Friday, November 23, 2012

How Rand Paul can Win in 2016

Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh will try their best to derail Rand's presidential candidacy just as they did to Ron Paul. They will never mention him unless he becomes a threat in the polls, and if he does, they'll call him a nut, say he's anti-American for opposing the military industrial complex, and use other garbage pejoratives. Hannity will lament that Rand is the "only" Republican candidate he cannot support. Glenn Beck will fawn over neo-conmen like Santorum again. FOX News will commence with the usual combination of blackout and subtle ridicule. The National Review will extol the most fiscally liberal, pro-war candidate. These people are not stupid and know that Rand takes after his father... a lot. In fact, Limbaugh has already mocked Rand for his run-in with the TSA, and Levin has mentioned Rand in a tone of voice lush with hatred. Phony conservatives like Levin and Limbaugh influence many voters.

The 2012 Ron Paul campaign had way more grassroots support than any other. Ron Paul bumperstickers abounded months before the primary in each state, often as early as September 2011. Romney bumperstickers were only became evident in September of 2012. Ron Paul events routinely drew thousands. Romney was lucky to get more than several hundred.

But the grassroots support was not enough. The sheeple Republicans voted in the primary for the candidate the media said "could win": Romney. That is, the one who could win within the acceptable paradigm of being the world police and continuing unsustainable spending.

What's missing from the Liberty Movement is an elite media presence. But elite media presence requires support from rich, powerful people. The American Revolutionaries had wealthy financiers in 1776, and a good many of the wealthy elite, especially on Wall Street, need to be converted to liberty. Once this happens, it will be easier for a pro-liberty talk radio show host to become as popular as a Mark Levin or Sean Hannity.

As far as candidates for talk radio go, perhaps the best hope for the urban areas is Peter Schiff, who has a radio show advancing a libertarian worldview. But we still would need a conservative Christian who will speak to middle America. Most people won't admit it, but Alex Jones has influenced many people to become Ron Paul Supporters, and guessing from the local scene, as much as 15% of all Ron Paul people were directed to like Dr Paul and liberty itself by Jones. Indeed, Jones professes to be a Christian, but he isn't quite conservative in the way he does things. His sensationalism and conspiracies may not appeal to most Republicans. We need someone who can speak to conservative social sentiments while also tactfully promoting liberty, small government, and a non-interventionist foreign policy without any conspiracies or obsession with globalists. Tom Woods may be decent for a "Firing Line" kind of show on PBS if the liberal PBS would allow such a show, but as a radio host, Woods's keen intellectual mind may be too fast for the average person. Jack Hunter may not be gregarious enough for radio. We need someone. If Jones gains popularity, it would certainly help, but non-conspiracy people will be better able to sway undecided voters toward Rand.

As far as television, FOX News needs to reinstate Judge Andrew Napolitano's Freedomwatch, and it needs to become as popular as "The O'Reilly Factor". A Buchananite Republican needs to get a show on some network, and maybe Lou Dobbs could lean more towards liberty. Stossel needs to be put on prime time more often. We need to win these little "elections" before we can win Rand the big one. I am confident that if liberty people have half as much time as the neo-cons, they will do just as well, if not better.

Print media is picked over by liberals and shallow moderates. The New York Times will never employ another Henry Hazlitt. In any case, every single copy of the National Review must be replaced with the American Conservative as soon as possible. Get your friends to switch. The New American, The Freeman, and Reason Magazine all need to gain prominence as well.

This is not to say that we can slack on grassroots efforts, as those will have to be stronger than ever to bring about a Rand victory.

Anyway, it seems impossible that we'll have representatives in elite media by 2015, in time to sow seeds for the 2016 presidential primary election. But unless we reach the masses on this level, we're finished. The Internet and word of mouth can only do so much. We must reach the sheeple.

The Other 1% is Politically Irrelevant?

One percent of Americans voted for Gary Johnson for President on the Libertarian Party ticket in 2012. Die-hards for freedom are about one percent of voting Americans.

After Obama's second victory, Left-liberals were quick to conclude that people who want more freedom are politically irrelevant. Granted, a liberal might construe social libertarian stances such as legalization of some drugs, immigration "reform", and even gay "marriage" as "acceptable" stances for freedom, with all others being completely irrelevant to the "progress"ive consensus.

It should be mentioned that Gary Johnson supporters were not the same as Romney supporters. They weren't going to put up with any candidate who supported the brown-shirtesque TSA, ominous legislation like NDAA2012, a growing welfare and warfare state, a falling dollar, etc. Both Obama and Romney never once claimed to stop any of these things, with Romney only seeming to promise to slow down government growth (except for in "defense" spending).

So, the other one percent, the Gary Johnson supporters, are they politically irrelevant? For the time being...yes. Johnson failed to accumulate the difference of votes between Romney and Obama in any state, not even being able to enjoy the status of spoiler that would be awarded by sarcastic reporters.

However, Gary Johnson/Ron Paul supporters can become politically relevant, but they must increase their numbers dramatically.

Several ways to do so are:
1. Talk to friends and educate them about liberty. Don't just vie for their votes given their existing, non liberty-oriented ideas. Maybe branch out to them on some liberty issue they support and then give them the full dose.

2. Organize outreach programs. Educational programs such as Foundation for Economic Education should take precedence. Hand out flyers in public places concerning liberty issues or ideas.

Political campaigns need to take a back seat for a while. There is no sense in running in elections to get votes from socialists and military worshipers, when neither have an appetite for freedom. Only in places where victory is possible, such as in Thomas Massie's congressional seat, should liberty candidates be given a lot of attention. This is not to say that third party candidates such as Gary Johnson who are severe underdogs should not run. They should run, but their campaigns should be un-apologetically pro-liberty. Nor should they consume all the time of liberty individuals or distract from winning people over to liberty philosophy.

People need to stop thinking campaign to campaign, and start thinking in the long term. If Gary Johnson die-hards could become at least 15% of the voting population, they could be able to sway enough fickle and lenient people to vote in many more liberty Republicans than the three congressmen and two senators* to be in the Federal government as of 2013.

3. Give up truly irrelevant things to make more time for liberty. Sports especially need to take a back seat, unless you're actually profiting from it like Peyton Hillis. When we have more freedom we can again indulge in such things.

4. Finally, giving up is exactly what the "progress"ives and poser neo-cons want Gary Johnson/Ron Paul supporters to do. Winning the hearts and minds may be difficult and perhaps even impossible given the loyalty institutions of socialism tend to ensconce from people who have lived with them. But perhaps, the reason we're here in the first place is that liberty people haven't been vocal enough to counteract the temptations of socialism (if doing were possible).

5. This talk of secession is nonsense. Not that secession is bad per se, but we simply don't have enough influence in any state government to commence with seceding anywhere. We might as well theorize about the number of angels who can dance on the head of a pin. When we reach heaven (Lord willing), we'll find out, and when there is a heavenly atmosphere of liberty in a given state, we'll discuss secession.
*They are Amash, Massie, and Bentovolio. Walter Jones and Dennis Kucinich are helpful as well. The Senators are Rand Paul and Mike Lee.