Miscellany:Running for office as a red piller
|This is an archive of Larson for Delegate.|
With the Trump revolution in full swing, many of us are wondering, how can we take advantage of the great opportunity for change that this new political climate offers? Running for office is one possibility. Even in off-years like this one, you can get involved in state and local politics.
If you choose this path, you then must decide: either run in the primary to be on a major party ticket, or run as an independent or third party candidate. The former gets the attention of party insiders, and maybe even a chance at winning the election. But you'll face a more intense vetting process and probably be competing with experienced and well-connected politicians for the nomination (maybe not such a big deal, if voter sentiment favors outsiders). Running as a third party or independent candidate guarantees you'll be on the general election ballot, possibly attracting more attention from the general public; but you likely won't win. Either option, though, gets you some audience or another for your worldview.
Your worldview is a combination of (1) your cultural philosophy and (2) your political philosophy. Your cultural philosophy consists of what you think the individual man or woman should do, for his own benefit, or for society's benefit, or to live in accordance with a religious or philosophically-based ethical code, etc. For example, a blue piller will say that a man should act as a white knight by stopping other men from hitting on women. A red piller will say that a man should not cockblock, lest he ruin a woman's chances at finding love.
To live your life as an individual man, so long as you lack interest in politics, you need only a cultural philosophy to guide you. But political philosophy can help you see how your red pill beliefs fit into the bigger picture. For example, when you study politics, you can see how white knighting is related to feminism, which in turn is a form of cultural Marxism ultimately intended to move society in the direction of full-blown communism. A political philosophy can give an added dimension of meaning to life and open more doors for you to change the world.
Your political philosophy consists of what you think the state should do. In running for office, you need at minimum a political philosophy, because if elected, you would among those responsible for directing the state's actions. But it helps to supplement your political philosophy with a cultural philosophy, so you can better explain to people how the state's actions can promote a better culture. For example, you might tell the voters that getting rid of no-fault divorce will deter frivolous divorce, which will make men more likely to want to get married in the first place, and thereby reduce the number of children born out of wedlock. Your knowledge of the realities of male and female sexual behavior can inform your politics.
The fusion of your cultural and political philosophies is part of what defines your identity as a candidate. Neomasculinity, for example, is the fusion of masculine culture with nationalistic politics. Other commonly-seen combinations are the conservative Evangelical Christian, the atheistic anarchist, and the leftist feminist. I happen to be a red pill libertarian.
Although every campaign must address political issues (usually you'll focus on 1-3 issues, while fielding questions about others that are of interest to the voters), you can also have overarching cultural themes. "Make America Great Again," for example, is a cultural theme. Donald Trump's proposals to build a border wall, to renegotiate trade deals, and to appoint a Supreme Court Justice in the mold of Scalia are political issues in support of that overall cultural theme.
Here's an example from my own campaign, of using cultural and political philosophies in tandem with each other.
19 February 2017
Today I was gathering signatures for ballot access. It was a warm, sunny February day, the Sunday right before the President's Day holiday. I walked through a suburban neighborhood, feeling cheerful because petitioning was going very well. The voters were in a happy mood, which put me in a happy mood.
I felt tired and wanted to quit, but decided to keep going, to press my advantage and get as many signatures as I could. Just like girls at the club can sense whether you're in a slump, or have been getting laid by lots of attractive women lately, voters can tell by your demeanor whether you've been striking out in your attempts to get people to sign, or if you've been scoring a lot of signatures that day. Giving off a relaxed, confident, happy vibe stemming from recent success will often make the difference between someone saying, "Not interested" from behind a closed door or saying, "Sure, I can sign that" based on very little information.
I walked up to a driveway and noticed an older man man sitting in his car. Approaching closer, I waved hello, and he smiled and waved back. I noticed he had a couple New Testaments in his shirt pocket, and piles of Bibles stacked all over the passenger seat, so I thought, "Maybe he's a missionary? Hopefully not a Jehovah's Witness, since then his religion would forbid him from any political activity..."
He rolled down his window, and I introduced myself: "Hi, I'm Nathan Larson, and I'm running for Virginia House of Delegates as a Libertarian. I'm gathering signatures for ballot access so you can have another choice in November. Signing doesn't mean you're going to vote for me; it's just to allow me to run."
"Nice to meet you, Nathan. Where do you stand on abortion?"
"I'm for overturning Roe v. Wade."
"Yes, I think it was wrongly decided. There's nothing in the Constitution mandating, or even authorizing, a nationwide abortion policy."
Where do you stand on Planned Parenthood?"
"I would defund it."
"Wow! You sound more conservative than libertarian. You're not just telling me what I want to hear, are you?"
"No, Libertarians favor funding those kinds of private organizations with charity rather than taxes. In fact, I favor repealing the 14th Amendment altogether, because it's the foundation not only for Roe v. Wade but also a lot of other bad rulings, such as Obergefell v. Hodges, the decision requiring states to allow gay marriage. The 14th Amendment also is the basis for giving children of illegal immigrants birthright citizenship."
"So do you believe marriage is between one man and one woman?"
"I'm opposed to the state allowing gays to forcing people to violate their own consciences, for example by suing them if they don't bake a cake to help celebrate a relationship they believe is sinful. I also wonder about that gay couple's motives; maybe there were just looking to make money from the situation."
"Oh, I don't think there's any question about it," he remarked. "They knew the owners of that bakery were Christian, and they deliberately targeted them because of their faith. The people in that 'gay rights' movement are so hateful that they can't tolerate others having their own beliefs and wanting to live a different lifestyle than theirs."
He became quiet for a moment, as though pondering something, and then looked a little sad. He asked, "So your views on abortion are based on federalism, rather than respect for the sanctity of life?"
I decided to play to my audience by switching from libertarianism (issues/politics) to the red pill (theme/culture): "Well, I agree that every abortion is a terrible tragedy. I think the most effective way to prevent abortions is to change our culture. Currently, the average girl in America loses her virginity at age 17. Meanwhile, the average age at which women marry has been increasing. Feminists are telling young women that only ignorant, lower-class women choose to be housewives, and that they need to get a college degree and a career to become strong and independent. They teach them to postpone marriage and have casual sex. That's part of what leads to abortions."
He nodded. "I agree."
"So if I were to be elected delegate," I continued, "I would get try to steer girls in the direction of being housewives, by cutting all funding for college degrees other than science, technology, engineering, math, accounting, medicine, and law; liberalizing the marriage laws to allow teenagers to marry with parental consent; and making the government smaller so that families aren't burdened so much by taxes that they feel they can't survive without two incomes. To protect both young women from husbands who might abandon them, and to protect men from disloyal wives, I would also strengthen the institution of marriage by getting rid of no-fault divorce."
He nodded again. "I agree with all that. I just have one more question for you, though. Would you support legislation to ban abortion? Suppose there were a bill to establish criminal penalties for abortion practitioners. Not women who get abortions, but the practitioners."
"As a libertarian, I couldn't support that."
He handed back the petition. "I can't sign, then. But I appreciate your honesty. You understand my position, though? If there were an issue that mattered to you a lot, that you strongly believed was a moral issue, involving life and death, you would feel like you couldn't support someone who had the opposite stance on that issue? We have a lot of ideas in common. But I just can't condone killing innocent children. That would be like if a politician were to say he's going to legalize going to a playground and using a gun to murder all the innocent children. I wouldn't be able to support that politician, regardless of where he stood on other issues."
"I understand what you mean," I answered. "But a law against abortion won't be enough to stop it from happening. My wife is from the Philippines, a country where abortion is illegal. When she was in her early 20s, she lost her virginity because she was tired of living under her parents' rule and wanted to feel grown up. Her boyfriend pressured her into taking some abortion pills that she obtained through the black market, because he was studying to be a police officer at the time, and didn't want a child to get in the way of his career.
"Even in the Philippines, which historically has had a very traditional culture, the feminists are making inroads. A lot of Filipinas are being told by their parents that they need to finish college before getting married. But young women's natural desires remain the same as what they always were. So now sexual immorality is taking root over there too. My wife's father thought he was doing the right thing by telling her to get an education, because he wanted to give her a better life than he had had, but that backfired. May I see one of those New Testaments?"
I began flipping through: "According to the Bible, God's plan was for young women to avoid sexual immorality by getting married. As it says in 1 Timothy 5:14, 'I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.'
"Also, in 1 Corinthians 7:8-9, 'I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.' Also, turning back to 1 Timothy, chapter 4, verses 4:1-3, 'Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.'
"In the Bible, God never commands that women go to college, and God never sets an age requirement of 18 to get married, or forbids young women from marrying older men who are well enough established in their careers to be able to support a family. That's man's wisdom and man's law. A lot of times, abortion happens because young women feel they're not in a financial position to be able to support a child. Traditional marriage is the answer."
"But even pregnant women without a husband have so many other options besides abortion," he argued. "There's adoption, for example."
"I've been married twice," I told him. "My first wife was given up for adoption when she was three months old. She told me that she always felt like she didn't fit in with her adoptive family; that the extended family didn't treat her the same way they would've treated a biological family member. Maybe that was true, or maybe it was her imagination. But she told me that in her opinion, parents should either take responsibility for raising their own kids, or get an abortion. She wrote letter after letter, trying to reach out to her biological mother and establish a relationship with her, but nothing ever came of it. She suffered a lot of psychological problems, and after she left me, she ended up killing herself."
He winced. "I'm sorry to hear that."
"Yeah, adoption is definitely not an ideal option," I said. "It would be much better for young women to marry good, mature, financially stable husbands and then satisfy their sexual desires within that union, so that their kid can enjoy the benefit of being raised by his biological parents. My first wife also told me that if it had been up to her, she would've gotten pregnant at age 14. The female maternal instinct is very strong, and women are only willing to wait around for so long before they start having sex and getting pregnant, whether it's allowed or not. So we need to channel those drives into marriage, as the Bible advocates. Even a lot of churches have been infected by feminism, to the point that pastors won't speak out against young women's leaving their fathers to go off alone to college, rather than getting married and living with a husband. A lot of those pastors are like the hirelings from -- where was it? John 10 -- not protecting the sheep from danger, because they're worried if they offend people, they'll find another church to offer their tithes to."
We talked for awhile longer, and then shook hands and went our separate ways. By the end of the evening, I was well on my way to having enough signatures to file my candidacy paperwork. I felt excited about the conversation, because although the red pill hadn't gotten me his signature, it had kept the conversation from going down the same stale, familiar path of the typical pro-choice vs. pro-life or libertarian vs. conservative debate. It seemed like, by supplementing political debate with cultural ideas, there was potential to add something new to the political discourse.