The Libertarian-to-Republican Translator - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Classical liberalism. The individual before the state, non-interventionist, free-market based society.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#1844193
http://thefreedomrevolution.com/article ... translator

What’s in a word? When it comes to political rhetoric, everything. For those among us who like to proselytize and share the virtues of a limited state with card-carrying Republicans, I will help you along with a little Libertarian-to-Republican translation primer. Using the suggested phrases in place of phrases you would typically use will help you explain your points effectively and in a way which does not connect you with those groups and individuals that Republicans consider opponents.

Fascist: Where you would use this word, instead try substituting “Liberal.” While any astute Libertarian knows himself to be a Classical Liberal, it is a mis-communication to give this label a positive connotation when talking to a Goldwater Conservative. To him, Liberalism is a term that describes the Guns and Butter policies of Lyndon B. Johnson, whose draft, punitive taxation, and Great Society are seen by any good Libertarian as pure fascism.

Public School is a Propaganda Machine: When you find yourself motivated to utter these words, instead let fly the rhetoric “Get your tax money back to send your kids to private school.” The voucher system is a slippery slope to our goal of a private-only education, where history can be judged by the academic community, rather than a department of the State whose goal it is to make government policies and past judgments look grandiose and successful, regardless of the facts.

End the War on Drugs: When discussing this tough issue with a Republican, harping on the moral virtues of allowing or disallowing personal decisions will likely evoke the image of a society run by Cypress Hill or Snoop Dogg. Rather than forcing your listener into culture shock, try saying “Get tough on violent crime.” Anything tough sounds good to a conservative, and explaining how bad police response times can be when so much focus is put on the drug war allows you to segue into an argument for redistribution of criminal justice manpower towards stopping violent and property crime. With this as a priority, you can explain that the Drug War is an unaffordable mess.

End the Policy of Preemptive War: Never use the word “war” and anything negative before it when trying to convince a Bush-era conservative to oppose a certain foreign policy move. Follow the language of Pat Buchanan on this one and go with “America First.” Talk about the costs associated with building bridges and infrastructure in other nations and complain about our own border insecurity. While, of course, most of us would like to see America without strict borders, this would have to be in a non-welfare state nation. No need to have that debate yet, though, as we are not within putting range of that one at all. Ultimately, you want to use the Robert Taft, “Who cares about other countries governments?” attitude, rather than the Code Pink “War is wrong” approach. Whether this is consistent with how you feel or not isn't important; your feelings aren’t going to stop preemptive war, while getting the Republican Party to adopt the “no nation building” mantra will. I think that despite the harsh, uncaring rhetoric, a million or so people in some third world nation with a lot of oil or uranium would thank you for it.

Legalize Gay Marriage: Most Libertarians rightly believe that the State’s involvement in marriage is illegitimate, and has led to problems. Rather than suggesting that homosexuals have the right to whatever free association they choose, suggest “Putting marriage back in the hands of the churches, rather than the liberals in Washington D.C.” Obviously, taking away the State’s ability to say yes or no to marriage would have the effect of legalizing gay marriage, as some churches would offer to marry homosexuals. However, by using this rhetorical approach you are giving that authority to the Church, something of which most conservatives would approve. This would not force anyone who disapproves of gay marriage to have to participate in it in any way, via the coercive power of government, so in that sense you would be offering the correct solution to a silly, ignorant problem.

Here you can see some examples of ways to Republican-ize your Libertarian views. Try making up some of your own and taking them to a GOP meeting. I’d be willing to bet that, with a little practice, you could make Lysander Spooner sound like Mark Sanford in no time. That is, assuming that Mark Sanford isn’t doing that already.
By Zerogouki
#1844305
One of my Republican friends once told me that it was okay for a government to be it debt because you could "just sit on it and pay off the interest". He doesn't seem to understand that paying the interest would eventually be more expensive than paying the debt. He also believes that the Earth is only 6,000 years old and that the US should support Israeli policy regarding the occupied territories.

I think we need to accept that a large number of Republicans are simply dumbasses, and no amount of rephrasing the rhetoric will change that...
User avatar
By RonPaulalways
#1844332
One of my Republican friends once told me that it was okay for a government to be it debt because you could "just sit on it and pay off the interest". He doesn't seem to understand that paying the interest would eventually be more expensive than paying the debt. He also believes that the Earth is only 6,000 years old and that the US should support Israeli policy regarding the occupied territories.


Why is this guy still your friend? Jk..

I think we need to accept that a large number of Republicans are simply dumbasses, and no amount of rephrasing the rhetoric will change that...


True, I think with the dumbasses, creating hype around Ron Paul and the Constitution could be an effective way to encourage them to join the movement as they love jumping on bandwagons.
By HR_Barca
#1844372
The voucher system is a slippery slope to our goal of a private-only education


no offense intended, but that's just the kind of idea I find ridiculous. Why would we want a private ONLY education?
And I don't believe that it's a question of rethoric. If you don't like the ideas, you don't like them whatever the way they are phrased.
User avatar
By RonPaulalways
#1844441
^ There is a lot of voter ignorance in the electorate so rhetoric plays a huge role in elections.

This video shows how effective rhetoric is at affecting public opinion:

By canadiancapitalist
#1844622
Awesome article, very funny and good advice. It's important we get conservatives thinking about freedom.
User avatar
By Dr House
#1857403
Zerogouki wrote:One of my Republican friends once told me that it was okay for a government to be it debt because you could "just sit on it and pay off the interest".

Your friend is right actually. As long as we don't pile on any more debt, our current level of debt is manageable. The problem with government debt isn't really so much the debt itself as the harmful immediate effects of releasing more money into the economy.
By Zerogouki
#1886701
But... but... the interest payments! What about the interest payments?
By ninurta
#1904096
That's why I am not a republican, it seems they are getting dumber and dumber. Not all of them, just those like Cheney, Rush (whatever limbaughs name is), Steele, Jindall and the rest.

I am a capitalist, one that believes that economies do best when people don't spend what they don't have, and not just sit back paying interest and never the debt. That is how we got into this bad of a recession.

Rich's post could potentially be Anti-semetic, lo[…]

In other words, believers must be "the leave[…]

@blackjack21 this is your opportunity to argue yo[…]

@jimjam is watching it though No, I quote other[…]