Rand Paul's surge in Kentucky

[makattak]

Conservatives/Libertarians who want everything now need to understand something:

It took 60 years to get to the point we are now. It will take AT LEAST as long to repeal it all.

The leftists made incremental changes because most people don't want BIG changes. People are used to what we have now and are afraid of too many large changes. (Better the devil you know...)

As such, although your goal may be a fully libertarian society, STATING that is very foolish.

You'll get people like that idiot wanting Senators to vote to dismantle Medicare. YES, we want Medicare gone, but we don't want to wipe it away in one stroke because the result will be chaos.

Small steps are necessary. Otherwise, massive change can turn into something we did not intend.

[Balog]

I never understand why people see how effective incrementalism has been for socialists but refuse to try it ourselves.

"But I want it NOW!" Ok, that's nice. I want a lot of things too. Doesn't mean it's realistic.

[Perd Hapley]

Fisty: that's some pretty revisionist history you've got there. McCain's primary win reflected a lot of things, but the support of a majority of R's was not one of them.

Sigh.  I didn't say "majority," I said "a large chunk."  One doesn't place second in the presidential race without the support of "a large chunk" of one party or another.  

McCain wasn't electable. Proof: He didn't get elected.  

You said Paul and McCain "had absolutely the same degree of Presidential electability."  That's what I responded to.  One lost to a weirdly popular candidate, in an election that turned on his (McCain's) weakest subject - economics.  The other lost the primary (didn't even get in to the general election) to a dried up old hunk that half the party hates (McCain).  To claim that this makes them absolutely equal in electability is, at best, completely and utterly senseless.  

My whole point is that the people in the party who backed him based on his ostensible electability made a giant mistake.

That they did.  


My original (and wrong) theory about McCain's primary victory was that he won because the conservatives were split.  But when I looked at the numbers, I found that McCain won very large victories in most states. 

For the record, I originally backed Thompson.  Missouri's primary was after T backed out, so I voted for Romney.

[Balog]

Most of McCain's success is based on the idiotic idea of "we have to support the guy who's winning!

[Perd Hapley]

I thought I posted something about the primary numbers, where I found out how wrong I was, but I can't find it.   :|

[MicroBalrog]

It took 60 years to get to the point we are now. It will take AT LEAST as long to repeal it all.

1.History is not a science. Read your Mises. The fact the statists took 60 years to get here doesn't mean we'll get fifty years to get there.
2.The statists succeeded through lots of tiny steps, and several big ones. Where is the libertarian New Deal?
3.The statists incorporated radicals as a subgroup in their movement and utilized them. Even a gradualist movement needs radicals.
4.Not everything is amenable to gradualist solutions.
5.What possible incentive do I, as an individual, have to work something I will never achieve in my lifetime and gain no moral or personal satisfaction in?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

5.What possible incentive do I, as an individual, have to work something I will never achieve in my lifetime and gain no moral or personal satisfaction in?

You think it's foolish to follow a strategy that'll never achieve what you want, so your alternative is to follow Ron Paul...?

[MicroBalrog]

You think it's foolish to follow a strategy that'll never achieve what you want, so your alternative is to follow Ron Paul?

Ron Paul has already achieved many things that I want.

[Matthew Carberry]

5.What possible incentive do I, as an individual, have to work something I will never achieve in my lifetime and gain no moral or personal satisfaction in?

"... to ourselves and our posterity..."

This may be where the "American Constitutionalist" mindset runs differently from the "individualist Libertarian."

I do feel an obligation to my family, my friends and their progeny, in fact I am prepared to sacrifice my personal needs on their behalf (the old immigrant story).  I want change, I realize it will take time and I may not be the immediate benefactee but I can know that, if they continue in my footsteps, my children (if I have any) or at least my nieces and nephews will find this country a better place than I did.

As far as the libertarian New Deal, you have to get into office, with a decent majority, before you can make radical change.  Thus, incrementalism and marketing of candidates.  March up field and put a few field goals up rather than depending on the Hail Mary on every play.  That leads to getting sacked over and over again and steadily losing ground.

[MicroBalrog]

Thus, incrementalism and marketing of candidates

You see, radicalism benefits incrementalists.

There would not be a Reagan without Goldwater.

Ron Paul's run allowed him to set up the largest libertarian organization ever created. [The CFL is nearly an order of magnitude larger than the LP].

I want change, I realize it will take time and I may not be the immediate benefactee but I can know that, if they continue in my footsteps, my children (if I have any) or at least my nieces and nephews will find this country a better place than I did.[/quote

This is true as far as it goes. But, two points:

1. What about the people who are currently suffering from oppression? Do you not feel any empathy with them?
2. I already know groups like Cato are slowly promoting and growing libertarianism. There already is a movement of incrementalist libertarians, it's large and plentiful and it does not need me, nor am I suited for participation in it.

[Matthew Carberry]

In the US?  What people are suffering from unConstitutional "oppression"?

In any event I am going to use the most effective and likely means to help them rather than trying to get one guy elected President against incredible odds with a non-supportive Congress in opposition.

[MicroBalrog]

Remember, I'm a libertarian. My definition of oppression is wider than yours.

And your statement is highly ironic, given the topic of this thread.

[Matthew Carberry]

That's why I've been calling myself a Constitutionalist vice libertarian more lately.  I agree with you on where freedom's lines should lie, but in the shorter term I'd just be happy to get back to the rulebook for the USA.

Actually, my statement isn't ironic at all.  This is an election for a Congressman, if we can get, one race at a time, over time (incremental kinda) a significant minority or even majority of such like-minded members (even if not ideologically pure "L") THEN (and only then) there's a chance in hell of getting a turn to the Libertarian side in actual law and policy.

Note that Rand is not running the same way the RP campaign got pushed, nor is he operating on a nationwide, thus higher profile, level for his more alarming (to the unfamiliar) ideas to draw fire.

This is exactly the kind of incremental gain, one seat at a time, we need. 

[drewtam]

Part of gaining the incremental advances is whipping up and harnessing the energy of the radicals.

Have you ever noticed that the opposition has "no enemies to the left"?
A mainstream lefty will always defend the far left winger/authoritarian. Even if that defendant was a critic of the mainstream lefty.

Those at the edge of the mainstream are the engines for driving activism within the mainstream.

I don't think I am explaining this very well.

[Perd Hapley]

You see, radicalism benefits incrementalists.

There would not be a Reagan without Goldwater.

Do you think Goldwater was a radical, and Reagan was an incrementalist?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Do you think Goldwater was a radical, and Reagan was an instrumentalist?

Silly fistful.  Reagan was an actor, not a musician.

[Perd Hapley]

Oh crap.   

[MicroBalrog]

Do you think Goldwater was a radical, and Reagan was an incrementalist?

I think it's a fair description to say that Goldwater was more radical than Reagan.

And I think Drewtam is exactly correct.

[zahc]

Where is the libertarian New Deal?

Amen.

[CNYCacher]

Do you think Goldwater was a radical, and Reagan was an incrementalist?

Ronald Reagan?  The actor?

[roo_ster]

5.What possible incentive do I, as an individual, have to work something I will never achieve in my lifetime and gain no moral or personal satisfaction in?

That right there is the problem with materialism.

carebear hit another nail, but MB's #5 brings up the point of a materialist mindset.

Also part of the reason why many countries in Europe will disappear by 2050.  Materialism leads to birthrates below replacement rate.  "Why should I spend money on a child when I can spend that money on myself?  I'll  not benefit one bit from paying for my children's education."

[roo_ster]

Silly fistful.  Reagan was an actor, not a musician.

 

[MicroBalrog]

Note that I was talking about moral and personal satisfaction. Some people are strong enough to keep working for something that'll only kick in for their grand-children. Most people are not. They'll just quit.

[Balog]

Incremental changes benefit everyone. Do you refuse that 5% yearly raise, because your end goal is to advance and make 50% more? Just shortsighted...

[MicroBalrog]

Incremental changes benefit everyone. Do you refuse that 5% yearly raise, because your end goal is to advance and make 50% more? Just shortsighted...

False dichotomy. For two reasons:

1. Incrementalism is not opposed to radicalism. If Rand Paul wins, the incrementalists benefit, too.

2. A lot of people use incrementalism as an excuse to do nothing at all. It goes from "We give you a 50% raise" to "A 50% raise would be too radical, we give you a 5% raise", and finally you get no raise at all because a 0.0000001% raise would be too radical.

Look at school vouchers. Milton Friedman came up with the as a moderate stepstone to ending public education. Today THEY are seen as the radical agenda.