by: Anonymous

A Joyful Hope

Although I cannot find the original quote, it might have been Mark Twain late in life who said, “In our day and country, the poor are unique. They do not see themselves as bitterly impoverished which they ought, but instead have a joyful hope that they are in the embarrassing predicament of simply not yet being rich.” Whereas I once loved this quote for capturing the good news of free markets creating upward mobility, I am starting to see a darker side to the quote’s meaning. For those who contemplate poverty the way Mark Twain did, the good news of liberty does not suffice.

As the 20th century advanced, gradually, the poor did indeed begin to lose their joyful hope and adopt the bitterness Mr. Twain spoke of. Like Mark Twain before them, they eventually experienced the greater wealth upward mobility afforded them, but this gave them a fear of losing what they had adjusted their lifestyle to, and made them notice the depth of contrast between living poor and living wealthier. It is tragic, then, that their newfound fear drove them to vote against the very same freedom policies that created their “rags to riches” family story in favor of centralized government and FDR’s New Deal. The tragedy was that this only extended their poverty in the 1930s and 40s, yet they chose to continue to view poverty with enough loathing to remain stubborn.

I wish I could say that the under-appreciation for liberty that some in Ayn Rand’s generation fought against eventually subsided, but sadly, it did not. Even in the 1980s at the time Ayn Rand died and despite the formation of the Libertarian Party, America treated liberty like an afterthought, and they still do. Our battle to bring back that joyful hope continues, but we need to ask ourselves why we have continued to lose this fight despite being in-the-know.

Reputation: Our Relationship with the Private Sector

We Libertarians have a large reputation problem. Although this is in part because our enemies throwing everything against the wall to see what sticks, some critiques have effectively made us seem at a distance like weirdos and simpletons to keep away from. Despite how despicable it was in 2016 when they belittled us for not knowing the city of Aleppo, or this past year when they implied we were pedophiles for taking an interest in age-related laws, I find that most of their critiques offer a valuable clue into our real reputation.

One critique in particular has especially piqued my interest: our “flawed” relationship with the private sector. A common, popular depiction of Libertarians I see could be described like the quote from earlier but with a twist: not only do they accuse us of being diluted into thinking poverty is a short stop on the way to riches, they accuse us of putting our undying trust in corporations to do the heavy lifting of assisting us with our dream to become rich. What’s more is that they often imply we dream of a world in which the corporations have boots on the necks of common folks as if we are blind to it being no better than government tyranny. Sometimes this is a diversionary tactic to get people to shut up about the boots which are already on the necks of the common folk, but sometimes this comes from those same common folk who are sick and tired of boots being on their neck and have the fear that we won’t sufficiently lift all boots. They are bitterly and hopelessly of the opinion that the boots are here to stay.

There is some truth to their skepticism of us. A post surfaced on X in Summer of 2024 by an extreme Anarchy-Capitalist who glowingly touted no government is necessary and implied many other people besides himself want a future in which the court system and police are entirely privatized such that you will need to pay for the enforcement of your rights and your justice, outlining how such a system would work using a picture book formatting. Well, that post went viral, more viral than most things Libertarians laboriously said all throughout the entire election year, and you better believe the enormous number of eyes on that post poisoned tens of thousands of voters into laughingly rejecting the lot of us. Voters are constantly looking for proof to reject a foreign political philosophy and prefer confirmation bias because it saves them from the hardship of thinking. It only takes a small dose of elixir to poison an entire well.

The voters are made uncomfortable by the possibility that we, no matter how much in the minority, are correct. Siding with us means descending into a minority, and there is nothing fun about joining an uphill battle. Indeed, not all of us seek a world which permits boots on anyone’s neck. We believe in the NAP and therefore a justification for a limited government that has few responsibilities beyond doing its best to enforce the rights and justice of people within the jurisdiction. What makes us a big tent is our tolerance for disagreements on how many rights humankind has, what constitutes injustice, how decentralized should government be, and numerating the additional responsibilities of government. Seen through that lens, it is clear we oppose (or should oppose) tyranny of all forms!

What the voters don’t seem to understand is that industries have a corrupt relationship with the present elected politicians from both of the Major Parties. The NC Department of Commerce, for example, exists primarily to make corrupt, unfair deals with an arbitrary selection of entities within various industries to obtain the coveted title of “best state for business.” All-the-while, they sweep under the rug that such a title cannot coexist with being the “best state for employees” or “best state to live in.” So dedicated are they that they will use eminent domain to take your neighborhood and your local church land to bulldoze and convert into an automotive factory so as to seem like the kind of politicians who get things done and potentially get money put into their back pocket from the grateful automotive business.

I worry that when Libertarians ascend to power on a State-level, we’ll be tempted by the same corrupting force, for a different reason. Republicans and Democrats simply want the popularity and the fortune that comes with bowing down to businesses, but Libertarians have such a bias in favor of the private sector that perhaps a colleague or two will sell out and want less in return. You and I might be correct to have fond feelings for companies like Amazon, which have undoubtedly achieved many good outcomes for our state, but always remember that this is no excuse for wielding power to boost their success further. I believe Libertarians who hate the Left are especially at risk of falling into the contrarian attitude of overly siding with businesspersons whenever the Left scapegoats them. This is the difference between being “pro-business” and being “pro-people.”

In the US, Canada, the UK, and elsewhere, political parties stress policies for working individuals. In January, a far-left party in Canada nearly surpassed polling popularity of Canada’s left-of-center party with their rallying cry being opposition to “the binding arbitration [which ended] a work stoppage at Canada's largest railways.” In a further contrast, they wanted to give all workers universal dental care, a whole step beyond universal “free” healthcare, which Canada already has. For those there who wish their job came with more benefits and the freedom to go on strike if the cause is good, they felt heard. The NDP’s momentum collapsed when a foreign threat to their international trade and sovereignty upended priorities, but that did not suddenly stop them from caring about workers, instead this is par for the course in a first-past-the-post voting system.

This might be among our greatest missed opportunities as a party. Although it is true that our candidates have a healthy understanding of bird’s-eye-view macroeconomics, we rarely share the same thinking as the voters who look at it all from a personal, ground-level view. Workers frequently feel unheard, especially when times are good overall but not for them or their family or friends. To hear their grumbles about “neoliberalism,” you realize they see themselves as living in a new Gilded Age which looks fine on the surface but quietly rots inside. On any day that libertarians celebrate and identify our influence on the success of the stock market and our GDP, somewhere in North Carolina is a family man who just lost his job, tearfully festering on all the little things that are horribly wrong with the business climate in our country. On that same day in the Tar Heel State, someone is toiling away at a job and feels hopelessly stuck, disrespected, and resentful of company leadership.

Indeed, because times are good here and have been almost without exception since World War Two, companies and rich businesspeople have been able to get away with right violations of workers, white-collar crimes, and corrupt deals with government. Our success likewise explains why companies have been able to absorb unfair attacks from publicity-seeking politicians yet survive. But between the former and the latter, I only hear libertarians decry the latter. If, however, the good times ever end, suddenly that bitter family man between jobs and hopeless worker will no longer be in the minority, thus it will be too late to address their demands. Whether the gilded outer layer ever cracks to reveal an ugly inside is not a question of if but when.

Polls often ask the question, “Does politician X or political party Y care about the problems I go through?” and I have read the Republicans have caught up to the Democrats on this matter. The pollsters never bother to ask this question about Libertarians, and that is good because it might have been damning negative publicity for us. For as much as I criticize both sides of our dreaded Uniparty, I must admit that we could learn something from how they have tapped into popular resentment. Republicans exaggerate the death of manufacturing jobs in America and fearmonger about the very real competition for jobs against talented immigrants. Democrats tap into our jealousy of rich-beyond-necessity CEOs, want to make it easier for minorities and women to get a job, and force benefits on businesses, such as more time off for pregnant couples. Although Libertarians want to lower income taxes, so do the Republicans; that really steals our thunder and leaves us without much to point to for the purpose of winning workers over. Often, we rant till the cows come home that tariffs by tyrants and the very existence of the minimum wage choke our economy, yet listeners ultimately fail to piece together how either affects them.

The point, of course, is not to adapt their tactics of lying and bribing residents with their own money but to see how much it means to voters to feel understood. Feeling understood might be so rare and valuable that it explains the Socialists and core of MAGA voters cling endlessly to a sinking ship like members of a cult; in a flawed world, hope is like a drug. Therefore, we Libertarians need to champion policies that resonate with the workers of our state. I admit to not having all the answers, but I have suggestions for where we can start.

Steps Towards Becoming Pro-People

Foremost, we need to openly reject a kind of pure Anarchy that treats freedom as a game of chance instead of a guarantee; the wealth in your possession is not purely skill-acquired and is therefore insufficient for ensuring justice. Any Anarchist who does not believe government has a right to exist by means of consent and voluntary funding is so thoroughly iconoclastic as to be unworthy of membership in the Libertarian Party. Not only is this necessary, it would be a publicity win for us much the same way it was pivotal for Obama in the 2008 election when he loudly distanced himself from his pastor, who was a more radical Leftist than himself, thereby convincing the voters that Obama was not an unreasonable extremist.

The working-age population in America is a powerful voting bloc; winning an election runs through their approval. People who work jobs are only a little more likely than the retired population to want radical change, and radical voters overall are more-or-less eclipsed by people who prefer greater moderation. In early 2021, Gallup found that 37% of most voters averaged together wanted their preferred party to become more radical. This past February, that percentage has fluctuated to become even smaller, sitting at 28.5%. Conversely, 29% of those voters in 2021 wanted their preferred party to move towards moderation, and now that percentage is 39.5%. Thus, the push for a move towards the center of the political spectrum has now gotten even louder among self-identifying moderates. Our Party is in a good position to seize this opportunity to pull them, but we are only going to win voters if our public rhetoric meets them at least halfway.

Do remember that there is a difference between what we announce and believe, and what we plan to do tomorrow versus what we plan to do after that if they like what we do tomorrow. Crucially, the voters and even the vocal Libertarians often fail to outline the differences between these, and this is especially important when the voters cannot look back at past NC Libertarians to get a general idea of how much change we will attempt in a term. I have even heard some voters assume everything we talk about is what we are bragging we will accomplish in a single term no matter the circumstance. If multiple people are getting the impression we think Rome can be built in a day, the voters must be confused by our lack of boundaries. We need to outline our short-term goals every so often. Although candidates will complain about wanting immense freedom to campaign on anything and everything, some amount of coordination and boundaries (or at least a state-level plan) is needed to create order.

For similar reasons, we need to elect at least two people to civil service, no matter how small and insignificant, so that we can spotlight those people’s activities and brag about both their accomplishments and the ways they are just like the average voter: hard working, not especially poor or wealthy, level-headed, and concerned with kitchen-table issues. And if we cannot get elected, we should take matters into our own hands by engaging in community service openly as Libertarians, much like when the Cape Fear Libertarian Party affiliate adopted a highway to clean up its litter. This is a step I believe should never be skipped, and yet I fear if you ask Libertarians what they would rather do next, they would prefer to run for office as a Congressperson and lose for the third election cycle in a row rather than get their hands dirty with litter pickup!

We need to advocate a crackdown against white-collar crime and look for ways to offer hard-working masses something through liberty. I spoke about the beauty of free market’s giving anyone upward mobility and an ideal economy. I think that is something we need to revisit and stress, while clarifying that even in a free market, economic downturns are inevitable and short-lived. We could explain how the constant printing of money perpetually weakens their wages because if money is constantly being inflated, their wage are constantly a little behind the times. We could explain that the prosperity and competition of the whole industry lead to better conditions and bargaining power for its workers! We could adamantly defend their right to a jury of their peers, their right to sue companies, and other such things that employers get workers to waive away with the help of scheming lawyers.

In equal measure, perhaps we should spend a little less time getting enraged that the wealthiest people on earth have to pay a different and higher tax rate when they already have enough steady income regardless to have greater freedom than the rest of us by orders of magnitude! Federal and State income taxes, after all, are not so high that a decrease to the tax brackets is going to reduce government debt, as the Laffer Curve shows. Moving our country further towards bankruptcy is scarier to the average worker than hearing that their wealthy-beyond-belief boss will have to endure a small tax increase or the lack of any change to their taxes. Even among Libertarian voters, if you ask them who they have in mind when they shout “taxation is theft,” it’s unlikely they will name their company’s CEO unless they happen to be self-employed, a small demographic.

Dare To Imagine

I agree it is good that we champion everyone’s freedom and rights out of an all-encompassing, principled respect for the dignity of humanity. However, if we choose to be contrarians who openly fret often about tiny minorities, moral scoundrels, and the business-owning richest gentry, we risk alienating the larger demographics by giving them the impression we are as much in a bubble as the extremists of the rival parties. In trying to make a narrow case for Populism, I only seek to remind you that we should dare to imagine a world in which we don’t have to compromise our beliefs long-term yet find a way to win the enthusiasm of the masses through crafting a short-term plan that piques their interest. Once we earn their trust, then we can attempt the controversial things we dream of. I believe this is possible, and I desire for us to take that mission seriously.