Aren’t libertarians the logical folks? So why are so many irrational now?

By David McElroy · January 22, 2012

In South Carolina, Ron Paul finished in last place — fourth out of the four remaining candidates. This isn’t exactly the “revolution” that my friends have been expecting. So how are they dealing with this dose of cruel political reality? And where do libertarians go from here?

If you’ve read much here, you know that I believe Paul has no chance of winning. None. Zero. Nada. It’s not that I don’t like him. He’s probably my favorite statist. But he can’t win, because he’s advocating things that the majority just plain don’t want. After the complete collapse in the first southern primary, I thought I’d skim through what my Facebook friends were saying about the situation. Without calling any names, here are the sort of things that were being said Saturday night among my Paul-supporting friends:

— “Obama must go, so no matter who our nominee is, he’s far better than the current occupant of the White House.” Really? In what ways is Mitt Romney — the father of RomneyCare — an improvement over Barack Obama? In what ways is Newt Gingrich — the man who wants to attack Iran — an improvement over Obama? As bad as Obama is, when it comes to substantive issues — not rhetoric — how are any of the other GOP choices an improvement over Obama?

— “The MSM [mainstream media] is silencing Ron Paul’s message, so that’s the only reason he’s not winning.” Actually, Paul has gotten a tremendous amount of television time over the last year or two, especially compared to the percentage of the electorate that supports him. He’s had plenty of chance to make his case and he’s spent millions of dollars on ads, too. Anyone who believes he’s being silenced isn’t paying attention. It’s just not true.

— “The election was a fraud. The networks were already calling it for Gingrich before half the votes were counted, so it was obviously rigged.” Networks call elections based on exit polling and projections based on how key precincts are going. It’s a combination of art and science that’s pretty accurate in predicting what’s going to be a result when the rest of the votes are counted. They’re projections. They have nothing to do with rigging elections.

— I stumbled upon one discussion of a convoluted conspiracy involving the establishment funding both Gingrich and Santorum in order to stop Paul — who they’re afraid of — before they let Romney win. I’m only mentioning this looney theory because it shows the lengths to which people will go to find reasons to explain what’s going on. Instead of just accepting that others don’t support their candidate, they make up things that have no evidence to support them.

— “The campaign is just about educating people and I’m sick of people who don’t get that. If you don’t support Ron Paul, you’re opposed to liberty.” I saw a lot of that general sentiment last night. There was a good bit of anger toward those relatively few of us who have withdrawn from the system, as though we somehow caused hundreds of thousands of South Carolina voters to flock to Romney, Gingrich and Santorum. Ummmm, no. We’re not responsible. (And we’re not responsible for following whatever path you believe is the right one. You do your thing. We’ll do ours.) Besides, anyone who believes that a campaign is an educational mission is being fooled. An effective campaign is about finding people who generally already agree with you and organizing them to collect others who generally already agree with you. Some tiny fraction of people change their minds in campaigns — every election. A statistically tiny number of people will become libertarians because of this campaign, but not much will change. Roughly 10 percent of the public was generally libertarian 10 years ago. That’s still true today, after countless libertarian “educational” campaigns.

— The other things mostly fell into the category of denial and boosterism: “Ron Paul will still be the president, so just relax,” and, “We refuse to accept anyone but Ron Paul as president.” No, Paul isn’t going to be president. Not this year. Not in four years. Not ever. It’s a fantasy. Refusing to accept that is stopping you from spending your time looking for alternatives that might work.

I’m sympathetic to what Paul supporters want, so I’m not opposed to them and I’m not one of those trying to paint Paul as a crazy uncle who wants nutty things. (My biggest concern is that he doesn’t go far enough toward individual freedom.) But libertarians are supposed to be the hyper-rational people of the political world. What I’m seeing from them right now is just as irrational and conspiratorial as the worst of the people of the major parties.

At some point, libertarians have to accept that most people don’t want what we want. They have to accept that continuing to talk and hand out literature and put up signs isn’t going to change the world. At some point, they have to admit the reality that neither Paul nor any other libertarian is going to get elected to change the country or the world.

So the real question is when the alleged rationalists are going to get rational and join those of us who are trying to figure out how to prepare for the coming post-statist world. The evidence is all around you that you’re not going to elect someone to save you.

Share on Social Networks

If you have problems with high blood pressure, I’d like to encourage you to consider making serious changes to your diet. There might be some people who don’t have any choice but to start taking prescription medications for high blood pressure, but I’d like to tell you that I have completely eliminated my issue by eliminating all sugar and almost all carbohydrates. (A couple of months ago, my blood pressure hit 185/144, which was dangerously high — considered stage 3 hypertension.) By completely changing my eating habits, I’m down 22 pounds and my blood pressure is now in the “ideal” range — without taking any medication. In addition, I sleep better and I have more energy. Getting away from the sugar-laden mess that we generally refer to as “highly processed food” has been a life-changer for me. Now my challenge is to avoid slipping back into old habits — by eating in the dangerous ways that almost everyone in our society has come to see as normal.

When I first heard about this, I thought it must be satire. When I discovered it was real, I was appalled, but I still thought it must be a one-time thing from some nutty activist. But it turns out it’s the latest bit of pandering to a bunch of far-left activists who believe that a man can become a woman if he decides to claim he’s a woman. As everybody knows, men have prostate glands. Women do not. Period. End of story. Men can get prostate cancer. Women cannot. But political activists are so eager to pretend that a man claiming to be a “trans woman” is really a woman that they are insisting that “women” be included in public health messages about the issue. This is nothing but political virtue-signaling. If you’re a man, you know which parts you have. You know that you ought to be screened. Nobody is made any safer by dragging far-left gender ideology into simple medical reality.

Every time someone tries to tighten requirements around the use of absentee ballots, I hear screams from Democrats and others on the political left that such efforts are nothing but “suppression of black voters.” These protests have never made sense to me, especially because it’s never been a secret that absentee ballot fraud goes on all the time in certain areas. (Everybody knew it when I worked in politics.) The people who engage in such fraud are rarely caught — often because the local political establishment approves of the crime — but a Democrat who won a primary election in Clay County, Alabama, last year has pleaded guilty to this sort of cheating. Terry Andrew Heflin was running for a place on the Clay County Commission. He was caught ordering seven absentee ballots in the names of various voters and sending them to his post office box — after which he used the ballots to vote absentee for himself seven time. Did he have other people cast additional fraudulent ballots? We’ll never know. But in a primary in which he was able to win with only 141 votes, it wouldn’t take many fraudulent votes to change the election. The next time you hear “civil rights activists” claim that it’s just “voter suppression” to hurt blacks which is at the root of efforts to stop this fraud, remember Terry Heflin. If you care about fair and honest elections, ballot security and voter identity should matter to you.

A state legislator in Maine has been stripped of the ability to speak in the state Legislature — and her votes are not being counted on legislative issues — all because she made a truthful social media post. Rep. Laurel Libby (R-Auburn, Maine) opposes allowing boys to compete against girls’ teams in school athletics and she’s become known for making an issue of it. On Feb. 17, she posted on Facebook about a recent example that she found outrageous. She posted side-by-side photos of a boy named John who competed last year in a state track event and won fifth place against other boys two years ago — and a photo of the same boy (now called Katie) who won first place in the same event this year against girls. Whether you find this outrageous or not, Libby is clearly being honest and truthful about the objective facts of an issue of public importance. But the state Legislature censured her. Democrats decreed that she could not speak in the House and that her votes would not count on legislation — until she apologized for the outrage of telling the truth. She refused and her constituents have been unrepresented in the state House since then. The people who promote this ideology are out of touch with reality and won’t rest until they force the rest of us to join them in this delusion. But even if you agree with “trans” ideology, you should be appalled at this heavy-handed attack on political speech.

The late Steve Jobs was at the center of our culture’s transition from analog to digital. He co-founded Apple Computer. He led the team that revolutionized personal computing with the first Macintosh. As CEO of Apple, he led the development of the iPhone and later the iPad. You would think the children of such a man would be surrounded by technology. But Jobs and his wife Laureen didn’t let their children use iPads. Their home had few screens of any kind. Even though Jobs spent most of his time developing and selling Macs and iPhones and iPads, he was home with his wife and children for dinner when he was in town. The family ate together at a simple wooden table in their kitchen — and there were no digital devices or focus on popular culture. Instead, he’s said to have guided his family toward deep discussions of art, philosophy and education — with no iPads to be found. If the man who guided the development of such products chose a different path for his own children, does that suggest that his digital experience taught him that children need human connection, not screens? And does it suggest the possibility that we might be better off if we made the same choice for our families?

Related Posts