nathanielbuildsatesseract | Terminology and Rhetoric (Reply)

I tried and failed to read this article at the Niskanen Center about the failure of the small government movement the other day. Despite an initially strong analysis, it quickly fell apart into another, extremely sloppy instance of the "libertarians wish we had that kind of influence in the halls of power" think-piece genre. Despite that, it got me thinking about the failure of pro-market messaging on the mainstream.

It should come as no surprise to anyone that libertarians are atrociously bad at messaging. The fact that Dan Behrman wasn't laughed out of the 2020 primary (to say nothing of Vermin Supreme) should be more than enough evidence of that fact. Radicals of all stripes stay attached to slogans long past any marginal rhetorical return has vanished, and the "taxation is theft" types are no exception.

I can see a couple of reasons for this. First and perhaps foremost, radicals are not trying to convince moderates, but signalling their radicalism to other radicals of the same stripe. This dynamic turns radicals into extremists in real time. There's a joke that the difference between Ron Paul Republican and an anarcho-capitalist is six months. It exaggerates, but not greatly. I've seen it play out among those who didn't have other ideological obligations to forestall the process.

Second, non-mainstream ideologies select for systematizing thinkers who see and cannot accept the contradictions of modern liberalism and conservatism. If anything, libertarianism overselects for systematizing types moreso than other forms of radicalism, because it doesn't promise the loot that things like socialism and neoreaction do.

Combine these and probably many other important factors I'm not considering, and you get the current state of affairs, where politicians play lip service to free markets, but in practice just blow up the deficit with tax cuts while keeping the subsidies for their corporate cronies and leaving the regulations choking small business growth intact.

I'm not sure how to fix this, but I think a good starting point would be an emphasis on clear, precise, and complete messaging. Many, many capitalist ideas get watered-down into something that serves special interests instead of leveling the playing field. My favorite example of this is supply-side economics, which was originally about reducing the cost of goods and service by increasing production. Somehow, this got reimagined as trickle-down economics, which implies that giving money to rich people is the most efficient way to help poor people. The equation of these two could only be achieved by the loosest, muddiest of thinkers—which is to say, exactly the sort of person who thrives in Washington, D. C.

Rhetorical and terminological shortcuts may save time, but at the cost of the message. Avoid them like the plague—or how we liked to think people would avoid the plague, before we had one and found that everyone is desperate to spread disease if it interferes with brunch. Virtually any existing term or slogan is emotionally-loaded, so explain the idea as clearly as possible before introducing the word or phrase in question. This is a good strategy in general, because it pushes an audience to confront its implicit associations. But it's especially valuable if you're trying to explain what you mean by concepts like "capitalism". Simply saying the words isn't enough, because many people use conflicting definitions. Don't let your message get caught in that.