"The Power of Listening: Making Allies Out of Perceived Enemies" - speech at 2016 LPWA Convention

I was invited to speak at the 2016 Libertarian Party of Washington State Convention. My speech was more-or-less (ashamedly less) this:

Who here likes debating politics? [To which the majority of the room raised their hands]

Well, that's because this is a roomful of libertarians. Many people don't enjoy debating politics, whether it's because they're indifferent or they just don't like debating. This is where many libertarians go wrong when trying to get people to join them.

How would you feel if a conservative came up to you and tried to convince you to support Ted Cruz by telling you that all of your viewpoints are wrong? Understandably, probably most of you would feel very uncomfortable, and you would either try to get away or tell them that their viewpoints are wrong.

The problem in this scenario from the Ted Cruz supporter is that they made an enemy of you from the beginning. You can’t assume a person’s views, nor should you point out flaws in viewpoints if you want to politically appeal to them. Having a debate because both of you want to is fine, but you are not going to convince anyone to join your side if you antagonize them.

Now let’s bring this back to libertarians. If you are trying to win votes for a Libertarian candidate, you’re going to positively attract very few members of the voting populace talking about how all drugs should be legalized. If you do happen to engage some people, but you find out that they believe drug abuse would become rampant if all drugs were legalized, you don’t tell them, “Do you even read?? Drug abuse is very bad today because of the criminalization of drug use, and when drugs are on the black market, they usually become worse because they are cut with other substances!” And while a lot of us here have accepted that as our truth, saying this will only scare most people away.

We have to face it: many libertarian views are nutty in the eyes of the general public. A lot of these are beliefs people have never heard of. Never even fathomed of. Using a condescending tone when speaking to nonlibertarians only makes it worse. So…How do we fix this?

As Michelle Darnell said last night and as well as many other Libertarians at the convention in the past few years: we listen. Learn what interests the person. “Oh, you believe in ending corporate welfare? So does my candidate!” “Yeah, income taxes suck. My candidate actually has this idea for tax reform…”

It’s also about giving and taking. If the person is receptive, listen to their points, then share some of your own. This is a great time to provide sources to back up what you’re saying. Unfortunately, I’ve seen libertarians run into problems in this area as well: “Wow, you really don’t know anything at all, do you? Go read some Hayek.” “What? I didn’t know Salma has such extensive knowledge on…”

Me with James Holcomb

Whether these nonlibertarians you’re speaking to are conservatives, socialists, or liberals, there are bound to be some issues you agree on. Learn what matters to them and why. This is not about convincing them to change their worldview. Wouldn’t it be awesome if that happened? If everyone you preached the gospel of libertarianism to became libertarians afterwards? Sadly, that’s not going to happen. The way to win these conversations is to make sure everyone wins. Cheesy, yeah I know, but it is a huge win for libertarianism when a nonlibertarian says or thinks, “I will consider what you told me” or  “Yeah, I will look into that topic” or “Steven Nielson, was it? I’ll be sure to tell my friends about him.”

Don’t think of this process as converting people so much as making allies. If people deem you worth listening to – because you listen to them – they will be open to the idea of working with you. While getting people to join our sides as full-blown libertarians is an uncommon occurrence, it does happen. The change within them may be slow, but it is our job as activists to nurture it, and be patient. Let’s stop looking at nonlibertarians as our enemies, and instead, let’s welcome them to work with or alongside us. This can be our future if we make it so. Thank you for listening.

How Capital City Pride discriminated against Libertarians

Generally, I am not a fan of hyperbole, especially when used as a clickbait title to an online article. Even more-so when conservative media utilizes it to build a logically unsound argument about how liberals are destroying America. While I am skeptical of most media organizations, I tend to be even more skeptical about the stories the conservative media shares. From my observations (and own experience), the conservatives realize that they are losing ground with the US population, having to resort to covering deeply exaggerated stories or what should be a mundane topic meant to send their audience into an emotional downward spiral, hence creating loyal followers.

          

In the past few days, I noticed that my friend, James Holcomb, was upset about an incident that happened during the 25^th Annual Capital City Pride in Olympia, Washington. The first post I saw from him was a photo of a sign saying, “BANNED FROM PRIDE FOR BEING A GAY LIBERTARIAN.” 

“Thank you to all the supporters who stopped to talk to me on the street after getting banned from going into pride. Capital City Pride willing violated our booth contract because some individuals not associated with us decided to open carry (which is legal). We were discriminated against because we support the 2^nd amendment and it was assumed by the event coordinators that we were together with the open carry folks, which is not true. So now the LPWA and myself personally are banned from pride “for life”. Liberty requires tolerance.

After being unable to get any of the local media to cover his experiences at Pride, TheBlaze interviewed him. If an online magazine says “liberal” in a way that is meant to be derogatory, I do my best to avoid them. Many times has The Blaze said “liberal” in a derogatory manner. Hence, I do my best to avoid them. That doesn’t mean I completely shut them out, as there are a few articles here and there that legitimately catch my interest. Despite my general distaste for TheBlaze, the coverage of James’ Capital City Pride experience is well illustrated.

As detailed on TheBlaze and by talking with James, we know that the Libertarian Party of Washington State booked and paid for a table weeks before Capital City Pride. Despite wanting to have a speaker, they were not given permission. The LPWA has been able to table at Pride for four years in a row, with no issues. James asked the chairwoman, Anna Schlecht, if members could open carry because there had been a problem at Seattle Pride – not with the LPWA, but with a demo regarding a person named Sparkles. (Interestingly enough, there is no problem with open carry at Whatcom County Pride.) He wanted to be able to tell the rule to the volunteers, just in case – “knowing the nature of libertarians.” Upon asking, James and the LPWA were asked to never return.

Neither James nor the LPWA were involved with the open carry protestors. James stood at a corner alone for five hours, protesting with his sign by himself. He attracted attention – he was called “racist” several times, but he also had productive conversations with some strangers. According to him, some who were against the open carry group came to tell him off as well, but once they heard his story, felt bad for him.

In a bit of a tangent, I am bothered by how very few other people seem to be irked by the bi-shaming experienced by the member of the open carry group. Bi/pansexuals have enough to deal with, excluding the harassment from fellow queers and “allies.”

During James’ experience and since then, my Facebook newsfeed has been filled with anger towards what happened with him and the LPWA, as well as dismay of how the people at Pride are not tolerant of the 2^nd Amendment and open carry, and why they should be. I believe that that is a completely different story. Personally, I have no problem with people (responsibly) open carrying, but I can understand how an event organizer may be uncomfortable with allowing that when attendees may become irritated or feel unsafe. Let’s face it – those kinds of crowds are mostly liberals and leftists, who believe in no or limited firearm freedom. A lot of libertarians probably agree with the protestors from the open carry group (but hopefully not their tactics and rowdiness), but I am clarifying now that this is not what I am writing about. And again, the LPWA and open carry group are unaffiliated.

No one should be able to argue that Capital City Pride had the right to not allow open carriers at their event. As a private institution, it was within their rights to turn away open carriers. You can argue if it was the right thing to do, followed by many-a-debate about whether or not the 2^nd Amendment is obsolete. Even if there was not a mix-up between the LPWA and open carry organization, could Pride not allow an organization with certain views to table? Certainly. However, if this particular view was not in display (whether through pamphlets and other educational materials or by someone open carrying) and has no bigoted background, one should question the motivation of enforcing such rules.

When I asked James why he worded the sign the way he did, he responded with, “I’m not the right kind of gay.” The gay who is pro-open carry. The gay who is Libertarian.

The fact that the LPWA was even allowed to table at Capital City Pride shows for a fact that Pride did not openly discriminate towards Libertarians. James is not entirely sure if they would have been allowed to table if the mix-up had not happened. According to him, Schechter does not like the LPWA and would not allow them to have a speaker at the event (this was weeks before the open carry fiasco). In other words, they were keen on finding an excuse to give the LPWA the boot. It still comes to question why the LPWA was allowed to table in the first place if they perceived that they are hated so much. (Revenue?) Not every aspect of this story will ever truly be clear to us.

Capital City Pride discriminated against open carriers, which means they discriminated against Libertarians. They discriminated against conservatives. They discriminated against any other group that believes in open carry. But how is discriminating against a conservative open carry advocate different from a Libertarian open carry advocate? Historically, the Libertarian Party was the first major party to announce support for gay marriage, and include it in their platform. John Hospers, who was the first presidential candidate for the Libertarian party (1972), was the first openly gay man to run for president. (He and the vice-presidential candidate, Tonie Nathan, received an electoral vote, making Nathan the first female candidate in United States history to receive one.) Pride made the choice to do away with an ally that has been supporting gay marriage for longer than the two major political parties, as well as the gay man who is a member of the Libertarian Party, who believes in 2^nd Amendment rights. They kicked out an organization that is on their side and paid money weeks beforehand for their table because of their unwillingness to have open carriers at the event, ignoring the fact that they had probably made a mix-up with the LPWA and open carry group. The event organizers, whether you agree with their decisions or not, handled the dismissal immaturely and unprofessionally. If they realized a mix-up had been made, they were probably too hateful, stubborn, or feeble-minded to make amends.

Capital City Pride discriminated against Libertarians in a way that other private entities discriminate subtly (and sometimes under-the-law). If a business does not want to hire an older person, they will look for someone “not planning to retire.” And so on. James and the LPWA were not the “right kind of gay” – the kind that shares the same views on a variety of issues – and done away with. It is something libertarians, especially progressive libertarians, have to regularly deal with.

Whether or not you agree with the wording of James’ sign and that Capital City Pride discriminated against Libertarians, you have to admit that seeing his sign was quite the conversation starter…and that the event organizers for Capital City Pride are major assholes.