Absolutely Appalling Behavior

"You're some kind of anarcho-libertarian freak of some sort, right?" she said.

Uh-oh, I thought. It was the tone of voice. This conversation doesn't bode well.

"Uhh... yeah?"

I was talking to a journalist who is a friend of long-standing. Formerly, she was primarly a sports writer, but she's shifted recently to the regional political beat. Very liberal, but nonetheless pretty open-minded most of the time. We don't usually discuss politics when we chat, because we found out years ago that in some things, we simply have to agree to disagree. Such is life.

"Have you heard of the Campaign for Liberty?!" Her voice was tinged with panicked hysteria.

Bad bodings indeed.

"Ugh... What did we do now?"

"I was just accosted by an angry mob of grannies wielding pamphlets because of something I wrote. I don't know what this is all about! If I give an interview, I write what my interviewee says! Who are these people? How the heck was I supposed to know these people even exist? I STILL HAVE THE PAPER CUTS!!!"

I tried to ease her out of three-exclamation-point territory. But folks, she has a point. The only impact we're having in the media is negative to non-existent. Don't blame some left-wing conspiracy. Heck, don't even blame the right-wing conspiracy.

Look in the mirror, and face facts.

We absolutely suck at projecting a good media image.

The offending statement in this lady's article had something to do with the notion that "too many of these pro-liberty types only take part at convention time."

It's true, my journalist friend should have consulted with me about the C4L for some sane counterpoint. But most journalists aren't so lucky as to have a cantankerous curmudgeon like me on their rolodex.

Let's take her statement at face value first, before I delve into some of our other filthy media habits. Is this statement so horrible?

No. Take in some perspective. To a long-time political pundit, this movement is very much made up of Johnny-come-latelies. We have been a "movement" for what now, a little over two years? To a long-term power-crazed lunatic like the jerk this lady interviewed, who's been in and around political office for roughly 18 decades, who the hell are we? He doesn't see us except at conventions, because he first saw us at last year's conventions and figured us for a flash mob.

Second point. We really are not very active, except at conventions.

Truth hurts? Many of us have jobs or businesses, and cannot attend most meetings, media junkets, and other such time-intensive campaign work. Some of you can. I salute you for it. But you're a minority. Being a group of average working Joes is a nice selling point, don't you think? Don't scream when it has disadvantages.

Third point. If a political activist falls in the forest, does the media notice? Take this for example:

Against all personal convictions on the futility of political demonstrations, I attended an End-The-Fed rally. A surprising number of people showed up. I was initially heartened.

Then, I noticed something. For all the organizational prowess that it took to pull this off, we had almost no media exposure.

I think some of the local TV networks got called in. No print journalists. Print is not dead, folks. It may smell funny sometimes, but it's still breathing.

Then, I noticed something else. The wrong people were talking to the media. The message they were spreading had little to do with the politics of freedom, or the rule of law, or heck, why we really want the Federal Reserve gone.

Instead, the TV crews talked to people with media savvy, who are really good at showing up to a party. There was a lady who'd been thrown in jail 1,700 times or something. There was some guy who kept talking about aliens. There was another, who I know personally ... who should never be allowed to talk to the media under any circumstances. His heart is in the right place but his demeanor absolutely screams, "Hi! I'm a luuuunatic!"

I won't even go into the Truthers. Look, I'm all for scientific inquiry in any field, but there's a time and a place, people.

No, screw it. I will talk about the Truthers. If you want to continue to make us look bad in front of TV cameras, keep spouting. I'll submit to you that if you're 100% right, and by God you really do make a good case for some of this stuff ... what does it matter to actions that we take right now?

Does a demand for "9/11 Truth" stop the fed's printing presses?

Does such a demand change anybody's mind about the false choice presented by a crappy two-party system?

After forty-five years of "JFK Truth", has any positive change ever come out of that movement?

There was a man at the End-The-Fed who was downright scary. He stood on the street corner of a very busy intersection of a major American city and waved his sign and snarled and spat at the passing cars. He was very very passionate in his beliefs. Unfortunately, this was backed up by no social skills whatsoever. THIS IS THE FACE WE SHOW TO THE PUBLIC, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.

I hate to be so utterly and coldly pragmatic, but particularly with the media, you are pissing off the very messengers that could convey some of the very good ideas that Dr. Paul kept repeating throughout his campaign.

I've had reports of revolting behavior out of C4L'ers from friends and family from Maine to California. Angry, in-your-face arrogance does not win people over.

There's a wonderful technique for closing formerly open minds. It's called the "BAD FIRST IMPRESSION". We're becoming masters of this fine art.

Speaking of Truth, I must admit to feeling distanced from this movement myself. When I get a phone call saying, "This is Ron Paul and I need your help," I send the dollars. When it comes time for the voting booth, I swallow many years of non-voting behavior and go pull that lever.

But when the email arrives saying, "We need your body," I tend to decline. I'm not the only one.

If we keep this up, sooner or later, the movement will consist of none but the worst of us.

And then, the ominous "THEY" will have won. We defeated ourselves.

Does this kind of future look interesting to you?

Then pull the fence-post factory out of your eye and start working on your professionalism, on your public face, and on your rapport-building skills.

Future generations may thank us yet.

Clarification

I'm reading some of the comments, and I don't think I'm communicating with some of you folks.

To those of you who echo Darth Cheney and say, "Well, freedom is messy. Expect a mess." One of the foundations for our movement is a belief in free markets, including a free market of ideas.

Suppose there was a Phil-Mart where you could go and buy your political philosophy. In bright, shiny colors emblazoned with "New! Improved!" you get a kindler, gentler fascism with less facial hair. On the other side of the aisle, have a look at the nice luxurious fur hats on the nice fresh socialism, doesn't it look tasty this time of year?

Now, over in the discount rack, we've put liberty. It's colored puke green. There's some sort of mold growing on the lid. It looks like the expiration date has long since past.

It's messy. It's freedom. It's being sold by some guy who acts like a carnival barker. We promise you, it's much nicer on the inside of the box.

It's a free market of ideas. We're the only ones saying so. And yet, look at how we're selling our own ideas.

Then, to those of you saying, "If we have to kowtow and act like everybody else because we're too afraid to tick people off, then we can't do anything!

Bull puckey. I'm not saying that you shouldn't tick people off. But there is a HUGE and unsubtle difference between ticking people off with content, and ticking people off with presentation.

If you tick someone off with content, this is leadership. If you're a man, this is what you could call "alpha-male" behavior.

If you have great content, but you tick people off with presentation, this is what you could call "alpha-orifice" behavior. Catch my drift? One can influence public policy. The other will get you ignored by real grownups.

"But, We're happier waving our clubs and going rah, rah, rah!" says a third contingent.

This is football-club behavior. It's the same nonsense as waving red flags against blue flags. This has nothing to do with real policy decisions, and in fact is the same sort of idiocy that got us into the two-party system that we have.

....

Some of you folks are getting it. Whomever suggested Dale Carnegie has the right idea. I'll re-read it along with you, buddy. Spread the word. Marginalization is a disease we catch from each other.

Don't be an alpha-orifice.