Thursday, August 1, 2019

Libertarian Strategy and Tulsi Gabbard: Part 2

Tulsi Gabbard
It does not appear that all TL readers get it about Tulsi Gabbard and libertarianism.

At the post, Libertarian Strategy and Tulsi Gabbard, the commenter Shegottawideload writes:
"Come on RW it matters not one whit what she says because as every candidate and every president sworn in, she will not do what she says or wants. She tries too hard and she ends up like Kennedy! 
"Lets talk truth for a change."
My reply is:

So what?

She is simply a tool for libertarians, nothing more. This is what needs to be understood. I have made this abundantly clear many times.

She may become a libertarian down the road but she is not one now. A look at this clip should prove that:
Her usefulness to libertarians is simply her ability and willingness to deliver a limited anti-regime change message which she can deliver effectively, that is all. She is the only one that has been delivering that message with any degree of intensity at the debates.

This is a message that libertarians should want out so that people poke around the history of US wars and realize the story is even worse than Gabbard makes it out to be.

That said, I doubt she makes it into the September debate and so her voice is lost for us.

As for the extremely unlikely event that Gabbard is elected president, and "she ends up like Kennedy," well then that would make one very powerful point to the masses that you go against the elite and you are going to end up six feet under. This is the type of message that would resonate with the masses. It is a valuable message that hits the core of the masses.

Note: I am not calling for the elitist assassination of Gabbard if she becomes president. She knows full well the dangers of aggressively taking on the establishment. It is her choice if she wants to take on that risk.

As for the possibility that she buckles once in office and keeps the wars going, well her strong anti-regime change rhetoric will be a powerful tool to use against her by libertarians if she flips to the dark side.

Libertarians need to get with a greater focus on strategy and tactics. Gabbard can be useful to us but she is not libertarian and raising the many ways she is not libertarian, to reject her completely, misses the point about how she can be useful to us.



  1. I agree about tactical thinking. The left think about nothing but tactics and control of power. I don't think they take libertarians as a threat because of the lack of practical, tactical thinking.

  2. Everyone knows Trump will win. Stop wasting time.

    1. You didn't read the article, apparently. Her use is not as a presidential contender. Her use is as a messenger getting people to think about the US interventionist policy and how it endangers the entire world. You're not wasting time talking about issues.

  3. Gabbard is never going to win the Democratic nomination or become president. That said, she is very useful in that she consistently articulates anti-war positions/non-interventionist positions. If she took Wenzel’s advice (i. e. focused on issues of importance to Democrats, and all voters, like Social Security) she’d be doing much better in the polls and debates. And she would stand a much better chance of being in the game long-term. In the process, she would have had several months to highlight positions important to libertarians (e. g. non-intervention, Social Security as a Ponzi scheme, etc) causing everyday people to question the usefulness of the State. As a result, we (libertarians) might be able to win a some converts.

  4. Your points are well made and of course correct Robert. To be honest a nuance I had not considered. Dont get me wrong I like Tulsi for her consistent non-interventionist stance and that alone raises her head and shoulders above the rest of the field.

    I suppose I see the growth of stupid in the country being so out of control that from every angle analyzed - gaining traction seems futile.

    I just dont see a constructive way forward that doesnt come on the heels of a dramatic crash and burn. Perhaps part of it is also the civic decay as well. Even if people do come together in a meaningful way. Will they be a number large enough and be able to create genuine leverage against the core deep state.

    My gut always says .. no.

  5. Gabbard doesn't need to flip to the dark side - she's already there. It's just that she is right on one issue - foreign policy/non-interventionism. Her religion, domestic policies, etc., exclude her from any serious consideration as a candidate. But Bob is right about using her to spread the non- or anti-intervention message.