I wonder if publicly revealing your vote worked against Trump at Reason. Maybe not. Here is what Joe Bast, founder of the Heartland Institute wrote on Facebook:
"Did libertarians win the election for Trump?
"Approximately 4.5 million libertarians voted for Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party candidate for president, in 2020. Only 600,000 voted for Chase Oliver, the LP’s candidate in 2024. So it may be fair to assume that Donald Trump in 2024 got about 3.9 million libertarian votes. He won the popular vote by about 3.1 million votes.
The 600,000 libertarians who voted for Chase Oliver probably represent the number of Never Trumpers in the libertarian movement. One hopes they will finally move on to something more productive."
I think the Mises assholes were more successful in taking over the party apparatus than they were in persuading/purging the voting base of libertarians in the country, which explains not just Oliver but why Trump was invited and then booed at the Libertarian Convention. But from Shikha's perspective (and mine), the damage to the brand name is already done. Most people understand the word libertarian to mean something other - and too often, exactly opposite - than what we intend, and it's No True Scotsmen to insist they're all wrong about what it means. We fought for that word from 2015-2021 or so and frankly, we lost. So now, just saying "liberal" more accurately conveys what we believe and prioritize in practice.
James Carville says the dems need to dewokeshevek their candidates to win elections; is this even possible or should the DNC just be disbanded like the academy should be disbanded? Rufo isn't perfect, but he sees clearly what is wrong with the wokesheveks.
Shikha Dalmia says, "Don’t selectively get rid of those preferences that help the most historically disadvantaged people."
The problem is the manner in which "historically disadvantaged people" are categorized as "members" of arbitrarily-defined "communities" or Groups. (FWIW, I agree that we should get rid of ALL group preferences. Full stop.)
We catch a glimpse of this problem in the way Shikha (however inadvertently, perhaps) repeatedly mentions "gay" and "trans" in the same breath -- suggesting the current identitarian conceit that there's an "LGBTQIA+ community," while, in fact, "gay" and "trans" imply very different (and often conflicting) agendas and worldviews -- particularly in relation to the "normie" world.
As an identifying attribute, gays reject "gender identity" (as a mere fashion statement -- at best, a malleable, ever-changing social fiction), while "trans" identities deprecate biological sex. (And, no, we're not defined by our adversaries, let alone by those purported allies invoking "a common enemy" as they seek to keep us beholden to the protection racket that they're running.) I wish Shikha would spend a little more time with Andrew Sullivan on this.
But that's just one manifestation of the problem. Shikha might also ponder why California voters (including Latinos) have repeatedly voted against Affirmative Action. Perhaps she might come to reconsider the paradigm from which the valorization of "historical disadvantage" emerges in the first place: Liberal pluralism was never intended to be an arena for the Oppression Olympics or its promoters among the would-be "cognitive elite."
"... there is not a single Never Trump libertarian you could name." What about David Boaz and Tom Palmer, for starters?
And an overwhelming majority of Reason staffers: https://reason.com/2024/10/17/how-are-reason-staffers-voting-in-2024/
I wonder if publicly revealing your vote worked against Trump at Reason. Maybe not. Here is what Joe Bast, founder of the Heartland Institute wrote on Facebook:
"Did libertarians win the election for Trump?
"Approximately 4.5 million libertarians voted for Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party candidate for president, in 2020. Only 600,000 voted for Chase Oliver, the LP’s candidate in 2024. So it may be fair to assume that Donald Trump in 2024 got about 3.9 million libertarian votes. He won the popular vote by about 3.1 million votes.
The 600,000 libertarians who voted for Chase Oliver probably represent the number of Never Trumpers in the libertarian movement. One hopes they will finally move on to something more productive."
Isn't Elon Musk the spitting image of John Galt? Libertarians always seem fascinated by the idea of "making your own law".
Do you think the LP’s nomination of the avowedly socially liberal Chase Oliver complicates the MAGA takeover thesis?
I think the Mises assholes were more successful in taking over the party apparatus than they were in persuading/purging the voting base of libertarians in the country, which explains not just Oliver but why Trump was invited and then booed at the Libertarian Convention. But from Shikha's perspective (and mine), the damage to the brand name is already done. Most people understand the word libertarian to mean something other - and too often, exactly opposite - than what we intend, and it's No True Scotsmen to insist they're all wrong about what it means. We fought for that word from 2015-2021 or so and frankly, we lost. So now, just saying "liberal" more accurately conveys what we believe and prioritize in practice.
James Carville says the dems need to dewokeshevek their candidates to win elections; is this even possible or should the DNC just be disbanded like the academy should be disbanded? Rufo isn't perfect, but he sees clearly what is wrong with the wokesheveks.
Shikha Dalmia says, "Don’t selectively get rid of those preferences that help the most historically disadvantaged people."
The problem is the manner in which "historically disadvantaged people" are categorized as "members" of arbitrarily-defined "communities" or Groups. (FWIW, I agree that we should get rid of ALL group preferences. Full stop.)
We catch a glimpse of this problem in the way Shikha (however inadvertently, perhaps) repeatedly mentions "gay" and "trans" in the same breath -- suggesting the current identitarian conceit that there's an "LGBTQIA+ community," while, in fact, "gay" and "trans" imply very different (and often conflicting) agendas and worldviews -- particularly in relation to the "normie" world.
As an identifying attribute, gays reject "gender identity" (as a mere fashion statement -- at best, a malleable, ever-changing social fiction), while "trans" identities deprecate biological sex. (And, no, we're not defined by our adversaries, let alone by those purported allies invoking "a common enemy" as they seek to keep us beholden to the protection racket that they're running.) I wish Shikha would spend a little more time with Andrew Sullivan on this.
But that's just one manifestation of the problem. Shikha might also ponder why California voters (including Latinos) have repeatedly voted against Affirmative Action. Perhaps she might come to reconsider the paradigm from which the valorization of "historical disadvantage" emerges in the first place: Liberal pluralism was never intended to be an arena for the Oppression Olympics or its promoters among the would-be "cognitive elite."
Libertarianism - everyone is a boss and there are no workers