Introducing my tea party group to liberty. Tips or predictions?

[Weedwackr]

So I ended up chairman of a small town tea party group about a year and a half ago.  I was always pretty much a minarchist type since I was a little kid who felt that stuff like roads and utilities would all work better if they were a product of private business entities, but I saw the bulk of the multi-layered governmental matrix, licensing, permitting, policing as being necessary for the protection of rights, keeping us safe, etc. etc.  Most of it seemed pretty reasonable.  My views on illegal immigration and the use of the military were pretty much the "conservative" standard and that being the case I coexisted pretty well with the other members of the group.   As with the tea party type groups in general we were all very motivated by what we saw as the rapid decline in freedom and boost in national debt. etc. etc. 

After some debate our group settled on a constitutionalist educational mission, rather than trying to work to get somebody elected.    The 25-50 people who came to our meetings every week were more or less in agreement that if the populace had no clue about the proper role of government any politician would be powerless to initiate real change.   They would have no backing or support from back home.  I briefly held out hope that a freedom oriented candidate, once elected and thus holding a national spotlight, could act as an educational force multiplier, so I started asking every congressional candidate that came to talk to our group about this.  I found that people running for office didn't generally actually answer questions, they simply come armed with a number of flexible verbal associations that when spoken forth unto a group in response to a variety of inquiries tends to illicit a positive response from the theoretical mean opinion within that particular group. This seemed to be pretty much true even with first time candidates.   Although it looked robot-like and hollow to me, it does make sense that this would be the optimal way for a candidate seeking power to field questions from a group of people.   The higher the approval factor or applause level in response to questioning, the more positive movement of opinion within the viewing voter group, as most people don't seem to posses the internal maxims necessary to make consistent judgments about moral principles implied by various answers to political policy questions. 

So here we were, in collective conclusion that we needed to talk to the common man to change hearts and minds one person at a time.  We gave constitutional seminars and marched in Washington and went to demonstrations.  At some point I decided that if I was going to be sitting as the chair of a group with the mission of educating people about the United States Constitution I probably should actually begin learning more about it myself and start reading the founders.  When I did I began to find that they were out of philosophical alignment with many "conservative values".   I heard a weekend broadcast of free talk live a couple times and started to like the show, but I was still shocked by the open and constant expression of disrespect for the military and police.  After a few shows I finally figured out that Aha!  These guys are actually anarchists (well at least Ian is) which is just crazy right?   But I kept listening anyway.

I took Michael Badnarik's constitution course, read his book, and begin reading about natural law, common law, and the various ways that they, and the individual rights expressed in the constitution, had been systematically eliminated to allow government to become the primary initiator of violations of natural law .  Then I read about the non-aggression principle, accepted it's undeniable morality and begin to apply it to the various political issues of the day.   From there many of  my previous "conservative" views began to crumble rapidly and fall away.   Indeed it didn't take long to realize that the entire premise of a force-based government was immoral and unnecessary.  I found myself debating with "patriots" whose views suddenly looked blatantly immoral.  Instead when I  pushed people to provide the moral basis for many of the traditional "conservative" views,  I found they were based in "well the old testament says", or "it's the law", or sweeping generalizations of "us" vs "them" fears, or my personal favorite "well you won't understand until you accept Jesus Christ".   Have these people ever read Christ's teachings ?

One day I was sent an anti-Islamic type email that quoted a "kill the infidel" type verse from the Koran.  I went and looked the verse up and read it in context and it was actually a pretty good Koranic expression of the non-aggression principle:

“Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities.  Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.” Ch.2:190

The outright irony of invoking an Islamic Expression of the non-aggression principle as an example of a reason to aggress against Islam.  I find it increasingly difficult to debate peaceably with people.  How do they not see it?
 

The most amazing part of coming into a better understanding of the true nature of liberty was when I woke up one day and found group expressions of nationalism and patriotism, things that I previously found to be noble sources of comfort and inspiration, to be horrifying.   I woke up to a world where people I know to have good hearts still seem to cheer for certain immoral and destructive policies out of ignorance and fear.  Now in my discussions with people I continually recognize the ingrained tendency toward tribal group associations and collective speak.  It's like a curse!

I stepped out of my leadership role in the tea party group because I found myself in complete conflict with every member of the group on some key issues, but remained active for what common ground was left, and to be able to work freely to try to snap as many others as possible out of the matrix of crap we have been indoctrinated into. 

So now I have this tremendous drive to reach others and I have begun to stir things up within the group, but I am constantly wondering where this is going to go.    Will I eventually get marginalized and pushed out of the group?  Will I be able to wake up some small number of them, or is a significant awakening possible?

My current strategy is to express the dissenting views openly on selected occasions and read the groups response for emerging support.  I then try to talk to those that are receptive on a one on one basis.  Thus far it has been relatively easy to find the founders, the constitution, and important respected philosophers like John Locke and even Jesus Christ to back it up my positions on most issues.  Jefferson especially was extremely principled for his time. 

So far there is one well-respected individual in the group that has begun to stand up at the meetings and concede that I am making good points.  I have begun sending him here to listen to free talk live, Gard, and other sources of free thought.

I can tell others in the group will fight against principled views tirelessly, but I can see others thinking quietly.

I've gotten a vote to begin a series of debates at the meetings.  My hope is that I can effect some sort of a transitional awakening as I have experienced but I have no idea where this will actually go. 

Has anybody tried this with a group of this type? 

 

[LTKoblinsky]

All I can say is that making conservatives listen to Free Talk Live maybe isn't the best idea...You'll have mass apoplexy on your hands.

[Weedwackr]

Gawd no, I wouldn't send them here!  I have sent one, but he was "ready".  Right now I just want to initiate some sort of transition out of the wilderness.   

[LTKoblinsky]

Gawd no, I wouldn't send them here!  I have sent one, but he was "ready".  Right now I just want to initiate some sort of transition out of the wilderness.   

Ayn Rand led my transition, along with a charismatic, highly educated economist.

[The Green Bastard]

I wouldn't direct them to the BBS immediately but would recommend the show.

[LTKoblinsky]

I wouldn't direct them to the BBS immediately but would recommend the show.

I may be making assumptions, but I would bet that many of these people are middle age and above. Ian definitely does his part to terrorize those that are long steeped in conservatism. Hell, he annoys me most of the time, and I agree with a healthy percentage of his principles...

If I were the OP, I'd start at the beginning: philosophy. Many modern political types are pragmatists. Rand did well in pointing out that a core philosophy is the most important part of our intellect. Build that basis of liberty by following the historical example from liberty's roots in feudal Europe, through the mercantalist imperial periods, and transitioning into the Enlightenment. The gradual growth of liberty away from many long-surviving fallacies should tie in nicely as a basis against modern rhetoric. Just remember, baby steps.

[libertylover]

Your best gauge of the group's dynamic based on Ron Paul support.  If they disagree with Ron Paul's stand on foreign policy.  A policy of closing bases and bring the troops home.  So national guard and reservist can go back to their civilian lives.  Realizing that being the police men of the world if bankrupting this country. 

If they are willing to accept the fallacy in the we have to fight them over there or they will come over here argument.  Possibly pointing out no one in their right mind would invade China.  And China has maybe one military base in a foreign country.   Also, China isn't fighting any wars.  Of the wars it has fought they were in neighboring countries not countries half way around the globe. 

Another option is to find a Libertarian group to join.  They will have you out and volunteering in no time.  Maybe not. 

[The Green Bastard]

Faaaak, I was a sean fuckin hannity nazi for years and was even a bouncer at the venue when king dipshit g.w. bush visited our city.  I was initially extremely pissed when I heard FTL but it snapped my brainwashing within the course of a week. Every other alternative media source I had at my disposal at the time was either too conspiratorial or too intellectual. FTL was a fantastic primer.

[Riddler]

you'll win friends & influence people when they get a dose of dicky & his freakshow

[Weedwackr]

Thanks for the input so far.  No idea what dicky and his freakshow is.  Yes many of these people are older and set in their ways.  I do recommend Atlas Shrugged to people, but it's pretty tough to ask somebody to read a 1200 page novel to better understand your points.   There is typical "cafeteria" acceptance of Ron Paul there.  "I like this about Ron Paul, and that, but no thank you on what he says about this particular thing here" (usually foreign policy).  The few rabid Ron Paul supporters that had attended the group have wandered away for various reasons.     I think the baby step approach has a shot at doing something.  I am going to try to go only to the point that I sense mental gears are turning and there stop for a while each time.   

[LTKoblinsky]

Just remember, many of the group will never sway in their conservative views...nothing you can do about it, just hold strong to your principles.

[libertylover]

Did the Ron Paul supporters go off to some Libertarian group.  That seems to be what is happening around here the real Ron Paul supports are becoming more disgusted and what the Tea party has come to represent.  We are getting a fairly steady flow of former Tea Party members because of the foreign policy differences.  One is convinced that the Tea Party has been taken over by NeoCons/

[Weedwackr]

I think the few Ron Paul people just happened to have time and living situation constraints that made them disappear, but I can definitely see how they could become disillusioned.  I think many in the tea party saw the takeover beginning when Dick Army set about picking the speakers and setting up the events of the 9-12 march last year.  

At this point I have to question whether it's wise to simply walk away and cluster together with other libertarians if there's a shot at reaching some people in my own group who still don't get it.  The reason I hold some hope toward many of those in my particular group is that opinions are developing that we all need to steer away from seeking pragmatic political unity, working for candidates, or working toward racking up votes for this or that person.  Any suggestion that we collectively endorse anyone is instantly rejected.  I tried to introduce by-laws so we could get tax status and accept payments online and I almost had a mutiny on my hands.   That was too much government involvement.   Some members have even begun to become uncomfortable with the label "conservative", they just don't quite understand why yet.

We helped get a tea party group started in the next county over about a year ago and went back a few months later to find their meetings had grown very large and they had set about rallying around unity toward conservative candidates with pragmatic "conservative" victory as the primary guiding principle.  Their leader is a militaristic ex-officer who actually preaches placing principle on hold in favor of victory with "some progress" to a cheering and adoring group.  First you have to win and all that.  We walk out of there literally aghast at what has happened.    

The hard part with our own group currently is that our own meetings have recently become celebrations of how Liberty and Christianity are synonymous.   I've had to sit through several excruciating David Barton type videos where everyone actually cheered and applauded the idea that the government should act as an agent of god.   It's difficult to stand up after that and explain that a "Christian State" is an oxymoron, but I have not been asked to leave as of yet and I am actually getting some support to hold an open discussion about the topic.  

[libertylover]

"Some members have even begun to become uncomfortable with the label "conservative", they just don't quite understand why yet."

That is probably because they realize they are no longer conservative.  Conservative has come to mean only giving lip service to reducing the size of government.  And one of the biggest spending holes in government is sustaining a global police force through our military.  Conservatives have also come to mean end entitlements for everyone except don't touch the sacred cows of Medicare and Social Security.   

The effort to educated can also be accomplished through running principled candidates.  Candidates that don't have a chance of winning.   And even just working on education by itself is a worth while goal.  Most Libertarians around the country are placed in this situation simply because they currently don't have the numbers to win elections.  It is somewhat different in New Hampshire as the numbers of Libertarians continue to increase and spread their message to a fairly Libertarian leaning native population.  The tricky part is determining where the cut off point for acceptance lies.  If you don't stick to your line in the sand of political thought you will forever be stuck in the voting for the lesser of two evils false dichotomy. 

It is very easy to want freedom for yourself but extremely difficult to extend that to people who are not like you.  Politicians are masters at dividing groups of people and pitting them against each other.   Realizing you are being manipulated in this way is a major leap in understanding.  It is very difficult cycle to break. 

Liberty single issues have the best chance of success.  These are issues that the majority of people see as being wrong.  Marijuana policy is one issue which goes across the board.  Teachers who are typically left leaning hate, "No Child Left Behind," and there are many conservative see it as wasteful spending.   Any issue on which divergent groups can agree have the best chance of success.

[anarchir]

I find it interesting that so many people are turned off by FTL originally because it is Libertarian and they were originally Conservative. I was the opposite. The first time I came across it (stumbleupon.com!) I kept going because I was an anarchist, not libertarian. I still am an anarchist, but when I came back and really tried listening, I was amazed at how crazy it was! I used to only listen to it with headphones in my room by myself at night because I didnt want anyone else to hear the radical ideas they were spouting. I was semi-afraid. Eventually I picked up the courage to check out anarchist books from the library (T.A.Z., Emma Goldman, Kropotkin, etc) and now I'm rather a confident Agorist!

It takes time, but really at this point in time (unlike in the past) I am quite firm in my beliefs. Once you recognize the awesomeness of the NAP you really cant go back can you?