35 votes

Time to start courting the Democratic Party

Lots of folks in the Liberty movement still imagine the situation in the US as a left-right issue, but it's really a freedom-totalitarian issue.

I admit, it often seems that Democratic politicians are more unabashed about frankly hating the idea of freedom, and are cozier with the idea of state control of everything, but they don't generally represent actual people that vote Democrat any more than Peter King represents Ron Paul.

I think the Liberty movement has done a great job bringing in the guns and patriots, but probably hasn't done as well getting the hookah and Haight-Ashbury crowd on board. This is tragic, since the "do your own thing" group isn't ever going to be homogeneous, and the 20-acres-and a-deep-well bunch does ideologically belong with the hippies who want to expand their minds and do handstands together in Greenwich village. The gospel is freedom, and freedom isn't just one thing or one idea.

I feel like many of us do a lot of Democrat bashing, but we ought to reach out and help people ask themselves "What can liberty do for you?" instead of demonizing the party they are currently identified with.

For instance, "libtard" is probably a bad opening line for getting that fringe on our side, and we ought to do more to invite them over from the waste of time that is the two-party system. I'm sure most of us can agree that the warmongering neocon bunch is just as offensive to us as the Feinstein bunch.

By simply using the word "Democrat", most people would assume that you are a "Republican", which for most of us, couldn't be further from the truth.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I agree Ernie does not get enough credit

I do not agree that lables don't matter and we need to infiltrait.

We need to GET REAL. Ron Paul picked the party. GET WITH IT or GET LOST!

KNOW YOUR "ENEMY". This "infiltration" is bad language, this "stealth" and this criminal kind of talk is NOT what Ron Paul stood for. It was about being REAL.

The arena has been chosen. Either get in or get lost.

We have a huge fight on our hands. Those who didn't get in are weak, they are cowards, they don't know how to fight, and you want to suggest to divide us? WTF?

Stop trying to control people with a vote

Do you really need a party? Voting is just majority rule, which it really is immoral... if you take an immoral deed, such as stealing from someone (taxes), and the majority votes on it and agrees that some person should be stolen from, that does not and cannot ever make it right.


"You must hate roads & bridges!" is always the Democrat retort

Oh come on. Democrats hate us. Every time a libertarian raises an issue, ANY issue, "You must hate roads and bridges!" is their petty, small-minded retort. Love government or be accused of wanting everyone to live like nomadic barbarians.

And what name-calling they have for us when they're not bashing us for trying to commit infrastructure demolition and corporate take-over! We're the Paultarsds, Paulbots, Paulbearers. Haters of the civil rights acts and disabilities acts, southern neoconfederate secessionists, crossburning lynchers of equality.

To reach out to the Democrat masses, one must accept that the Democratic Party is an intellectual death, and its propaganda is designed to make its supporters zombie agents of this intellectual death. One must approach from below the intellect to gain any traction with them.

...Naturally, one must admit the Republican Party killed off its own intellectualism a long, long, long time ago. But there you are.

"Cowards & idiots can come along for the ride but they gotta sit in the back seat!"

You are exactly right. There

You are exactly right. There is no reaching out to these people.

At least with the gun toters we had a good starting point...the 2nd Amendment.

the best response to this was posted not long ago

it was about a girl getting heart surgery because of Obamacare, and what to say if someone played the emo card:

But medical procedures are governed by the same law of economic scarcity as everything else. Economics is all about the unseen. It a wonderful thing the girl got surgery (I didn't see the video; It is gone.) Who didn't get heart surgery because this girl did? What if, thanks to the Affordable Healthcare Act, two other people had to do without? Who didn't get something else because they were paying for this instead? It is the broken window fallacy again. The girl got heart surgery, but at what cost? Was there no other way for her to get heart surgery?

I could ask you for $5 to get a sandwich to give to my kid, or I could hire someone to put a gun in your ribs to take $10 from you so I can get a sandwich to give to my kid. I could rob the sandwich vendor in order to give one to my kid. I could work for someone else in trade for $5 to buy a sandwich to give to my kid. In the end, you say, that it is good my kid has a sandwich to eat. Does it matter how the sandwich got into my child's hands? Are there different consequences to each approach? I would say so."

Truthfully its the same exact thing, I was asked once in debate:

"If you make roads private, whats to stop people from charging outlandish prices to drive on them.?"

To which i replied:

"Supply and Demand" Are you not paying taxes for roads now? How much do you pay, and how much is wasted through the lack of competition from government, who will just pay whatever it costs to get the job done, rather than outsource it to those who will do the work cheaper for the opportunity of work?

Then they laughed and scoffed at the idea of letting the chaos of free markets run it, but I can't help their ignorance of the math, we can't all be smart enough to do large calculations in our head. ;)

Ya tell em to shove roads and bridges up their A** and justify

Ya tell em to shove roads and bridges up their A** and justify 12% of the population working for the government ... doing what? Certainly not building or maintaining the freeway sticking out of their butts!!

"Cowards & idiots can come along for the ride but they gotta sit in the back seat!"

Right, the PARTY hates us.

But I know a lot of reasonable people in California that won't be caught dead voting for McCain or Romney that are also wide open to personal liberty. If you don't know anyone like that, you aren't looking.

How will the liberty movement succeed without getting people from both sides? We can't just co-opt part of one party and expect to win.

Between the two extremes, there are a lot of reasonable folks and it is our job to not alienate them but instead convince them that both parties are inimical to their interests. That is not hard at all, given the ample evidence.

Primarily, we shouldn't present ourselves as being off-brand Republicans that categorically hate all Democrats, because frankly, we aren't, and it doesn't give enough credit to the movement.

Author of Shades of Thomas Paine, a common sense blog with a Libertarian slant.


Also author of Stick it to the Man!


That's the Democrat equivalent of hunting for albino giraffes

That's the Democrat equivalent of hunting for albino giraffes. "They're out there, you're just not looking in the right place." Yep.

Democrats as individuals ARE the collective party. That's the primary source of their political strength. No matter the personal philosophy or values or opinions, PARTY power trumps all. No intellectual appeal can outweigh that.

We can get a lot of Democrats to vocally agree with our civil liberties and peace platforms. But just TRY to get a vote out of them, much less trying to get them to repeat their affirmation in front of other Democrats. Impossible!

"Cowards & idiots can come along for the ride but they gotta sit in the back seat!"

Democrats are not an alien hive mind.

The primary source of ANY organization's strength is its collective nature, including ours. Why else would anyone "organize"?

My best friend voted Obama. He said explicitly that he would vote Ron Paul if he got the nomination.

Including (and not demonizing) Democrats is essential to our cause, though it may feel "wrong" to hardcore ex-neocons. There are a LOT of medical marijuana, organic farming, alternative medicine guys on this site; and I doubt they were College Republicans.

Author of Shades of Thomas Paine, a common sense blog with a Libertarian slant.


Also author of Stick it to the Man!


The term liberal is derived from libertarian

Our founding fathers called themselves liberals.
Quote by George Washington himself

My point is that when we use the word "liberal" to slander people, we are playing into the hands of the totalitarians who have bastardized the term. Don't be afraid to call yourself a liberal, and be quick to point out the real meaning of the term.

Both were derived from, 'liber'

not one from the other

liber: priority of the individual


If you control the language then you control the debate.
If private ownership of firearms runs counter to your ambitions, then you come up with a nasty sounding name like "Assault" rifle and watch the media incorporate it into everyone's conversation.
If you are envious of your neighbor's possessions then you coin a phrase which indicates his wealth was stolen; something like: "He should give something back" or "fair share" or "Living wage", then kick back as the media incorporate the phrases into everyone's conversation.
Pro-abortion becomes "Pro-choice". Those on the other side are not anti-abortion, they are "Anti-choice".
Persons questioning a president's birthplace become "Birthers".
Individuals desiring to work while a union shuts down production are known as "Scabs".
People who oppose foreign intervention become "Isolationists".
Gun owners become "Gun Nuts" and "Gun lovers" - So powerful is the language that I've even heard gun owners refer to fellow gun owners in this manner.
Farms have become known as "Factory Farms".
Anyone not in lock-step with the Global warming movement is labeled a "Denier" in reference to the Holocaust.
Advocates of limited government become "Anarchists".
Disagreeing with the president labels you a "Racist".
Changing the modern day meaning of "liberal" would require taking over the education system and the media - That's a tall order. I refer to myself as Libertarian.

well put you know when you

well put

you know when you think about things, a think to yourself, that might be worth sharing, but where to start, next thing you know, your thinking about something else, and that previous thought gets pushed to the back of your head, emmerging every now and again with a new thoughts on the matter, perhaps from another angle
You know when someone writes something which you realise mirrors your own thoughts......thankyou GALT, im glad to see this thought out there, explained in a way that i feel does it justice......

Democrats seem to be more honest.

Democrats don't put any shade on it. They look you square in the eye and tell you exactly how and why they think they own every square inch of you.
Republicans on the other hand will beat around the bush and tell you how they sorta-kinda don't want to own you as they crack the whip.
Traditional election methods will get us nowhere as the average American is obese and flying high on welfare.
If we could get a Libertarian candidate to dress in Republican or Democrat cloths and thereby get elected, we might have a shot at restoring [some] liberty.

we r doing that

That'd be Ran Paul. He just might be enough to make it under the wire.

"You only live free if your willing to die free."

They are the other criminal gang of herd animals that has

destroyed our country. Centralized parties are inherently susceptible to corruption. I favor local groups seeking out and backing independent candidates for public office. Model: http://www.arneighbors.org/

Localism is for people who can still sleep at night even though somebody they don't know in a city they have never been is doing things differently. ("Localism, A Philosophy of Government" on Amazon for Kindle or Barnes and Noble ebook websites)