People seeking to change politics, include sometimes libertarians, have
often been charged with caring more about being right than about winning
elections. This is typically expressed in a way meant to convey something along
the lines of, "You're too radical; you should compromise more, water down your
ideas in order to get more people to support you."
But being accused of caring too much about being right is rather
interesting, when you think about it. Because the reverse implication of "you
care more about being right than about winning," is that those who make the
accusation care more about winning than about being right.
Consider what that means, to value winning over being right. It
suggests a willingness to do what's wrong, to act unethically, if you think it
will help you win. Do we really want or need more ethically bankrupt
politicians who care more about winning than about doing the right thing?
If the ideas and approach advocated by a person or a group won't make
the world a better, freer place, that person or group does not deserve your
political support, no matter how popular, charismatic, successful, famous,
rich, compassionate, cool, or nice they may be.
So do care about whether your ideas are right, and when you believe
they are right and worth defending on their own merit (not just because they
are yours!), defend them and advocate them in their purest form. Run on them,
if you run for office. Don't hold back based on your guesses about who or what
you think can win. People's guesses about that are often wrong, especially over
the long haul. Do be willing to adopt and support whichever ideas you think
will make life, the universe, and everything as good and free as possible. Be
and support the change you want to see in the world. De-emphasize winning, and
focus on doing what's right.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
P.S. – TLDR, Short answer: Yes, I would. Better to be right and not win, than
win and not do right.
