Yesterday was a rough day for the Libertarian Party. I think 2020 will be a rough year for its presidential candidate, no matter who winds up getting the nomination.



The polarization in America makes the task of a third party much more difficult. When people are convinced that a victory for the other side means catastrophe, they'll view support for minor-party candidates as a luxury they can't afford.



What should the LP do?



I personally think the party should focus on a much smaller number of races, and concentrate its resources there.



That idea can be fleshed out at a later time. What I want to share with you are some remarks from the former vice chair of the Libertarian National Committee, Arvin Vohra.



Vohra was a lightning rod during his tenure as vice chair, with many people criticizing his abrasive messaging.



I take no position on that at the moment. But although I don't agree with all of Vohra's comments on the elections, I couldn't help thinking he's fundamentally on to something. I know it's long, but I promise you'll read all the way through:



...My first campaign (for House of Delegates) was a lot like Larry [Sharpe]'s. It was a high energy campaign, with the largest Social Media of any Libertarian candidate, flashy campaign materials, etc. I was nice, I spoke at houses of worship, I made the message as appealing as I could. I focused on "pragmatic" solutions, like charter schools and vouchers. I argued against bailouts and cronyism, talked about legalizing marijuana. No one who read any of my campaign materials could realistically disagree with anything written.

It didn't make any difference. I got around 1.5% of the vote. That's when I started getting involved in the Libertarian National Committee. I saw that we had a branding and image problem. On the LNC, I lead the massive buildup on social media, facilitated a new logo, did whatever I could to make things look prettier. I helped train candidates to be better public speakers. I had a close friend who was professional photographer take photos of candidates and events.

But as I learned more about politics, I realized that wouldn't be enough. Politics isn't just about professional demeanor, or logos, or public speaking or even organization. If it had been, do we really think that the non-name green party candidate in New York would have gotten more votes than Larry? Larry is one of the best public speakers in any party. He massively out-campaigned and out-raised the Green Party candidate. Why didn't it matter?

I get why many Libertarians like Larry, Nick Sarwark, and other nice Libertarians. Many people used to like me for the same reason, back when I used to play nice. You can bring Larry or Nick home to meet your statist mom, or your statist friends. That's something I like about Larry and Nick - I can bring them home to my statist friends. I get why some big-L insiders don't like me. You can't bring me home to meet your statist mom. If you come home with me, you're getting disowned.

As an educational expert, I often work with kids who struggle with math. The most common reason is that they've simply underestimated what it takes to be good at math. Correcting expectations is a major first step.

Politics is about cultural and social reality. People vote for the reality they want, which is invariably the reality that puts them at the top - or sometimes the one that just benefits them financially. It's not about logic, or morality. It's about the universal desire to be the best.

Uneducated white men with no jobs voted for Trump, who told them that in his world, whiteness was key, that he would make America White, er, "Great", again, and that he would keep out the immigrants that threatened their jobs/masculinity. Women with kids they shouldn't be having vote for a reality in which sending your kids to public school shows civic integrity. People who joined the government's army vote for a reality in which being joining the military is noble and heroic, rather than a dumping ground for confused boys gullible enough to serve the government. Professors vote for a world in which academia is funded by all of society, in which their esoteric hobbies ("research") are prized above those who create products and services people want.

Politics is reality warfare. And we have to ask, who will most benefit most immediately from a Libertarian reality.

It's not going to be net recipients. Anyone who pays less in taxes than they receive in government school tuition is a net recipient. If you have 2 kids in public school, and pay less than 20k in taxes, you are a net recipient.

I believe it will be two general categories of people. The first is those who pay more in taxes than they receive in services or government salaries. That includes homeschooling families, young single men, childless women, families who use private schools, entrepreneurs who don't have government contracts.

The second is any group that has its power diminished through government. Young men are the most obvious group there. Young, middle class men are inherently disempowered in their relationships with young, middle class women, because those women know that no matter what, those men will have to pay for their kids through taxation. Young men do not have the financial/survival leverage that they would normally have. This has lead to groups like Red Pill, MGTOW, and other groups that I personally am reaching out to.

These are not, by any means, the only groups that would immediately benefit from an end to the income tax and social welfare programs.

For us to win politically, it's not going to be about charisma or charm. Shawn Quinn's homespun charm, Sen. Ebke's air of trustworthiness, and Larry's intense charisma pretty much show that. Unless the Green Party candidate was a hybrid of Martin Luther King and Jesus, I strongly doubt he was more charismatic.



We should have a discussion about all this. Perhaps on my podcast.



In the short run, let me leave you with something -- unlike American politics, which is beyond redemption by any one person, or indeed at all -- that is in your control.



Last weekend on my podcast I spoke to Paul Counts, the seventh great-grandson of Patrick Henry. He and I worked together on various marketing projects this year and have become good friends.



He's had a successful online business for 19 years that he runs from wherever he happens to be. He knows everything there is to know.



For all you wantrepreneurs out there, we shared some pretty darn valuable information and advice, so I urge you to listen:

https://tomwoods.com/bonus-ep-1276-patrick-henry-descendant-starts-selling-at-age-8-works-online-for-19-years/

Tom Woods