The newest posting at Libertarianism.org is a 1979 speech by Nathaniel Branden, from the largest-ever convention of the Libertarian Party, titled What Happens When the Libertarian Movement Begins to Succeed? Alas, its audio-only, unlike all the classic videos at Libertarianism.org. But its still vintage Branden, and quite interesting. The sites multimedia editor, Evan Banks, drew my attention to this part of the speech (starting around 22:22) that I think has a lot of relevance to the work we do at Cato and the attempts at persuasion by libertarians generally:
So it becomes very interesting to ask ourselves and obviously I dont wish to imply this applies to all of us, it doesnt but these are trends to watch for in ourselves and in our colleagues. So it becomes interesting to ask ourselves: Okay, suppose that I or my friends or my colleagues, while genuinely believing in these ideals, at the same time have this unrecognized negative self-concept of which Branden speaks. That means that my self-sabotaging behavior wouldnt happen on a conscious level, but it would happen. How would it happen? What kinds of mistakes might we make?
Well, for example, suppose that youre talking with people that dont already share your views, and yet you believe your views have evidence and reason to support them. Now, if you really believe that youre in this to win; to see your ideas prevail, then you give a lot of thought to how to become a good communicator, how to reach human minds, how to appeal to human intelligence. What do you do if youre really in it to keep proving that youre a heroicbut doomedmartyr? What do you do if your deepest belief [about people that dont already share your views] is, Youre never going to get it. Youre hopelessly corrupt. I may be one of the two or three last moral people on Earth. What am I doing at this party anyway?
[laughter]
You engage in a lot of flaming rhetoric you talk about statists, you talk about looters, you talk about parasites in contexts where you KNOW this language is Greek to your listener. Why should you care, your dialogue isnt directed to him anyway its directed to the spectator you watching you being a hero. HE knows what you mean dont get confused over the fact that your listeners dont, the show isnt for them anyway.
So, one of the signs that we want to look out for, and one of the most important signs, happens in how we approach communication. Are we really out to reach human beings? Are we really out to build a bridge to somebody whose context may be very different from our own? Do we still remember that a lot of what we now regard as self-evident once upon a time wasnt self-evident? Or do we walk into a conversation on the premise: Ill give you one chance, after which youre irredeemably evil?
[laughter]
Read the original:
The Art of Persuasion
