This post was written by Steve Heidenreich, but honestly, if he hadn't written it, I would have done it myself. CPAC was awesome, and the strong presence of liberty supporters made a huge statement at an event that would otherwise have been dominated by warmongering and neoconservatism. I can personally attest that the vast majority of YAL and C4L people were courteous and took the opportunity to build on agreements with others in the conservative movement. However, some Ron Paul supporters engaged in incredibly inappropriate heckling and rudeness.
Our numbers may be growing, but we'll never win friends by screaming at them. Think about it: Did you become a libertarian because someone yelled during a speech you wanted to hear? I didn't think so. It is incumbent on us to remain absolutely gracious at all times. Please read this entire piece.
CPAC '11, like CPAC '10, was a wild success for libertarians. Ron Paul not only won the straw poll this year, but liberty candidates and discussions could be seen and heard in every corner of CPAC. In spite of our great numbers and enthusiasm, we also felt the sting of being marginalized and ignored by the more neoconservative crowd. With surprise and horror we had to listen to Donald Trump announce his potential candidacy and watch Donald Rumsfeld be given the "Defender of the Consititution Award." Obviously, despite Ron Paul winning the strawpoll, there is a lot we'd like to see different in CPAC.
However, that is no excuse for the type of behavior some of our number engaged in at CPAC. Whether it was the yelling of "Ron Paul" at random moments during speeches, chanting "End the Fed" at moments that had absolutely nothing to do with monetary policy nor the Federal Reserve, or calling Dick Cheney a "War criminal," a vocal minority of the libertarian showing at CPAC made absolute asses out of us.
As the 70s have proven before, no amount of obnoxiousness will change anyone's mind, let alone the Republican elite.
On Thursday, the "War criminal" comment was made about our former vice president, and "Ron Paul" was shouted during various speeches, leading to negative comments towards Ron Paul by the likes of Donald Trump, and others. I was pretty embarassed, but I felt alone in this sentiment and didn't want to "ruin the fun." Later that night, my roommate at the Adam's Inn confided that he, too, was apalled by the behavior. The next day, the other four members of my chapter happened to agree, just as strongly, and even spoke of talking to Jeff Frazee directly about the issue. Friday night, drunk at the Adam's Inn with a dozen or so other libertarians, I brought this up. Fortunately, they agreed; this behavior just makes us look illegitimate, rude, and unthoughtful, the same way conservatives would classify liberal activists. We all see just how easily conservatives, and especially neoconservatives, steamroller over obnoxious liberal protests, why should we expect to be treated any differently if we act like any "fight the machine" douchebag?
Our movement has spread due to libertarianism's inherent logic and reason behind it. College surveys show that libertarians have the highest IQs and demonstrate the highest knowledge of current events compared to any other group. We've converted a lot of liberals and conservatives by reasoning with them, not by yelling "End the Fed" and rudely laughing their ideas off. When the strawpoll results were announced, we cheered and screamed, but a large portion of Republicans were booing. I know plenty of conservatives, and most of them they don't hate Ron Paul. Neither do these CPACers; they were booing us, because of a minority of obnoxious Paultard supporters.
We may have the truth, we may have the logic, but in the end only 15% of America at BEST is libertarian. If we want any hope of reducing the scope, size, and waste of federal government, as well as bring about social and economic reform, we have to build a coalition. If we're going to go to CPAC and use the Republican Party to our ends, then maybe we shouldn't call their leaders "war criminals" and offend the old people that donate their time and money to make Republican candidates winners. The Republican party needs change, incredible and vast change, but it requires an incremental, reasonable, and respectful change. Otherwise it won't be the neoconservatives being kicked out of the Republican party. t will be us.
So do me a favor, next time you have the urge to act like a rowdy high schooler, just don't. It's a very good thing that we get up and ask questions -- even difficult ones that the Republican establishment has trouble answering. It's even a good thing that certain ideas and statements get booed, like Ryan Sorba's homophobic comments made last year. But booing candidates before they even speak, yelling unrelated and even offensive lines during speeches, and generally acting like the hippie douchebags that failed to change the status quo decades ago will get us nowhere.
- Blog Policy
- Login or register to post comments
Connect with YAL
to the YAL channel on 
Upcoming Events
-
Info This seminar offers an introduction to the thoughts and thinkers of the...
-
Info The contrast between liberty and power in the history of the...
-
Info The summer’s final Freedom University boasts lectures on the hottest...
-
Info This is an all day, family-friendly convention for freedom-minded folks in...
-
Info Taking RSVP now for a June 30th - July 1st convention.We need to secure...
Not to nit-pick, but spellcheck is your friend :) Speech is s-p-e-e-c-h, not s-p-e-a-c-h.
True story: I'm good at grammar and awful at spelling. And the YAL text editor has no spellcheck and somehow manages to block Firefox's checker. Conclusion: Thanks XD
come on
How to be counterproductive: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3doEOtu32IM
While booing probably does hurt our image, and I will take responsibility for having engaged in part of it(cheney'd), I feel like they will boo Ron Paul regardless of our actions. Justsayin.
That said, I agree, this is something we should avoid. Maybe waiting for the introductions to conclude and leaving as soon as the featured speaker takes the podium would be a better alternative for those who feel the need to advertise their displeasure with a certain speaker.
Just remember that they (neo-cons) are in the majority and can boo us as they please with no consequences. We (liberty minded folk) must make our ideas as accessible as possible (at CPAC and on our college campuses). Booing and shouting and presenting our ideas aggressively yields an unnecessary roadblock in spreading the liberty message.
Think about it. How was your mind brought about to the conclusions of liberty? Surely not because someone shouted at you.
Let's pay attention to how real movers and shakers in the liberty movement (e.g. Ron Paul) make their ideas accessible and emulate them.
True story - Youtube videos of the CPAC 2010 strawpoll announcement depict the same exact situation - libertarians roaring in support and mainstream "conservatives" booing. And I didn't notice any of the child-like behavior during last year's coverage.
First of all. I agree that the obnoxiousness and rude heckling was inappropriate.
But I'd also say that manifestations of anger, no matter how inappropriate, provides a greater form of symbolism to the public at large that there is a battle for the soul of the party being waged than blog posts and sign holding ever could.
Not to belabor the point, but the statu-quo has been trying to editorialize and marginalize us for years. Just take a look at what happened with Ron's CPAC win last year.
The only difference between their mudslinging and ours is that they do it with a bit more tact and fancy logos.
I like this article in the fact that it does show the obvious difference between how to win an argument and how not to win an argument. There are a lot of people who will look at this moment and be turned off to whatever message we may have because of the name-calling. I did take part in walking out silently, mainly because Rand Paul was before him and I had no interest in watching Rumsfeld receive the Defender of the Constitution award.
I think there would have been a larger impact that rather than name-calling, people who oppose the decision should have just stood up and left (which a majority did). Even if the room does not empty completely, with video and recording today someone could have shown a massive crowd leaving the room.
or instead of the walkouts or the boo birds, Rumsfeld gets the crickets he deserves. nothing like an awkward silence where there would otherwise be polite applause to get a point across.
I'm glad someone finally stood up and made this point clear. I am often times utterly embarassed by our fellow libertarians who attend these conferences because of the way they conduct themselves at the events. (Hence why I never wear anything that would affiliate me with the ron paul people.) Screaming and booing at every single thing they disagree with or finding the most nonsensical times to randomly yell out "RON PAUL!" or "END THE FED!" It is very stupid and not politically smart. Look I hate rumsfeld and cheney as much as the next guy but were you REALLY surprised the establishment awarded him the defender of the constitution? I mean remember who we are dealing with here, these people will go to their graves defending the bush administration don't think yelling at them during their guys speech is going to change a damn thing. Notice the difference between Ron and Rand's speech. People who out right hate ron paul and will boo him are standing to their feet and cheering for rand paul. That is because THANKFULLY the idiots in the liberty movement have not tainted him yet and he has not yet become synonomous with the pesky libertarians who think chanting END THE FED or RON PAUL is a legitimate form of political activism. Most conservatives (aside from the foreign policy issues) would agree with most of what Ron Paul stands for, but their impression of Ron Paul does not come from what he says or how he acts but their impression comes from his noisy annoying supporters who by screaming and yelling and making a scene directly hurt Ron Paul, a guy they claim to try and be helping. I am 110% for taking down the neo-conservative strangle hold in the republican party but you know how you do that? Influence their voting base to come to our side by being reasonable and rational with them and also by stealing seats away from them in elections. You do not do it by behaving like a childish jackass and yelling in their face! I swear our movement can be so stupid and stubborn sometimes.
I'm glad people appreciate my post haha, feels good, broskis.
I did participate in the walkout, I booed Donald Trump a couple times, and I even called the people passing out Anti-GoProud flyers homophobes (pretty loudly too).As well, I cheered and clapped the longest and loudest for our candidates, and for conservative candidates who promoted liberty ideas.
These are the things that differentiate us from other Republicans, and show our resolve and determination, but don't necessarily garner us hatred or misunderstanding from the conservative base.
I'm not always the most tactful person, to be honest, I'm usually quite the opposite, but even I can see that there's a line between being an activist and being a a douche. Let's stay on the right side of it :)
you're the smartest person I know. X0x00O happy valentines day
I second that emotion
My Republican friends had this to say after CPAC:
"I like Ron Paul. I don't agree with him on everything, but a lot of what he says make sense. His followers are like cult members though! You say 'Ron Paul' and all higher brain function shuts down. They're like Obama's supporters in 2008."
"Ron Paul's supporters are childish, immature, and offensive. It's fine to show displeasure, but quietly walk out! Don't jeer in the middle of a speech."
"I can't deal with Ron Paul's supporters. He's fine, but the people who support him are nuts!"
Truth speaks for itself. Remember that, liberty friends. I respectfully ask you all this: how did heckling advance your cause?
I hear this incessantly. People generally like Ron Paul, though may not agree with all of his policy positions, but most people associate his followers as a zombie-like collective of chanters and hecklers. Nevermind what Paul has to say.
Let's stop shooting ourselves in the foot.
From my experience, the towering majority of liberty activists have never read Mises, Rothbard, Hayek, Hazlitt, or any of the intellectual antecedents of modern libertarianism. It is quite clearly the emotional appeal (rather than the intellectual) that draws most activists in.
Political movements attract zombies like moths to a flame. The liberty movement is not and will never be an exception. Hayek's classic admonition in The Intellectuals and Socialism was spot on: the libertarian movement must attract the masses but it can only persuade the intellectuals (i.e. learned men and women well acquainted with Philosophy, moral theory, and logical reasoning).
Whether or not calling Darth Cheney a "war criminal" is the emotionally appealing approach, I can't say for sure -- though I did feel that the murdering S.O.B. richly deserved it. But most polling data indicates that he is widely reviled; indeed, mainstream Lefties were cheering the libertarians for their rabble-rousing of Cheney.
In any case, I think we should just let each activist comport himself as he sees fit, so long as he is not violating anyone's rights or betraying fundamental tenets of libertarianism (not mentioned in this case). As Austrian economists and (corollary:) methodological individualists, we would do well to remember that each potential libertarian will be seduced by different overtures.
I seem to recall that there was some strategizing around what to do around this award ceremony. Why did some get it and others not? Why did those that did not go along not have the respect for the organization to sit somewhere else or disassociate themselves from Paul's advice on this. Civil disobedience is walking out or talking to attendees about why the award is a contradiction in a non-confrontational way. It is not shouting down these people in a violent fashion.
If you want to show these folks how civilized people should opperate, lead by example. Do not perpetuate the same kind of hate and inappropriate booing and yelling these folks partake in. Write to the world about how you feel or stage events where people can learn more about the issue. Do not disrupt or take hostage the people in the conference hall. You will lose, every time.
Thank you for writing this. While it probably won't do as much good as each of us speaking with our own chapters, its a good idea. I should mention that in talking to a few people at the conference about this they responded "oh no, that's too centrally planned" We're all very proud of you for being so libertarian. Now get a clue. Organizing ourselves and being politically savvy is the goal not the plague.
Good point. Libertarianism doesn't object to voluntary organization, even if it's centralized. The idea that libertarians should never work together is ridiculous; civil society is not at all the same as a coercive state.
I agree with Matt that the liberals were probably enoying the voicferous criticism of Cheney (as would any sane person). I hope this will encourage them to learn about libertarianism. Oh...Political dialogue has always been heated and loud. Personally, I like when people loudly criticize war criminals. F#*$ Cheney!
I don't know what is more annoying: hipsters who talk about the revolution and do nothing about it or people who are ignorant of political happenings because they don't think it affects them. How long until we band together and start some positive change? Great post, thanks.
Tina, Sales Intern, www.myweddingreceptionideas.com