One of the perks of dwelling in that sort of no man’s land between libertarian and constitutional conservative thought is that you get to chuckle silently at almost everyone. Plus, you get to ask fun questions. Progressives, conservatives (including much of the so-called “alt-right”), ancaps and almost everyone else becomes fair game.
I know you’re upset. I’m curious, though. Why, given their rather stellar failure leading up to the election, do you continue to place so much emphasis on polls? Why do you cling to a thing that arguably led to bad decision-making and the eventual failure of Hillary Clinton to capture the White House?
Given the counter-productive nature of calling those who oppose you insulting names, why do you cling, even now, to this strategy? Do you truly believe calling people Nazis or racists will somehow lead them to see your political philosophy as the one they should adopt?
Have you given any serious consideration to what it means that you largely won the culture war? Allow me to suggest that has implications for your tactics. Perhaps many of you aren’t old enough to remember the 60s and 70s. I am. When the sit-ins were so popular and effective, you were outsiders pushing for change. That’s not who you are now. You’re very much insiders. You are cultural leaders. People expect different behavior from leaders, elected or otherwise, than they do from outsiders. A sit-in in the House of Representatives? “Not a legitimate President?” “Not my President?” Really?
I notice you’ve made the decision, consciously or otherwise, to allow yourselves to be associated with a number of Marxist and anarchist groups. You’re aware, are you not, that some of them seem to be planning more than peaceful demonstrations at the inauguration? Are you also aware that most people, including most progressives, like peace and order? Do you really believe being associated with movements led by aging Marxists looking for relevance is in your best interests?
Hey! You won, sort of! Yay you! I have a few questions, though.
Let’s say, at the start, that being wealthy does not make one a poor choice for government service and that I truly hope Donald Trump does a good job. Okay. That’s done, right? Good.
So, now that the GOP has the House, Senate and the White House, how do you plan to avoid using governmental power to push an agenda on people who don’t want it? I mean, if you’re a neocon, maybe you can just say “that’s how Washington works,” but if you’re a small and limited government conservative, what’s your plan?
How long will you cling to the notion that Donald Trump is an “outsider?” Likewise, what will it take for you to remain firm in your belief that he will, indeed, “drain the swamp?” Is this swamp draining (a thing of which we are in desperate need) something you really believe can take place in 4 or even 8 years?
Okay, one more. Are you going to seriously suggest Donald Trump is a conservative?
Just one for you guys. You’re aware, are you not, that the drive for the formation of government, even if it’s called something else, is inherent in the human condition?
Lost again. It’s interesting that the closest you’ve ever come to winning the White House was with a candidate who was, at best, only nominally libertarian (at least, according to the libertarian sites I visit). On the other hand, now one of your leaders is declaring that Ron Paul was never a true libertarian. Really? Aside from the fact many people don’t love liberty, would you like to know why you seldom win elections? Here it is, but you might not like it. You don’t win elections because you nominate people who can’t be trusted to come in out of the rain. You have, as leaders, people who need keepers.
News flash. When your leaders start saying things like “We really need to reach 5% of the vote so we can get federal money,” they have become the thing you despise.
That concludes today’s questions. For now, anyway…