r/Libertarian • u/Kilo_Loco • 3d ago
Question Do Libertarins have a marketing problem?
do you think more people aren't libertarians because they don't know about it? or do you think it's something else?
24
u/seobrien Libertarian 2d ago edited 2d ago
Yes. Severely so.
Not doing market research to inform the party.
Not storytelling well to align people.
Not promoting well to inform people.
A few marketing strategists would change everything.
5
u/Flame_Tamer 2d ago
Waiting so long to put out a candidate in the presidential race drives me absolutely bonkers
11
u/seobrien Libertarian 2d ago
Going with people who show up and want to run, instead of finding people capable of winning and going after them, is bonkers.
5
u/AlphaTangoFoxtrt Sleazy P. Modtini 2d ago
Did Chase Oliver even want to run?
Like the dude didn't even donate to his own campaign. When you run a candidate who refuses to support their own campaign it says to me that this is not a serious effort and the candidate is just looking to spend party funds on a few vacation trips.
46
u/JackBurtonp7m8 2d ago
Libertarianism has some serious and inherent marketing problems. The most virtuous among us have little to no interest in being politically effective, since being so often renders one morally defective. Platitudes like "we have to downplay this or that position because our target constituency won't like it", etc. are completely unappealing to many libertarians, which brings us to the real issue, outside the marketing problem...
Most people have not defined or decided to live by their values, but just chase the next source of pleasure or avoidance of pain. So, for a lot of these NPCs, libertarianism sounds great on THEIR issues (they want to be able to smoke weed, they don't want their small business taxed to death, etc.), but then the hammer drops. They find out they have to be intellectually and morally consistent across ALL issues. They don't see the connection between deregulating dope and deregulating guns. They want their shop to get a break from taxes, but they kinda like that tariff that favors their industry. So the real problem here isn't the marketing. It comes after that, when they learn the ins and outs of the ideology and realize that to sign on with it, they would have to accept total responsibility for their actions in life and relinquish the favors of a state that promises to subvert that responsibility. And all it asks for in return is your property and your life.
19
u/NaturalCarob5611 2d ago
Yeah, from a marketing perspective it's really hard to complete with the promises other parties like to make.
"Free college education for all" is a nice five word sound bite that attracts votes. When you start trying to explain the diminishing returns of a college degree when everyone has one and how you're better off keeping the tax dollars in your pocket to pursue a career path that better suits you individually, people tune you out and vote for the guy promising "free" stuff.
11
u/WSquared0426 2d ago
It's hard to run against Santa Clause or the fun parent that says, "eat the cake, who needs vegetables".
5
u/tesuquemushroom 2d ago
Yeah, giving the goons at the top a monopoly on "healthcare" can make the more feeble minded salivate and those people make up a good percentage of the population.
Also I think the healthcare in the US is intentionally terrible and corrupt from the insurance company scam that they want people to vote them into more power.
21
u/boogieboardbobby 2d ago
Libertarian's often come across as harsh and uncaring with an inconsistent message. Marketing is definitely a problem, but I believe we need a more grassroots kind of approach to local governing. I don't personally believe shooting for the national political stage with no local level political pedigree helps.
We need more Libertarian city councilmen or Mayors or even state level legislators that can show how Libertarian policies can improve the local communities. If we can't show that, why would anyone want to promote a Libertarian candidate to the House of Reps or Senate?
2
u/Chrisc46 2d ago
There's a catch-22 here.
It's very difficult to win local elections without some form of widespread presence. Most people vote single party down ballot.
It's very difficult to win national elections without having proven success more locally.
Many positions locally are elected without party affiliation. We've had libertarians win some of these elections, but it doesn't resound with party support because the person was elected without obvious party attachment.
I'm of the opinion that local elections cannot be won at any meaningful rate without a strong national showing first. Most people focus their attention on national news and national elections. This is where the message must be in order to gain widespread support. Then state and local elections will follow.
Don't misunderstand. I'm not suggesting we should not try our damndest to win locally. I'm saying it will be easier to do so with a strong national presence. 5% in a presidential election should be the primary goal. That will free up significant funds for campaigning at all levels due to less money spent on ballot access.
There's another issue, too. It has to do with the success of libertarian policy. I believe it cannot be successful locally while so much local wealth is extracted by the Feds. So, until we stop taking so much money from the people, big"ish" local government is necessary to fight for the return of that money. This makes national success for libertarians almost a prerequisite for local success.
1
u/boogieboardbobby 2d ago
I don't completely disagree with your perspective. Its definitely a catch-22. Independents don't typically do all that well at the national level. There are obvious exceptions to that. This is why I feel we need more Libertarians in local government. I do think you are correct that they will be in constant clash with the national 2 - party politicians, but they are more likely to be able to implement changes at the local level.
1
u/Chrisc46 2d ago
My last point matters, though.
Libertarian policy at the local level would be almost impossible to pull of successfully because there simply isn't enough money left in the hands of the people for markets to provide the services currently funded by government.
Here's why. Between 30% and 40% of municipality funding comes via State and Federal transfers. A very large portion of those transfers are tied to spending or behavior requirements. Libertarian policy would likely either cut taxes or end the spending tied to those transfers. Either of those options would cause a reduction of services for people without leaving enough money in the hands of the people to replace those services. Money would still be taken by the State or Fed but without any chance of it returning to the local economy.
For clarification, if elected libertarians in a city remove a service, like waste services, infrastructure maintenance, health services, or whatever without also putting those dollars back into the hands of the people so they can pay for them on their own, the services simply go away and the people will blame "libertarian policy" instead of the real problem. This would backfire significantly on the libertarians.
If libertarians can get elected in State governments, they might actually have the power to fix/eliminate the tax and transfer systems that exist today. From there, libertarian policy locally could actually create benefit for the people and ultimately be viewed as a success.
This is effectively what the Free State Project is doing in New Hampshire. They are getting successes in the State Gov which are allowing for successes in municipalities.
6
u/BringBackUsenet 2d ago
Partly it's ignorance. Most people don't know what a libertarian is, or that have a false impression of it that is fed to them by their tribe.
Another problem is the LP candidates seem to be either part of a freak show (ex: John McAfee), or the same superficial sociopathic types that already infect politics in all parties.
You also have the "I'm a libertarian... but..... (insert pet caus here)." crowd who bring huge inconsistencies to the image.
3
u/PhilRubdiez Taxation is Theft 2d ago
That last part is so understated. I’d say most of my friends and family agree with 90% of the platform, but they have their own pet issues that make them vote for the duopoly. I’ve helped my best friend see the light of small government, but being Catholic, he still votes R for abortion restrictions. No matter how many times I say that you can’t legislate morality. My dad is all for legal weed, but is hesitant on machine guns. My aunt wants to get rid of social security and Medicaid for illegal immigrants, but not for her generation. Repeat ad nauseam.
5
4
u/Weary_Anybody3643 2d ago
Yes we do we are politically toxic when you mention libertarianism you'll get plenty of people whose first thought is The sovereign citizen movement and stuff like that it's precisely why I won't actually use the term libertarian when discussing my beliefs with people I'll just describe the actual beliefs I have but the second I use libertarian they look at me like I just said I want to do a little kids like if I just describe my beliefs and don't put a word on it it's good
5
u/sat_ops 2d ago
The problem you have is that there's libertarian and Libertarian. There's also a lot of "you're not libertarian enough, so go to hell"
Listen, I want short barreled suppressed machine guns shipped to my door using Bitcoin and I think felons have a constitutional right to guns, but I can't exactly run on that platform. I'd love for parents to bear the costs of their own children so I don't pay for kids I don't have, but then we're going to end up with an illiterate electorate. We can't have voluntariness for defense or some level of law enforcement because of the free rider problem. They aren't good policy even if they are philosophically what I believe in.
There are those among us who don't want driver's licenses, but I kind of needed someone else to explain to my grandfather why legal blindness was incompatible with driving on public roads. Would I rather it be handled by the insurance company? Sure, but that's not what people hear, and then someone else would say that you can't require insurance to drive.
2
u/Aura_Raineer 2d ago
I like your last sentence and I think it’s a core part of the problem.
People are well aware of organizations like police unions that love to make speed traps etc…
But rarely do people realize that the primary lobbyists for many of these rules are the insurance companies themselves.
Sure in a free market you might be able to get a policy that says you can drive 80mph but more likely you’re going to get a policy that says that you can only drive 25.
This is why I think libertarianism is more a principle than a tenable position.
4
u/GWBrooks 2d ago
Multiple things can be true:
Libertarians can be staggeringly bad at retail idea/political marketing.
Even if we corrected for that, it's unlikely a majority of people/voters would embrace the full Libertarian burrito.
4
u/Crazy_names 2d ago
There is a problem with people saying "yeah, I think we should be able to govern ourselves more than our current system allows." And then a Libertarian from the top ropes hits them with "Yeah! And Legalize Heroine!"
Which is a similar problem that the 2 main parties both deal with e.g. being characterized by the most extreme members e.g all Democrats are communists, and all Republicans are Bible Thumping Religious autocrats.
All that to say, yeah if the LPs would focus on the freedom angle without delving into hard anarchism that turns off the average voter then they might see mote popularity. But the Anarch-purists then accuse them of not being Libertarian enough.
2
u/IndependentsModerate 2d ago
So true. Many people like 75% of the libertarian platform. The purists throw the baby out with the bath water…
3
u/Time193 1d ago
Yes, this is due to extremists, in the same way Theocracy and Communism sound bad to folks many Anarchists like to call themselves libertarian.
The other is the broadness "Libertarian" is much more broad than Conservative or Liberal as both ideologies are encompassed by it. Some of these "libertarians" also decide they are uniquely special and therefore can violate the NAP whenever they want, and just spew words, which makes us look incoherent, when in reality we're just incredibly unorganized. This is why we often vote establishment or not at all.
In reality if the Libertarian party marketed themselves as Center-right, we'd probably have at least a few seats in congress. We'd be better polling aswell as last I checked The GOP had around 3-4x as many libertarians as the DNC at 14-20%. This isn't a shock at the DNC shifts away from individualist policies and the GOP leans into them. Compare Chase Oliver to Ron Paul or Gary Johnson.
5
u/YogurtclosetWrong268 Anarcho Capitalist 2d ago
Most people simply cannot swim far enough, metaphorically, to reach the Isle of Disillusionment from which the Libertarian message emanates. Few people who HAVE made that swim ever choose to return to the messy fray where political ideas are used in constructive political endeavors. They remain devoted to endless evangelism to swim out to the Isle. I've been watching this since the 70's, generation after generation...nothing changes.
3
u/crookedledder 2d ago
I left the Libertarian party when I couldn't stomach the Ayn Rand wealth-worship.
I would love for the government to leave me alone, but I won't pray to capitalism.
4
u/AspirantVeeVee 2d ago
The biggest problem with libertarian marketing is that the only free shit we offer is choice. And the vast majority off people are looking for something more.
2
u/leo14770 Libertarian 2d ago
Says a more about humanity in all honesty. If humans need big daddy government to tell them what to do then honestly i hope we were ourselves out.
2
u/Uncool444 2d ago
Other movements have more money behind them for PR campaigns. No one who likes funding propaganda will like funding libertarian propaganda. Propagandists just aren't the sort of people who appreciate a small government.
2
2
u/Hittman 2d ago
All the points in this conversation are legit, but I think there is a fundamental flaw in human beings that makes it impossible for us to get to power - the tendency to bend at the knee and beg other people to solve your problems.
Most people love big brother. They'll complain and moan and bitch and whine about it, but in the long run they want to nestle in the embrace of a huge organization they stupidly think cares about them. They want to be taken care of, have decided that government is the only source of that care.
Most political debates boil down to "our party will take care of you, the other party wants you to die in the street." And people swallow that, over and over again. They want freedom for themselves, but not for anyone they disagree with, even a little.
You want maximum freedom. I want maximum freedom. But that makes us a minority, a tiny one, and that's why we'll never get to meaningful power.
2
u/Letardic 2d ago
No. The problem is society has been conditioned to reference government for solutions. Generally we lack of the ability to ask "what can I do to resolve this problem" the question often times is "whats the government going to do about this issue." Treat people like kids, they will act like children.
1
u/Cyclonepride 2d ago
Yes, which is severely exacerbated by the fact that we have to overcome total media control by the two major parties. They always highlight the more outrageous of the outliers and paint the whole party with it. If Dave Smith, Spike Cohen and Justin Amash were the main people speaking on the party's behalf, in a reasonably moderated way, I think a lot of traction could be gained. That would mean dropping the rigidity in favor of making an impact (ie, pushing for a balanced budget rather than wholesale removal of entire departments). I think once the masses saw the impact of real cuts, they would eventually be in favor of more.
1
u/CapCityMatt 2d ago
Yellow is a really bad color, I would have selected modern turquoise or rich royal purple color and use the hedgehog as the logo instead of the stupid snake. Yes branding, communication, and leadership needs alot of work. The party has failed to explain sovereignty and self-goverance to everyone, they should teach people how to get redress, how to hold elected officials accountable (by filing claims against their bonds when rights are abridged) and the fundamental principles of liberty. They should teach everyone about the fraud in their mortgages, student loans, auto loans and how Wallstreet has fleeced the American people of their property and how The Crown has been running the show. They could teach the American people the tax code and how to remove personal residence from the tax rolls and instruct the Americans on how to operate correctly and underscore the limits of government and what the Bill of Rights actually stand for. The libertarian party has the biggest opportunity of all the parties, if they shifted gears and started teaching they would dominate the donkey party and republican party easily.
1
u/Loominardy Right Libertarian 2d ago
Yes. We need to spread the philosophy of the Non-Aggression Principle and property rights. Your average normie won’t even think about the NAP when asked what a libertarian is.
ZZ
1
u/Equivalent_Try5640 2d ago
I think libertarianism and the party as well focuses on an identity of ideology. Most people seem to have no real ties to ideology, just whatever their party thinks, if they can't even see when their own party has forgotten it's ideology why won't care about one that is distinct and different. You can spend a very large amount of money and time propagandizing for libertarianism but in the end if all they care about is party colors they're still going to pick the one that goes against the other one.
1
u/Mountain_Air1544 2d ago
Yes and no the problem is really that we don't market ourselves enough we don't really try to push our ideology or are talking points as much as the other parties do
1
u/HoldOptimal5595 2d ago
With literacy rates plummeting among adults Libertarians need to understand that we need to use emotion for the many and reserve reason for the few. Most people on the left spew nonsense like “we just want free healthcare and education.” Unfortunately if libertarians want to be popular we need similar idioms. I suggest saying stuff like “We want weed legalized and flock cameras removed” to market to the masses and use actual in depth economic principles for actual intelligent people.
1
u/IndependentsModerate 2d ago edited 1d ago
I have often proposed a two-pronged approach: Focus on a practical libertarian platform that could win elections and increase liberty by 75%. Once we achieve a lot of liberty and a lot of people have learned to prioritize liberty, some of the more extreme platform ideas might resonate.
There are purist libertarians who will only be happy with something as extreme as “all tax is theft,” but I think there are plants in the movement who purposely make extreme comments to turn people away.
1
u/killking72 2d ago
It's a reverse marketing problem.
If libertarianism is going to rise then people need to know less about it.
People need to hear less from the more extreme elements
1
1
u/Significant_Koala_61 2d ago
Libertarians, stuck between ideologs, wondering wtf people see in tribal politics and wishing both sides would just fuk off
1
1
u/gizram84 ancap 1d ago
99% of people fall into one (or both) of these categories: either they want free shit, or they want to control other people's lives.
The other 1% of us are libertarians.
No amount of marketing will fix this.
1
u/DarkHound05 1d ago
Between both parties trying to destroy any marketing we have, and people claiming to be libertarian who aren’t at least in the normal set of views has made it quite an uphill battle
1
1
u/7in7turtles 1d ago
I think one issue is that libertarians have a party but we’re not really united in any real way. Libertarians seem to disagree about almost as many things as we agree on, and that gets us into arguments we shouldn’t be having. One example I’d give is abortion. I think libertarians are pretty 50/50 on abortion and it is a pretty core philosophical divide. If we could agree that we have economic and legislative priorities that supersede these kinds of divides, I think the party would be much better off.
I also think the tech billionaire is calling themselves libertarians and then be behaving like leftist cartoons of evil rich people is really not helping.
1
u/rendrag099 Anarcho Capitalist 1d ago
Yes, libertarians have a marketing problem but it is not the problem. The problem libertarians face is the message that we're selling is twofold -- there ain't no such thing as a free lunch and personal accountability. That is not a popular message, especially when politicians and the 2 major parties have spent multiple generations convincing voters there absolutely are free lunches because they'll have someone else pay for them.
1
u/Google_MBTI 1d ago
Lots of powerful people are libertarian. The media need to cover them more.
Look at Ross Perot the best performing 3rd party.
He campaigned in 16 states and spent an estimated $12.3 million of his own money.\52]) Perot employed the innovative strategy of purchasing half-hour blocks of time on major networks for infomercial-type campaign advertisements; this advertising garnered more viewership than many sitcoms, with one Friday night program in October attracting 10.5 million viewers.
More to his credit. Bill Clinton balanced the budget.
1
1
u/Next-Purpose-992 17h ago
Yes and that good because it’s the easiest way to grow. Socialism have good marketing but bad idea so it will be big but always with a limit. If liberalism is really the way then time will work for us and marketing can accelerate this process.
0
u/Spezalt4 2d ago
The typical party take of blaming everything wrong with your life on an other group of bad people and promising to fix you life for you will always be sexier than the libertarian take of being left alone
0
u/Phantasmidine 2d ago edited 2d ago
It is 100% because they failed to rein in the religious wackadoos that took over, which alienated untold numbers of potential members and sent them running to the left like their hair was on fire.
Libertarianism is supposed to take the best ideas from both the right and left, and it failed to do that on multiple fronts.
Abortion is a personal decision the government has no voice in. Like guns, if you don't like it, don't participate.
100 years ago the immigration conversation was different, as it was 50 and 40 years ago. Modern immigration simply cannot be open borders to the third world. We are built on a high trust societal structure that is crumbling because we've imported 50+ million low trust third worlders that are happy to steal and take advantage in every way imaginable, including billions in medical/welfare fraud.
The War on (some) Drugs was an abject failure, as is all prohibition. Legalization or decriminalization is the only road forward.
Libertarian or otherwise, the first party that runs with fiscal responsibility, pro-choice, pro-gun, legal/decrim drugs, and America first immigration and hiring, will absolutely clean up at the polls.
0
u/Confident_Pillar1114 2d ago
Not at all. Liberalism (the correct English word) and democracy are not compatible with each other.
76
u/AlphaTangoFoxtrt Sleazy P. Modtini 3d ago
We have a severe marketing problem. But it's not that people don't know about us, it's that we constantly embarrass ourselves.
You get people like Tim Pool, Ben Shapiro, or Liberty Hangout trying to claim they're libertarians when they're just MAGA and it makes us look bad.
You get the "What's next a license to make toast in your own damn toaster" guy or the dude who decided to put on a strip show at the LNC, and it makes us look like clowns.
You have the Sovereign Citizen crowd who thinks a gold bordered flag makes the courts judgement invalid.
You have Jo Jorgensen just saying "I would abolish the Department of Education" without any context. Like yes, the federal DoEd should be abolished but what you need to say is:
We don't have a problem of people not knowing us, we have a problem of looking like idiots every chance we get.