Libertarians can learn something from the UFC

The following analogy isn’t perfect by any means, but I hope to illustrate an important point. Political parties, just like businesses, can turn themselves around for the better. Walmart, despite its faulty reputation driven by anti-business activists, continues to trek on, expand, and even shows us that it isn’t an evil monster after all. On to the UFC (Ultimate Fighting Championship)…

Early UFC events were eight- or sixteen-man tournaments wherein participants were required to beat three opponents in a single evening to be crowned Ultimate Fighting Champion. Fighters were typically skilled in one discipline only, e.g. boxing, Judo, Jiu Jitsu etc. and had little experience in battling against opponents with different skills of their own. With no weight classes, fighters could find themselves facing opponents who were significantly larger and taller than themselves…These factors combined led to a trend of short, violent fights. This was very much in line with the way the UFC was being marketed at the time. "There are no rules!" said the famous tagline. Although not strictly true, the UFC did operate with a limited set of rules; techniques such as hair pulling and groin strikes were frowned upon, but valid.

The brutal nature of the burgeoning sport quickly drew the attention of the authorities and UFC events were banned in almost all American states. To survive, the UFC redesigned its rules to remove the less palatable elements of fights, whilst still retaining the core elements of striking and grappling. Five minute rounds, Referee stoppages, weight classes and limitations on permissible striking areas gradually found the UFC being rebranded as a sport rather than a violent circus attraction. As the sport evolved, so did its fans and fighters…

The failure of the Libertarian Party to gain any substantial foothold in American politics has never been because of its core ideology…individual liberty & personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, and peace. Scratch that, that’s actually what the libertarian Cato Institute stands for. The Libertarian Party has mostly been a debate club ever since its inception. It was created primarily out of a frustration with the rising state. As such, you had many in the party that were simply anti-fill-in-the-blank. It became the perfect home created for anarchists, purists, and the like. It was early UFC, "There are no rules!".

The Clark campaign, which was the most successful in LP history, was the high watermark for the Libertarian Party. But respectable names such as David Boaz, Ed Crane, and Ed Koch left the LP to form The Cato Institute. The party split into factions and the LP lost much of its monetary backing. The libertarian movement took a big hit, and just like any other business would have done, struggled to stay afloat.

The UFC was in the same predicament, but managed to get out of its hole as a result of several savvy businessmen. The UFC turned itself around by changing management and establishing a necessary & effective set of rules and general safety on which to proceed from. In short, they paved the way for increased legitimacy and growth. They turned their fortune around, packaged the product nicely, and gave life to what I think is one of the most entertaining sports around today.

I guess I’m writing this more for those that have given up hope on what seems to be at many times a futile effort. Hell, I think every libertarian has thought the same at some point. I just don’t think the product, namely liberty, has yet to be packaged and marketed to the people in the right way. If it means new management within the LP so be it, if it means tightening up our agenda for the forseeable future, so be it. The shock and awe approach has simply got to go.

Fortunately, I’ve stuck with the party long enough to know that its leaders ARE changing their tune and they have tried to engage in real world politics as of late. But it can't do it without your help or mine.