I like Doug's comment at the end, that we will never win unless we welcome new people. Some of them will be phony, but some will be genuine.
People do not like to eat crow, not on TV, not in their own minds, nothing. They often need to have a way to move towards a libertarian position without feeling like they're denouncing everything they had said before, and we need to give them that opportunity. So when we see Bill O'Reilly and other guys acting like they're libertarians, we have to welcome them as far as they go. People listen to those guys. That's what matters. Another group of ears listening to even just one libertarian position from someone they trust.
We can't be judging people based on all these pass/fail "litmus tests" of libertarianism that I've heard some put out. That isn't the point. I've never understood the idea that just because I think a person has said some good things and will make some good things happen that my helpless soul is in danger for being a blind follower who will be crushed at the inevitable betrayal and be left a wretched shadow of what I once was. I would like to see less love/hate polarity and more compassion and tolerance.
Some of you say you're against war. So don't make this into a ideological war. You won't win without recruiting. And the only people to recruit are the ones you consider the enemy.
The interviewers here are great liberty supporters, but they don't understand that change has to come about incrementally. An ideology can't just come in and sweep everything away. People's minds change a bit at a time, and that's the way policy has to work. You need a series of politicians who enact policies that move more and more towards a libertarian ideology. That's why I believe Rand has much more potential than his father. Not because he's better, but because he may be a perfect example of the incrementalism we may be able to accomplish.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: