| |
I have to echo Duane on this... GREAT analysis, Dave!
While I am not sure that there might have been a few categories missed I
don't see that as at the crux... the point is that there are filters you can
apply
I think you could apply your filters successively to get down to a fairly
small percentage (I think, unfortunately, that it IS a small percentage,
because a lot of people still think Lyndon LaRouche, etc or just don't want
to think deeply about politics or economics) of the population that:
- is aware of the LP (this rules out a pretty fair number)
- understands what the LP is advocating (this rules out a large number, I think)
- doesn't see the current campaign imbrogios as stoppers. (this is a small
number but a significant fraction of the remainder after the first two
filters do drop away... given the mess, I wonder if I am in this fraction,
actually... Harry Brown kind of annoys me)
- either agrees or doesn't, but does so on an informed basis
What demographics that fraction would be, I cannot say. I do think it
already skews in the more educated, more well off direction. That's not
meant as a slam, just as an acknowledgement of reality.
But I do agree that from THAT fraction, to the next smaller one, that is,
the group that is not only aware and understands but *also* agrees... there
is a shift in demo even more radical in skew toward white male.
As I said in another post, I'm not sure what to do about that. I'm not sure
anything CAN be done.
Here's the problem... Unlike the majors which respin things all the time,
since they are unprincipled, the LP can change the delivery, it can change
the order of things advocated but since it's the "party of principle" it
can't change the fundamental tenets that were used to derive the message or
the platform. If it changes the message to be more appealing, it's not the
LP any more, is it?
To get the LP to change message you either have to show that derivations are
incorrect, or you have to convince the LP not to be the LP any more... that
is, convince them to renounce the noninitiation of force. If the LP changes
away from that, I'm not interested in it any more.
So maybe the LP is fundamentally doomed, being pure of idea in a pragmatic
world, to never be influential. Still, it fills some of my goals in that
it's a source of ideas. But then so does the Cato Institute and the Reason
Foundation and the Austrian School. etc.
The world *is* moving in a more libertarian direction. If that continues to
happen even without the LP, that's OK with me. I can accept living in a
world that isn't as perfect as it could be.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: LP Demographics
|
| (...) Yup. Most simply don't have a clue as to what the Libertarian Party is about. (...) Almost every Libertarian I met is fairly-well educated. (...) Essentially. One can view that as being bound by one's principles, or trapped by them, depending (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: boulders on shoulders
|
| (...) Now we're getting somewhere! You've spelled out the heart of the debate in my mind perfectly, although I was trying to remove the LP from my portion entirely since I can neither float nor sink the LP stance. -Duane (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
50 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
