federal Reserve got audited? Maybe not for me but perhaps it would be for Rand. Would an endorsement of Romney be worth it if the US armed forces decamped from Afghanistan once Romney was elected? Yes it would.
I agree with most of this article with some minor reservations. As far as fluoridation is concerned there are substantial groups of people who doubt the efficacy of drinking water fluoridation. It is a real issue that people have real concerns with. It has a real ongoing cost and according to its advocates it has real benefits. I don’t think it should be lumped into a group of issues that cannot be readily proved or disproved.
As for Russia Today I might agree that it shouldn’t be the sole source of news for anybody but I would probably have the same point to make about [MSNBC, CNN or any other large video news provider].
Being polite and likable is an excellent point to make. I certainly agree that it is near impossible to get someone to agree with you if you are disagreeable.
A fantastic piece. Thank you!
libertarians do? No, but we can move the needle in the right direction. Will Dems ever go as far as we would like on civil liberties/the war on (some) drugs? No, but we can work with them to repeal the Patriot Act and decriminalize/legalize marijuana as a first step.
To accomplish any of this, we need to be better about using social skills as you outlined here.
My comment got cut off. Let me try again:
I think if we are ever going to make a dent in the direction of this country, libertarians need to learn how to coalition build on issues where there is common ground. Libertarians will not be in the power position in either house of congress anytime soon, therefore; we must learn how to identify allies in power when we can. When there are allies in the GOP, we should concentrate on fiscal policy/shrinking government and when there are Dems who share common ground on civil liberties/the war on (some) drugs we should work with them. Will the GOP ever go as far as we want on fiscal policy/shrinking government as libertarians do? No, but we can move the needle in the right direction. Will Dems ever go as far as we would like on civil liberties/the war on (some) drugs? No, but we can work with them to repeal the Patriot Act and decriminalize/legalize marijuana as a first step.
To accomplish any of this, we need to be better about using social skills as you outlined here.
Post new comment