|
A
New Strategy For Exclusive to STR May 18, 2009 Then
Saul dressed David in his own tunic. He put a coat of armor on him and a
bronze helmet on his head. David fastened on his sword over the tunic and
tried walking around, because he was not used to them. "I
cannot go in these," he said to Saul, "because I am not used to
them." So he took them off. Then he took his staff in his hand,
chose five smooth stones from the stream, put them in the pouch of his
shepherd's bag and, with his sling in his hand, approached the Philistine.
-- First Samuel 17: 38 - 40 In
How
David Beats Goliath, Malcolm Gladwell shows that underdogs
significantly tip the scales when they refuse to play by Goliath's rules.
From the article: “The
political scientist Ivan Arreguin-Toft recently looked at every war fought
in the past two hundred years between strong and weak combatants [one side
was at least ten times as powerful as its opponent]. The Goliaths,
he found, won in 71.5 per cent of the cases. What happened,
Arreguin-Tof wondered, when the underdogs acknowledged their weakness and
chose an unconventional strategy? In those cases, David's winning
percentage went from 28.5 to 63.6.” The
article focuses on a junior girls basketball team in Week
after week, their unique approach changed the parameters of the game and
took away natural advantages of their opponents, whose teams were built
and trained to play the half-court game. "What that defense did for us is that we could hide our weaknesses...We could hide the fact that we didn't have good outside shooters. We could hide the fact that we didn't have the tallest lineup, because as long as we played hard on defense we were getting steals and getting easy layups."
One
more time, David's winning percentages in conflicts with Goliath: In
Part
1: An Open Letter To Ron Paul Supporters, I argue that libertarians
have thoroughly tried the conventional strategy, and it has failed us. So
how do we get to that 63.6% success number? According to the
research, the first step is to acknowledge our weakness. In the game
of electoral politics, where candidates compete for one vote per citizen,
our team has a huge and fatal weakness that we rarely acknowledge at all. The
statist politician tells corn farmers that he'll score them millions in
free money. Our candidate tells them he'll take it away. The
statist politician tells senior citizens he'll pay for their prescription
drugs. Our candidate tells them the entitlements are bankrupt. The
statist politician leads us to war, and finds his campaign coffers full of
cash from a few defense contractors who were made rich. Our
candidate pushes non-intervention and must hope that enough Peaceniks will
be impressed to donate a few bucks. The statist politician raises
government funds through debt and uses those funds to shower extravagant
favors on special interests. Our candidate must hope that people
will learn and care enough about the debt burden to vote against it in the
face of intense engagement from powerful special interests who stand to
gain million dollar windfalls. The
statist politician goes to Just
as the rules of basketball favor those who are tall, strong, and have a
good jump shot, the rules of democracy favor those who want to grow the
government. For decades, we have been playing by Goliath's rules,
the very rules that allowed Goliath to rise to power in the first place. The
only way we can play away from our weakness is to get out of the electoral
politics game altogether. This
brings us to the first step in a new, more unconventional strategy. Step
1: Stop voting in If
we refuse to participate, we initiate a strategy that plays away from our
inherent weakness and also neutralizes Goliath's greatest strength:
popular consent. I
stand against confiscatory taxes, totalitarian collectives, and the
ideology of the inevitability of the death of every individual....But I
must confess that over the last two decades, I have changed radically on
the question of how to achieve these goals. Most importantly, I no longer
believe that freedom and democracy are compatible. The
Cato Unbound conversation made secession the topic of choice in the
libertarian blogopshere last month. And libertarians aren't the only
ones buzzing about this topic. After
Rick Perry's now infamous secession remarks (remarks he was pushed into
saying by a crowd chanting "Secede!"), a poll of Texas GOP
members found them evenly divided on whether "You
can't convince me that the Founding Fathers wouldn't allow you to secede. The
Constitution is not a suicide pact, and if a state says: ‘I
don't want to go there, because that's suicide,’ they have a right to
back out. They have a right -- people have a right to not commit economic
suicide..." From
the May 7 edition of Rush Limbaugh show, spoken by guest host Mark Steyn: "The
strength of this country is in trusting its people and in trusting its --
the natural competition of a federalist system....If somebody in South
Dakota, or somebody in Idaho, or somebody in Alabama, or somebody in Maine
wants to try a completely different way of governing, that is between them
and their electorate. Where it all gets very dangerous is when you have a
president and a Democratic Congress who are essentially committed to
federal annexation. Federal annexation -- ensuring that there's a kind of
one-size-fits-all model across the country is going to put a big question
mark over Amidst
all this secession chatter, Ron Paul himself made this statement: [Perry] “really stirred some of the liberal media, where they started screaming about: 'what is going on here, this is un-American.' I heard one individual say 'this is treasonous to even talk about it.' Well, they don't know their history very well, because when you think about it... it is very American to talk about secession. That's how we came in being. Thirteen colonies seceded from the British and established a new country. So secession is a very much American principle. What about all the strong endorsements we have give the past decade or two to all the republics that seceded from the Soviet system? We were delighted about it.” Imagine
if this conversation continues to pick up steam. Imagine if some
more big names got on board. Imagine if, by this time next year, a
million people across the country gather for a second round of "Tea
Parties" but don’t aim to reform Washington, but rather announce
their intent to leave it. Some
of you might protest that last sentence.
Some of you have been pushing secession all your life.
Good
job to you. Keep it up. But the vast majority of Americans who want smaller government are trying to accomplish it from within the system. It is to these Americans I speak. We need you to stop banging your head against the door and start trying to open it. Whether
it be Seasteading, Freestating, Cambrian Exploding, Panarchy Chasing, or
just gold old fashioned Seceding, if we fully abandon our strategy of getting
in and instead focus all that wasted energy on dropping out, we'll
be playing our own game rather than Goliath's. What
if an organization like Campaign For Liberty was repurposed, so that
instead of being yet another voice in the already large choir spreading
the free market gospel, it became our mainstream mouthpiece on behalf of
dropping out? What if we made enough noise about our desire to be
done with "My
girls were all blond-haired white girls...One time, we were playing this
all-black team from Already,
the word "treason" is getting thrown at the large and growing
secessionist movement. A particularly ugly post at Alternet
compared secessionists to Timothy McVeigh. MSNBC’s Chris Matthews
called talk of secession “whack-job stuff,” calling Rick Perry a
“bozo” saying, “You don’t have a choice, buddy.” Rachael Maddow
called secessionist talk “flirting to the point of adultery.” When
Eventually,
this new approach becomes a positive feedback loop. This essay is Part 2 in a two-part series. Read Part 1: An Open Letter To Ron Paul Supporters. Stewart
Browne is the initiator of Scarecrow
For President, a project that encourages libertarians not to vote.
|