If you haven’t yet read the transcript and debrief report of my “confrontation” with Judge Matthew Monforton, please do so before continuing. This article is, more or less, the concluding installment to my trilogy about aspiring minarchist politicians.
Both the Tea Partier and Occupying “movements” alike have inculcated the notion into the majority of American political dissidents that it is somehow possible or even desirable to financially support and vote for grassroots candidates. Setting aside the efficacy of running for public office, the mainline electoral process can still be used as a pivotal educational moment if the opportunity to seize it is taken. It also serves the function of outing the closeted statists, thereby rendering a very public ostracism of these Volksdeutschers as a truly viable option.
In much the same way the Under One Banner petition does, questioning aspiring politicians is a highly effective way to demonstrate to yourself that reformism consistently fails to secure your liberty; however, in order for this to be effective, you must do it correctly. To begin doing so, you must first decide on a perspective to approach from; consider what Christopher Cantwell has said about elections:
“When you hear candidates running for office and promising to get the government off your back and punish whoever it is you think is responsible for your problems, remember that this person is just trying to convince you to let them be your new master; and when people try to convince you to run for office, and you get to thinking that you can get the government off of my back, remember that I don’t accept you as my master, and when you call yourself ‘master,’ I don’t care how many people voted for you, I call you ‘enemy.’ ”
In other words, the aspiring politician is also a wannabe ruler, so your entire demeanor towards him should be chosen by you ahead of time, in order to ensure the best chance of success; namely, getting him to admit something revealing (what some people would refer to as “giving him enough rope to hang himself with”).
I would suggest that your behavior emulate that of Anna Rau, Frank Miele, and Mike Dennison, who were the three panelists during the 2014 Montanan U.S. Senate debates. Their questions were written ahead of time and calmly asked without talking over or otherwise interrupting the candidates. Although their questions were rather mainstream in content, they were pithy and to the point, even when they gave a brief explanatory sentence or two before asking the actual question.
What I’m advising y’all to do is that you ask questions of an aspiring politician like a journalist at a debate, not like the other callers on last week’s broadcast of The Montana Republic that Judge Monforton had to suffer through. Preferably, you should ask questions that are phrased and (if you can ask more than one) ordered in such a manner that transcends the left-right paradigm. Never get tempted or tricked into talking about yourself at any real length; keep the focus on the wannabe ruler, because that way, he’s the one stuck pushing a wheelbarrow loaded with rocks up a hill, as it were.
Questioning a politician is also similar to a police interrogation, except that the roles are reversed. The goal here is to elicit a confession from the aspiring politician that he is inimical to the cause of Liberty in some way; if he is even slightly intelligent, he will avoid making any definitive statements one way or another, unless he assumes a particular one is “safe” enough to do so, but only if the audience lets him get away with it. For instance, it is now public knowledge that Judge Monforton:
- Supports most of the GOP platform,
- Believes that some vices are crimes (including narcotics prohibition),
- Supports the infringement upon the natural right to travel by way of government licensure,
- Abhors the competitive privatization of the Montana judiciary (which forces litigants to pay its monopoly prices in the form of “court costs”), and
- Is hesitant about either delegitimizing the federal government or abolishing the Montanan government.
If you decide to listen to the entirety of that podcast episode, how many of the other callers do you think were even half as successful in getting Monforton to admit as much whenever they weren’t pontificating or being unnecessarily rude?
To be clear, there is a noticeable difference between a career politician and his grassroots challenger. Incumbents usually have no interest in talking with individual citizens, whereas aspirants to a political throne are more than happy to chat up the public, much like Rand Paul did. Of course, you should never forget that successful aspirants eventually become career politicians, thus perpetuating the warfare–welfare state.
The sharper knives in the drawer will probably realize at this point that I am endorsing the method of questioning aspiring politicians, despite the fact that I have previously decried the technique of “confrontations” as simply a variant of filming government employees. Let me put that concern to rest by reminding everyone that such “confrontations” were defined as questioning career politicians about things they had already done. I only titled my debrief report on Monforton as such in jest not only of WeAreChumps, but also in jest of Monforton’s previous government job as one of those flowing black-robed men.
Remember, it also helps to ask questions of an aspiring politician regarding topics that are never permitted to be asked in the mainstream media that he would likely have influence over, should he be elected. Just remember to keep the questions appropriate to the public office he is seeking, lest you be disregarded as some nut. If you keep in mind that all these elections are, at most, simply a changing of the guard by the bar attorneys in terms of what oppressive roles they will now play, then you can focus exclusively on how a particular one of them intends to oppress you. Who knows? Perhaps with that kind of publicly acknowledged heads up, maybe enough time can be bought to implement a workaround of some kind that would render their specific despotism irrelevant.