"Hanging Around" - A Message to my Libertarian Friends

I guess you could say I'm one of those wacky Libertarian types. I'm an extreme fiscal conservative, even more extreme small-government advocate, a social moderate and a distinctly unapologetic defender of the themes of Liberty and Freedom (together with the personal responsibility these things require). I'm not registered as a Libertarian though; I'm a lifetime Republican and you'll learn why in just a few moments.

Before I go into that, I want to paint a bit of an analogy that might help put some of this in perspective. Let's call this "hanging around" theory.

If you've ever been to a slot machine casino you've seen video poker games. These are much more games of skill than their "triple seven" counterparts, and given a bit of knowledge they can be played considerably more profitably. This isn't an article about probability or other mathematics, or about gambling, so I won't go into great detail here. If you've never played poker, or one of these machines, some of this may not make sense to you. If you have, though, you'll understand exactly what I'm talking about. I'll try to make this clear to both those who have played and those who have not.

Video poker machines pay out based upon the strength of the player's final hand. A pair of Jacks or better, on most machines, returns even money. A flush returns 5 or 6 to one, and the scale increases as the hand strength increases, up to the Royal Flush which pays out a "jackpot". The winning strategy on these machines depends entirely on one's ability to make the correct decisions when drawing to his or her initial hand. Often the correct decision doesn't, on the surface, make much sense. Proper decision making on these machines frequently entails foregoing an apparent larger payout opportunity in order to collect a more likely smaller payout. Playing for a pair of jacks, in other words, is usually smarter than playing for a straight or a flush. Why? Because you're not playing for either of those hands--you're playing for the jackpot. Think about that for a moment and it will make sense to you. The whole object of video poker strategy is to "hang around" long enough to win the big one. Each time you get your money back, with a pair of jacks for example, you've "hung around" one more hand. The next deal of the cards could present you with that Royal Flush and THAT'S your actual goal.

Large-scale politics, for a Libertarian, must be thought of in the same way. You may want to go for that flush, but when the odds are severely against you it makes much better sense strategically to make the play that allows you to "hang around" for another deal.

Here is a fundamental truth that Libertarians, and those of their ilk, need to recognize and come to grips with; the movement you support will never, ever, EVER occur from the top down. The defense and resurgence of Liberty will only occur from the bottom up. Libertarianism is a grass-roots movement; that's the only strategy that can ever work. It's the only method by which that larger "payoff" can ever be achieved, and the larger victory can only come after a long period of just "hanging around".

No one from the Libertarian (or Constitution, or any other small) party will ever be elected to major national office--or at least, not in any kind of plurality--until the grass-roots efforts have created huge swells of interest in smaller venues. Libertarians have to move into city council and state house roles IN LARGE NUMBERS before any serious inroads can be made at the national level. This is probably not news to those who have been around the party/movement for awhile, but the central lesson somehow doesn't translate completely to the rank and file and, shockingly, we get a situation where Libertarians and other Liberty-minded folk actually vote in a manner inconsistent with their best interests. They play for the flush, rather than trying to "hang around" long enough to hit the jackpot.

Imagine, for a moment, that you are presented with two and only two life-threatening choices; you can take a bullet to the chest, or you can take a bullet to the leg. Once you're shot, the assailant will disappear for awhile and you are free to do whatever you may to try to survive. The choice, in a situation like this, is pretty clear. What may not be clear is that, for a Liberty-minded individual, that exact choice--and only that choice--is presented every four years...during the Presidential elections. Sometimes the choice may be a shot to the thigh or a shot to the calf (as it was with Bill Clinton/George Bush I) and sometimes it's worse. In any case, we are realistically presented with only two realistic scenarios in any given Presidential election, and the choice we make--or the failure to make one of those choices--determines whether we've ultimately helped or hurt our cause. FAILING TO CHOOSE THE BEST OF THOSE TWO OPTIONS HURTS OUR CHANCES OF "HANGING AROUND" LONG ENOUGH TO ACHIEVE OUR TRUE GOALS.

Ron Paul is, by most definitions, a Libertarian...but there's a reason he isn't registered as one, and why he didn't run as one. Paul understands inherently that to have any chance at all--TO HAVE ANY CHANCE AT ALL--of winning election to a major national post, he must be a Republican or a Democrat. His run for the White House on the Republican ticket had some honor (it no longer does) and brought a great deal of positive publicity to the cause of Liberty. Once it became obvious he could not win, and once the publicity began to ebb, the best thing Ron Paul could do for the long-term success of the policies he champions, is remove himself from the race and throw his wholehearted support behind the candidate who represents the best chance for us to "hang around" for four more years. Likewise, the best thing the Libertarian Party could do for the long-term success of it's stated goals is to drop all pretense of a run at the White House and instead support the lesser of two evils because those are the only choices we legitimately have, and only one of those represents the best possibility that we may "hang around" long enough to strengthen and grow from the ground up so that we may one day actually have a chance at major national office. Running a ticket, and encouraging your supporters to vote for that ticket, when it is absolutely certain that not only will your ticket not win but it will not even make a significant splash is, at best, a self-serving exercise in vanity. At worst it is a step backwards for your movement, and the antithesis of "hanging around". This year in particular, it could spell death for the nation we're trying to put back on-course. The damage done from wasting one's vote this year may be simply irrecoverable.

You will not see the Ron Paul or Bob Barr campaigns ending before this election is over, despite that it would be the best thing that could happen for the long-term success of the Liberty movement. But the short-sightedness of the national party doesn't have to infect your decision-making. An intelligent examination of the situation at hand will conclude that, firstly, the best course of action for our long-term goals to be met is that we "hang around" long enough to create a popular uprising, and that will occur from the ground up in small- to medium-sized offices. Secondly, you should be able to easily conclude that, in this year with these candidates and the financial crisis we currently face, our very possibility of "hanging around" is threatened. I say this with no interest in undue drama--it is entirely possible that the nation we love could come to a literal demise if the wrong choice is made on November 4th this year. Even with the right choice we're in a great deal of trouble...but the wrong choice may absolutely be fatal. We simply may never recover. This year we can choose to be shot in the belly, or shot in the head. A vote for Bob Barr, a vote for Ron Paul, or a non-vote in this environment puts YOUR FINGER on the trigger.

Barack Obama and the overly-liberal congress he is likely to have behind him will spell the death of America as we know it. This is the most government-centric candidate we've seen for office in our lifetimes; he is the ultimate nanny-statist. John McCain may not be the best friend a Libertarian could have, but given the alternative there is no alternative! If we are truly committed to our long-term goal of Liberty in our lifetime, this year we have no choice. We must vote, and we must vote McCain. We have to give ourselves and our cause a chance to "hang around" awhile longer. This year any other decision--including a non-vote--is extremely detrimental to the cause of Freedom and places you squarely at odds with the ideals you claim to represent.

I'm not a huge fan of McCain either, but I'm going to do what's right. I urge you to do the same.