Political parties as blunt instruments
Johnny Lemuria asks, in reference to news of the North Carolina Libertarian Party passing a resolution in support of property rights:
I agree with their sentiment, and I suppose it is speaking truth to power and all that, but how much weight does a resolution from the NCLP really carry?
I believe this can be measured in a very approximate sense by comparing the media coverage generated by the political activity and comparing it as closely as possible to what corresponding paid advertising would cost. My expectation is that it will be found that political parties are, as I’ve said before, terrible instruments for carrying on political education. Education and agitation for the goal of a stateless society would be less hamstrung, in my opinion, if not forced to fit within the constraints of indulging in electoral politics. Libertarians should, instead, look into forming local ISIL chapters or autonomous MLL cells. MLL cells may also want to cross-affiliate as both ISIL and SDS/MDS chapters.
Share This
I’m not sure this is a suitable metric, as one can control exactly what goes into a paid ad, whereas a story about a party resolution is going to be truncated and quite likely twisted around.
The best way to use the new media to communicate libertarianism is for libertarians to become part of the news media. This way, the system pays libertarians for the message, rather than the other way around.
I agree that political parties are poor instruments for education, for two reasons: 1) the near-impossibility of presenting a coherent message in media-filtered sound-bytes; and 2) by becoming politicians, libertarians join the ranks of hustlers-for-votes, who most people have learned to ignore, as opposed to public philosophers, who people will _sometimes_ respect.
Very true, Scott. I think you have a more accurate take on it than what I wrote above.
Another thing to consider, which actually is to the benefit of politics, is that people in general regard reporting and journalists’ articles more trustworthy and “neutral” than ads and other messages “directly” from the sender.
Everybody “knows” a pamphlet is less trustworthy than a newspaper, just as editorials and ads are less trustworthy than the “real” articles alongside it. As a former party serpent, I know the no. 1 goal of public relations is to get journalists to write about one’s politics from a positive perspective (that’s why parties and corporations send out press releases, is it not?). People believe what is in the news (television or printed), but they don’t believe statements of “opinion.” (And people trust, even more, opinions stated by people they already trust, such as friends, neighbors, professors, et al.)
I’m not saying political parties are good in any way, but comparing the amount of “media coverage” with the number of ads one could get for the same amount of money invested does not say anything at all about the real outreach of one’s message (political or not).
Another thing to consider, which actually is to the benefit of politics, is that people in general regard reporting and journalists’ articles more trustworthy and “neutral†than ads and other messages “directly†from the sender.
Then a question suggests itself to me. It’s a rhetorical question in that I already have a firm opinion of what the answer is, but…
Are political parties (and reformist groups generally) more susceptible to wasting resources on infighting and internal struggles for control compared to other activist groups who could issue press releases and give interviews just as easily?
In other words, are there intangible (yet significant) costs associated with the reformist approach?
Are political parties (and reformist groups generally) more susceptible to wasting resources on infighting and internal struggles for control compared to other activist groups who could issue press releases and give interviews just as easily?
In other words, are there intangible (yet significant) costs associated with the reformist approach?
Of course there are costs of the reformist approach. For one thing (except for the bureaucracy, internal fighting, and so on), they totally misunderstand the cost of coercion (see for yourself).
I didn’t question the statement that party activism is pointless, only the comparison made between “media coverage” and “advertising.”