An observation, with a bit of rambling diversion . . .
While I believe I grasp the point of this, I would caution that there is much to be lost by insisting on absolute purity.
I have met any number of purists who will happily either vote against, or abstain from voting for, anyone falling below an arbitrary percentage of purity as they see it.
They will cheerfully throw an 80-percenter to the wolves.
I was a slow student when it came to understanding Libertarianism. My friend the dentist spent hundreds of hours over a matter of years "explaining" the concepts to me, and most of that time I simply thought he was ranting. And he was, actually, because he had arrived at that level of understanding where he could no longer see things from the viewpoint of the ignorant and misled (that, of course, would be me). Everything was obvious to him, while I was still lost in that fog of misinformation with which we've all so generously been blessed.
If you're going to move the needle of American politics, purity and ranting simply isn't going to get it done.
Allow me a little digression by way of illustration . . .
I subscribe to a system of rehab, education, and counseling which has among its rules a provision added (back in the sixties) that no one who has a history of certain drugs may be taken on for service. At all. Ever. And that became a problem over time, as increasing numbers of people were subjected to "treatments" involving those some of drugs, and some of the others became "socially acceptable" in casual use. The problem is that no matter how "accepted" those chemicals became, they still interfered with one's progress in that system, and some kind of solution was needed to overcome this before the population in general was broadly rendered ineligible.
So, beginning in the mid-seventies, and continuing into the mid-eighties, a research project was undertaken to discover how to remove the chemical residuals from people, and that project was a success. A path was now available to people who had been blocked an excluded previously because of an assortment of toxins. It takes more time to do the additional step, but at least the step is there.
We have a not-entirely-dissimilar situation with our political situation.
We have people who honestly believe they're pro-liberty, but for whom their education has been a significant pollutant. Without some kind of step prior to learning the fundamentals of actual liberty -- some way of neutralizing the misinformation and disinformation with which they've been so thoroughly inculcated -- you're going to have (within the general population) an overwhelming number of people who are "on your side" but whose thinking is still doped up with the "conventional wisdom" of so-called conservative or libertarian politics.
And the process needs to be gentle enough that it doesn't cause excess bleeding.
For example, gently telling someone he's a moron or that his ideas are stupid (as in my own case) will tend to produce results much more slowly than what is required for turning things around.
I don't know what that process should be. All I know is that it's needed. It needs to include the education system -- or perhaps exclude the education system -- as the continuing I.V. drip feed of mis/dis-information and philosophical pollutants will render all other efforts pointless. "Entertainment" (or is that now "infotainment?") would also need to be addressed.
What we really can't survive is a learning process that took as long as mine did.
And, meanwhile, we need an inclusive enough threshold that the 80-percenters aren't routinely tossed.
Some of them -- some of us -- are willing to learn, even as we stumble along trying to pull our own weight.
