After a recent post about Scott Brown being far from a liberty-oriented candidate, many responded that it’s important to live in reality, and that we cannot have a perfect candidate. Especially not one who lives in Massachusetts. Â
I agree that it’s important to live within the means of reality, and I believe that is exactly what I’m doing – and what others should do as well. Â Scott Brown is nowhere near the ideal candidate. However, as I argued in another post, it isn’t only about electing the right candidates. Â Because I live in reality and I know that many out there wouldn’t vote for a truly liberty-oriented candidate, I argue that rather than focus all of our efforts on electing the “right” candidate, we focus a good amount of our time on informing people and discussing the ideals of liberty. Â If we choose not to do this and to simply continue trying to elect candidates, we will always be given choices like Scott Brown. Â Not just in Massachusetts, but in other places as well. Â I must admit that I don’t have much hope for Colorado in 2010, and the reason is because I don’t believe enough voters in the state truly believe in liberty. Â And so long as that is the case, we will never have a truly pro-liberty man or woman in office.
Remember, it is about us! The people elect those in office. Â And while those in office often try to lead the people where they want them to go, most will not be elected or get into office by going completely against an extreme majority in this country. Â Therefore, I argue that we must spread the ideals of liberty to everyone and everywhere. And yes, Scott Brown being elected was no surprise, and I didn’t see it happening any other way. Â He was elected, and we must understand that, but the goal must now be to showcase the example of Scott Brown, and to KEEP talking about this until we are able to get a liberty-oriented consensus in this country. Â All lovers of liberty and freedom must take on the responsibility of selling the principles of liberty if they ever wish to have a better reality.
Amanda,
I like your strategy of talking about and spreading the ideas of liberty no matter what.
Imperfection is one thing. No one is perfect, not even Ron Paul.
Scott Brown, however, is nothing but a big government guy just slightly less evil than Kennedy, Coakley, Obama, etc.
Here are my thoughts: http://www.thefot.us/scottb.html
We need to (a) relentlessly spread the ideals of liberty and (b) not fall for the “lesser of two evils” business. That will lead to real change.
Doug
I couldn’t agree more.  The point you’ve argued in your post has been one I’ve articulated over and over again to the people at campaign for liberty.
You may or may not be aware that campaign for liberty recently ran an ad for Ken Buck.  It was supposed to be one to showcase candidates that filled out their survey (Buck was the first and only in CO that had filled one out).  But the ad stank of endorsement.
This was upsetting to me (among many others) because Buck is another neocon warmongering bafoon.  I spoke with Bonnie Solan and Mike Angelo (both State Coordinators for CFL) expressing my disappointment.  Want to guess their reaction? The same you’ve received concerning Brown; ”It’s impossible to find someone you agree with on all issues…we live in reality.. Blah blah blah.”Â
My response was similar to yours.  That if we wanted to succumb to the popular delusion of holding our nose and picking the lesser of two evils I wouldn’t have joined such an organization.  I’m capable of participating in mob rule without donating to an org that will do it for me. Â
I told them that the best way is to change the mentality of the people; when the people have been informed on the role of gov’t, the rule of law, and how an economy operates, then and only then will their voting habits change.  The people will elect according to principle, rather than promises. Â
I agree, mostly. I actually have less issue with Scott Brown (so far). It is only one vote and a stupid one; but one that his constituents probably wanted. He arguments since about not expanding the size and scope with pork barrel projects is heartening.
The key, as you state, is education. Not just yelling about the other side or the dumb votes a candidate or two make, but real conversations about liberty and the unique nature of our founding. We have to remember that while many of us were growing up and/or working for a living, schools and universities have been rewriting history and redefining America underneath us. We have a long hill to climb to reeducate and inform.
Scott Brown is progress for MA. He, like all of us, has more to learn.
The idea of a “perfect” candidate is a red herring anyway. Jefferson, Franklin, Madison and Washington were not perfect.
This logic shows the negativity and brainwashing that has occured since the 1930’s.
We have patriots that will adhere to the Constitution if elected. We need more.
No one is asking for “perfection”. To suggest this is arguing for the status quo.
A Ron Paul is not the answer, nor was Scott Brown and I posted this before he was elected.
Could the Republican Party find another to run instead. Did they look, or did they see a pretty face (think Romney) and run with him?
The election in Mass was not just a vote against Obama’s healthcare, but of Romney’s and I said that in my posts after his election.
Romney said the other day, Massachusetts has a great healthcare system, but it hasn’t solved its expense problem yet.
Duh.. how can inserting a state’s or a Federal beuracracy into the system without making it more expensive?
Simple math tells you that can’t be done.
Keep up the education. You do it so much better than I.
http://www.fatheromalley.com
http://www.ourcaucus.com
http://www.votesmart.com
Look, Brown was almost totally elected on one issue and one issue alone: health care. It seems that no one took the time to check his economics background.
I’m not bashing him entirely; he is a refreshing change of pace from the People’s Republic of Massachusetts. We need to face reality, though. As John Stewart put it, “He’s a Republican from Massachusetts, which is like a gay Democrat in the rest of the country.”
I preferred ironically name Joe Kennedy and have no reason to change even if he’s (Brown) a very little better than the democrat.
GZLFB
Don’t worry about promoting candidates or parties. Promote ideas. If you’re successful, people will pick the right candidate.
Ideas don’t get involved in scandals. The truth doesn’t lie to you.
What in the hell is wrong with Scott Brown? The people that do not like him are usually the ones that have helped initiate the problem we are in right now!!! I personally am glad he took Kennedy’s seat.
I think you hit upon a siginifcant question. Indeed do we need a friendly seat in MA. It is almost miraculous to have at least a moderate in that seat. However, if we represent the “Anti-Federalists” of early America in the contemporary sense then we technically need true blue libertarian conservatives in power. I am inclined to beleive that the Henry Clays and Daniel Websters have a place as well. The secret is to place the true conservatives in enough key seats as to affect significant change, and the moderates will hold the line. In other words, keep the middle just to the right of center in stead of left, where it is now.
The one thing I would like to see is the very quick demise of the Obama destruction machine. That jackass has now enslaved the United States of America for the next 300 years to pay for his hypo-ridiculi plans of stupidty. It seems to me that this whole problem started shortly after the Democrats took control of the house two years before Bush thankfully was removed from office along with his side kick ass wipe Cheney!!!