David McElroy

If you’re a libertarian who still participates in the majoritarian political system, it can only mean that you’re in denial or that you fantasize reality will suddenly change. You’d be better off looking for a genie to grant you three wishes, because voter reality is very stubborn.

I’ve written before about why Ron Paul can’t win, and I’ve also explained why I won’t be voting for him (or anyone else) when it’s time to vote. There’s no other politician in the state political system who I admire as much as Paul, but the simple fact is that the vast majority of people don’t want the policies he favors. As I’ve said a number of times before, most people don’t want individual liberty. It’s a losing platform, even though it’s right.

I’ve worked around politics for more than 20 years, so it’s very easy for me to separate my preferences from my analysis of what’s really going to happen. Most people who work in the business can do the same thing, even if they’re not likely to admit publicly that their favored candidate can’t win. The wisdom of insiders isn’t perfect, but it’s more accurate than you might realize. So let’s take a look at what Republican and Democratic insiders are saying about the Republican candidates they believe have the best and worst chances of winning the GOP nomination.

Among Republican insiders, Paul’s chances are rated as eighth out of the eight candidates tested. He comes in just below Michele Bachmann. Even John Huntsman has twice the score of Paul. It’s simple. People with knowledge of the process and how voters usually behave don’t think Paul has any chance. And they’re right.

Keep Reading

We’re trying something new this week. If enough people like it, maybe it’ll become a regular Friday feature. I share a lot of silliness with other people — some political and some not — that never makes it over here. This is a sample of five of my favorites from the last week. In honor of Halloween, we start with the pumpkin that I’d like to duplicate if I still did Halloween decorations each year.

Keep Reading

Do you ever watch videos from high-tech companies that are supposed to show off what they’re going to bring you in a few years? I watch them, but I know better than to believe they represent reality. It’s dangerous to try to live in the future instead of the present, whether you’re a company or an individual.

Microsoft has a new video out showing us what it expects the office of tomorrow to look like. To me, it just looks like something put together by an art director for an especially sterile and boring science fiction movie. It’s vaguely interesting if you’re into technology, but the track record of this sort of future-looking prediction isn’t good. (If you want a real laugh, check out what a technical magazine predicted in 1968 as life in the year 2008.)

It’s not just Microsoft that makes this sort of thing. I remember a similarly laughable video made by Nokia in 2009, and since Nokia is now fighting for its life two years later, it seems unlikely that the company still plans to pursue those fantasies. Way back in 1987, Apple made a similar forward-looking video based on the vision of then-CEO John Sculley (a couple of years after he pushed Steve Jobs out of the company).

So why am I so disdainful of this sort of video? Is it just because they tend to get things so wrong about the future? No, that’s not it at all. It’s true that the future never looks quite like what the futurists predict, but the real problem is that focusing so much on way down the road — and talking to the public about what’s down the road — does absolutely nothing to sell products today.

Keep Reading