Playing to Win?

And interesting take in this column from Rich Miller, published in the River Cities’ Reader:

A friend of mine asked me the other day why I stopped being a Cubs fan five years ago and converted to the White Sox.

There were many reasons, but the most important one is that I had grown tired of rooting for a team that didn’t seem to care about winning.

I have the same attitude about politics.

The Libertarian Party makes a lot of good points, but I don’t think I’ve ever written anything nice about them because they are so generally clueless when it comes to nuts-and-bolts politics. The party speaks of “moral victories” when one of their candidates scores 3 percent on election day - kind of like my friends and I used to do whenever the Cubs played .500 ball.

The author goes on to be critical of Alan Keyes and a Democrat. Click here to read the full article.

4 Responses to “Playing to Win?”

  1. Joe Says:

    The Libertarian Party hasn’t been around since 1959. He seems to be arguing that the White Sox victory in the World Series vindicates his support of a loser team for four decades, but he wants to deprive alternative party candidates that satisfaction.

    Unlike baseball, there is no World Series in politics. Some candidates may achieve only three percent of the vote on election day, but he overlooks the Libertarians that have won victories and are sitting in office today.

    As I see it, it took at least a century for America to get in the mess that it is in. It will probably take at least a decade before we begin to see it turn around. Rick Miller’s generation is into instant gratification. I believe we need to look at our investment in alternative party politics as inter-generational Kingdom advancement. Rather than worry so much about results, I want to field candidates that I can feel comfortable voting for. The Republican and Democrat parties seldom provide such candidates.

    Miller insinuates that if your favorite sports team is a perpetual loser you ought to abandon them and support a winner. I don’t care about spectator sports or whether that makes sense for fans. But politics should not be a spectator sport, and if someone abandons a political party they have joined on principle just because it doesn’t win enough elections, I think they are rotten citizens.

  2. esso Says:

    There’s nothing wrong with supporting a team that consistently loses but at least tries to win. Supporting a team that doesn’t WANT to win is pointless.

  3. Tim West Says:

    not only that, but having ACTIVE OPPOSITION to political victory within the same LP makes your job hard. Dont forget, there are a lot of LP “members” that dont want the LP to be successful politically. They think the party should “educate voters”.

    The primary problem is one of division of labor: the LP has been made up to be the head of the libertarian movement, therefore all of the libertarian movement claims a piece of it as their own, each doing what their tiny slice of the entire libertarian movement as a whole thinks is most important.

    Therefore, you have all these people at cross purposes with each other defending their turf in the party, and nothing gets done becuase you cant herd libertarians in a focused direction. Nobody wants to give up their little slice of the party.

    The LP is viewed as the head of the entire libertarian movement when it really should be the tail. There’s literally hundreds of libertarian groups and advocacy groups out there, and there’s only one LP.

  4. R. Paul Says:

    The Westies are at it again.

    The so-called “reform” movement within the ranks of the LP might more accurately be called a “deform” movement.

    The “reforms” called for by the Westies and their ilk have already been adopted in some form by the numerous statist parties. The “reformers” simply ought to enlist their energies on behalf of the statist parties and leave the LP as The Party of Principle . . . as designed. (N.B. Yeah, we really MEANT that IN 1972!)

    Ideas move people. Strong ideas move more people. Equivocators and wimps with watered-down messages move no one.

    The Welfare-Warfare is about to collapse, and will leave an ideological vacuum as void. Filling it with the avid statism of the “reformers” will not make it.

    The dustbin of history beckons . . .

Leave a Reply