Thursday, July 14, 2016

Five Suggestions for Better Creative Media

The following is a short speech that I was invited to give yesterday at Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform coalition meeting at FreedomFest in Las Vegas. I only had three minutes on stage, and a lot of this had to be cut on the fly for time, so I wanted to share what I intended to present in its more complete form here:

For those who don't know me, my name is Sean Malone.

I have a Bachelors degree in music composition from the University of Nebraska, and a Master of Arts in composition for film & media from New York University, and I worked as a professional in the entertainment industry in New York and Los Angeles for five years, before shifting my career goals to advancing libertarian ideas.

In 2010, I worked full time as a hired gun, producing media for non-profit advocacy groups.

In 2011, I built the first media production capability at the news website, The Daily Caller. For the last four and a half years, I worked for the Charles Koch Institute, building a media production capability and growing a creative team inside the organization.

I've won several awards for documentary film-making and have had my work screened all over the United States. My work has generated millions of views, and in a couple weeks, I will be moving to Atlanta, Georgia to take on a new role as Director of Media for the Foundation for Economic Education.

But today, I'm only here to speak for myself.

After more than 6 years working to create compelling media geared toward advancing a more free society, one thing I've been truly surprised by while working within this network is how frequently economists and political analysts are actually the ones writing scripts and leading the development of creative content instead of people with training and experience in the creative arts and communication.

Far too often, decision-makers throughout the liberty movement - many of the people in this room - use creative media not to reach new audiences, but to preach to the choir.

I believe that as a direct result, the organizations dedicated to promoting a more libertarian future wind up producing a lot of videos, podcasts, memes, and other types of content that appeal mainly to ourselves - and worse, often only to the most wonky, academically sophisticated among us. Meanwhile, we struggle to reach the mainstream audiences that we need to reach if we hope for our ideas to shape culture and politics in this country and around the world.

We have to do better, and I think we can.

In the spirit of offering solutions, I have 5 suggestions to improve creative media in the liberty movement that I've learned from doing the work:


Recognize that the folks in this room don't always have the same interests and preferences as everyone else in America.
You are usually not your audience - and that's good.

But it means we can't keep making stuff that appeals only to our own preferences as people who have often read dozens (hundreds?) of books on philosophy, economics, and political theory and expect it to be liked by everyone else.

Videos should rarely be expected to explain everything in detail or go into the pedantic trivia of names and vocabulary libertarians are often excited by.

Praxeology. Marginal benefits. Opportunity costs. Calculation problem. 

These aren't phrases most people know... And they don't need to know them in order to understand and value individual liberty.

Videos aren't academic white papers. Nor should they be.

What they should be doing is connecting people to your ideas on an emotional level. Get people to care first. Once they do, they will want to learn more.


If your organization is publicly facing, please consider trying to hire people with a legitimate background in creative fields - film, music, art, advertising, etc. - and then trust them to do their jobs.
As people with a good understanding of economics, I'm sure most of you understand the ideas of decentralized knowledge and comparative advantage. Don't underestimate the value of other people's expertise. Economists, professors, philosophers, policy analysts, lawyers -- they're all crucial to the work we do in this movement. But they don't understand audiences or conveying emotion through art the way people who have spent their lives doing this kind of work do.

And by the way, always ask to see applicants' portfolios of previous work, and make sure you know exactly what they contributed to those projects. That's far more important than any on-paper resume.

If you don't know what to look for, bring in a consultant like me, or my friends at Taliesin Nexus, the Moving Picture Institute, or from production companies in your area.


In order to attract and keep creative talent, one of the best things you can do is try to cultivate an environment that rewards creativity.
This means being willing to play, to experiment, to set aside time and space to brainstorm ideas, and allow those ideas to play out before shutting them down.

Be prepared to embrace some risks.

There are no guarantees that anything will be a huge hit, but one sure-fire way to fail is to play it safe.

Usually, the worst thing that will ever happen to a bad bit of creative content is that people won't watch it or share it. It won't burn the building down.

So live a little and don't be afraid to do something interesting.


Be yourselves, and allow your content to have its own voice.
Authenticity is the currency of online media especially, and viewers can spot something overly message-tested a mile away.

In the paraphrased words of David Mamet, what comes from the heart goes to the heart -- but what comes from the head, goes to the head and is ultimately perceived as manipulation.


Lastly… Be positive.
I can't stress this enough.

We spend far too much time telling people they're wrong, and talking only about problems we see with the world. And while it's true that you can get people's attention with shocking negativity, you can't keep it unless you offer them a way forward.

As soon-to-be Director of Media at the Foundation for Economic Education, I plan to employ every one of these lessons in the work we'll be doing over the next few years. I hope that you will all join me in improving the culture of creative media within the liberty movement.

Thank you.

Saturday, June 20, 2015

On Charleston, Race, and Violence in America

I haven't posted on this blog in quite a while. In fact, since I've been periodically writing about art & culture at, I've all but abandoned this platform except when something terrible (like getting detained by the Port Authority Police in New York for no reason) happens.

And indeed... Here I am, writing because something terrible happened.

In this case, it's the horrific shooting in Charlston, SC. For the sake of posterity, and possibly those living under a rock, at about 8pm, on July 17th, 2015, a disaffected 21-year-old high school dropout named Dylann Storm Roof walked into the Emmanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church and killed nine people.

I don't think it's an understatement to call it one of the most despicable crimes to happen within my lifetime.

According to current reporting, Roof hoped to start a race-based civil war in the United States, and explicitly targeted a black church because, according to his former friends, "...blacks were taking over the world," and, "Someone needed to do something about it for the white race."j

This, to me, seems like the embodiment of the literal definition of "terrorism", whether legally defined as such or not.

From my reading of the Daily Beast's synopsis of what we know of Roof, I described him as a heavy alcohol user into hard drugs, a racist with grand dreams of inciting a civil war, a loner but not conforming to any narrative of the bullied teen lashing out. This description shows him as complex in a compounding number of awful ways... Every person who seems to have known him could likely have known what he would do, but at the same time might not have wanted to believe it. I would like to believe none would have supported it. Roof certainly seems to have had a number of psychological issues, but he also seems to have adopted one bad and wrong idea after the next.

And those ideas and bad choices ultimately led him to kill nine innocent people.

Cynthia Marie Graham Hurd (54); Susie Jackson (87); Ethel Lee Lance (70); Depayne Middleton-Doctor (49); Clementa C. Pinckney (41); Tywanza Sanders (26); Daniel Simmons (74); Sharonda Coleman-Singleton (45); and Myra Thompson (59).

I should note here that I don't know any of these people.

I simply cannot know the pain their families are experiencing right now, and in no way do I pretend to have any concept of what anyone in that part of the country is feeling today.

Moreover, I am an atheist. I'm also a white guy who grew up in the Midwest/Pacific Northwest and I don't think I know anyone who's been murdered. I have no direct tie to this community or this experience at all.

However, through my work as a film producer, I've come to be rather close with the founders and pastors of a church in Tupelo, Mississippi that's probably not altogether that different from the one in Charleston. Through them, I've seen a lot of love and kindness, and a ton of hard work put in to make their community a better place, and if the folks at the Emmanuel AME Church were anything like my friends, I think I might begin to understand a tiny bit of the loss a lot of people in Charleston are feeling right now.

But even still, I recognize that I can't really know what they're going through.

And for me, that makes the massacre itself very difficult to comment on. I've stayed out of most (not quite all) of the discussions I've seen on social media so far and I've not written much of anything about it until right now.

I'm heartbroken, incredulous, angry and sad.

Like most people, I wish this kind of stuff didn't happen. There is simply nothing to be said about the shooting except that it was evil, horrifying, and that I have nothing but sympathy for the families of the victims - who, given their response, are some of the finest people imaginable.

Apart from saying things, I do also think it's important to help the people of Charleston recover and showing our support in more tangible ways... Currently, it seems like the best way of doing that online is through the Pinckney Fund (, but I'll try to go back and update this if more information becomes available.


In spite of all the legitimate outrage I feel about this, what I don't want to do at this point is rush to judgments about people and situations I have just admitted I know very little about.

From the reports I've read so far, it seems like Dylann Roof had family and friends at one point, and it's tempting to point a finger at them and claim that they could have seen this coming, and could have done more to reach him. It's tempting to ask why a father would give a .45 caliber pistol to an angry teenager.

It's tempting, but probably wrong.

I don't know any of those people and I don't know what they did or did not do to help Dylann Roof before it came to this. It's not for me to pass judgment in that way.

I also think it's extremely unwise to try to jam this event into any pre-existing narrative you want to fit it into.

So far, I've seen people within just hours of the first reports of the shooting blame the supposed lack of gun control legislation, too much gun control (the church was essentially a gun-free zone), the state flag of South Carolina, prescription drugs, illegal drugs, Dylann Roof's parents & family, the mental-health system, and a whole culture of racism - conveniently all conforming perfectly to what they would have said before the shooting.

Note: Eric Garner's case is still 100% insane.
One of the worst things I saw were questions about why Dylann Roof wasn't immediately shot and killed by the police like (supposedly) a black person obviously would have been, as if the goal should be for police in America to kill more suspects. Ugh. Notably, Roof didn't get shot by police during the arrest because he immediately surrendered, and I'm actually glad he did as I want him to have to look his victims' families in the eye during his trial.

I also saw people immediately rush to criticize "the media" for not calling Dylann Roof a "thug" (insinuating a racist double-standard, although prominent people have used that term to describe him), and mere moments later, others asked why we're not calling him a "terrorist"... Which we basically all are at this point.

Except for this guy, Philip Bump, who advocates not calling him a terrorist because such language elevates his status in a way that he shouldn't warrant:
"To the extent that labeling his actions as racial terrorism helps America come to terms with the fact that the ideology he assumed is dangerous and urgent, fine. And to the extent that labeling his actions as legal terrorism results in a stiffer punishment, also fine. But each of these is predicated on our insistence that terrorism is somehow a higher order of evil than simply murdering elderly people for being black even as they held their Bibles in a church. It implies that his mass murder was one thing, but that his scaring us was [what] made things more problematic. Perhaps we should demonstrate to him -- and every other angry young man like him -- that we aren't scared of his dumb Internet rhetoric. Not in the least."
More seriously, though... If the news of a tragedy like this is less than 12 hours old, maybe we shouldn't expect newsrooms across the country to have a fully developed style guide on how to describe a tragedy like this or the people involved. These kinds of events are exceptionally rare and terrible, and everyone - especially in the early stages of reporting on it - is just doing the best they can to figure out how to do their jobs.

No... Actually.... Let me go one step further.

Not only should we not expect reporters to have perfect knowledge so early after a huge event, we should actively want them to demonstrate humility under these circumstances.

One of the biggest problems news media has in this country is a drive to instantaneous judgment and over-reporting on pure speculation. Within a few hours of this shooting, there were reports - rumors more than anything - that Dylann Roof targeted the church because he was a racist. But unless you were actually there, as a reporter, it would be extremely irresponsible of you to immediately judge a shooter's motivations before you even had so much as a confirmation of his identity.

We now know that he was not only there for that reason, but keep in mind that at that point, we didn't know anything about the situation other than the fact that 9 people were dead and the police were chasing a suspect.

Yet there were people on my feed who already seemed to have perfect knowledge of both the causes and solutions to this tragedy.


Making those kinds of assumptions has little positive value at all, and these kinds of hysterical public responses have a really detrimental effect not only on people's accuracy in understanding these situations, but also on people's long-term ability to carefully think through causes & effects. We forget or selectively remember all kinds of important events and details, and then we deliberately try to fit new information into a framework of our pre-existing ideas regardless of whether or not it actually makes any sense to do so.

On Facebook, one former colleague of mine said the Charleston massacre was, and I quote:
"...clearly a harbinger of a larger murderous anti-black ideological movement in this country."
Really? As horrifying as this shooting is, where is the evidence for that claim?

A couple years ago, investigative reporter Radley Balko, one of the leading voices on criminal justice reform, wrote a well-sourced piece called, "The Good News About Race & Crime in America".

Here's a key bit:
"Civil rights leaders and progressive activists have cited Zimmerman's acquittal and the proliferation of robust self-defense laws as evidence of a "war on black men" -- or, similarly, that it's now "open season on black men." Meanwhile, Zimmerman supporters and many on the political right have used the case to bring up old discussions of black-on-black murders in places like Chicago, and to argue that violence in black America is spiraling out of control. Both positions are cynical, and both tend to pit black and white America against one another.

But both are also wrong on the facts.

First, about the alleged "war on black men." The argument here is that laws like Florida's "Stand Your Ground" are encouraging white vigilantism, and moving white people to shoot and kill black people at the slightest provocation. But there just isn't any data to support the contention. Black homicides have been falling since the mid-1990s (as have all homicides). Moreover, according to a 2005 Bureau of Justice Statistics report, more than 90 percent of black murder victims are killed by other black people. And if we look at interracial murder, there are about twice as many black-on-white murders as the other way around, and that ratio has held steady for decades.

However, it also isn't true that black America is growing increasingly violent. Again, black homicides, like all homicides, are in a steep, 20-year decline. In fact, the rates at which blacks both commit and are victims of homicide have shown sharper declines than those of whites. It's true that Chicago has had an unusually violent last few years, but this is an anomaly among big American cities. The 2012 murder rate in Washington, D.C., for example, hit a 50-year low. Violent crime in New York and Los Angeles is also falling to levels we haven't seen in decades."
In the article, Radley also references a Scripps Howard study that talks about these crime rate trends:
"The Scripps Howard piece also takes a regional approach: 'Contrary to popular stereotypes, interracial killings are relatively rare in rural Deep South states, occurring at a rate well below the national average. Several crime experts agreed this rise reflects increasing social contact between Americans of different races occurring in many, but not all, communities.'"
[Sidenote: The above is an important quote in context, but read Radley's full article to understand more about the Scripps Howard study's flaws]

Anyway... In addition to those fantastic trends on violence, it's also true that more people than ever - currently 87% according to Gallup - think interracial marriages are just fine. This is just the kind of thing you'd expect not to see if there was a growing, murderous trend of white supremacy in the United States.


There are clearly still a lot of problems with racism in this country, and I don't want to sugarcoat anything here. Allow me to repeat that:

There are still a lot of problems with racism in America. 

Apart from the measurable disparities in income, education, crime rates, and experiences with the criminal justice system, Gallup polls are now showing an increasing trend of people worried about race relations in America. Trust for the police is understandably on the decline, and far more so among blacks than whites.

Here's the thing, though... I honestly have to wonder how much of those trends are driven by the media and by sensationalist claims like the one I boldly quoted above?

The truth is, most of the media reports on violence in very, very different ways depending on the narrative they want to portray, and what if a lot of those narratives are just... well... wrong?

My dear friend Mary Katharine Ham (and her buddy, Guy Benson) have an excellent new book out right now called "End of Discussion" that actually gets into this problem in some depth.

Chapter 7 of their book is titled, "(Different) Rules for 'Radicals': Double Standards on Violence and Rhetoric", and it begins by telling the story of a shooting in 2012 that to be honest, I knew next to nothing about. I suspect most people know little about it, even though it's actually quite similar to this one in a lot of ways.

The beats are eerily familiar:

A young man with a gun and a political agenda entered a religious organization with the goal of murdering as many people as possible to prove to the world that their existence would not be tolerated.

The difference? The organization in this story was the Family Research Council, a social conservative group who opposed gay marriage; and the shooter a gay-rights activist named Floyd Lee Corkins II, who brought with him a hundred rounds of ammunition and 15 Chik-Fil-A sandwiches that he intended to stuff in the mouths of all his victims. He was, fortunately, stopped by the building manager Leo Johnson, before he could murder anyone.

Also wrong, and by the standard definition, a terrorist.
Leo Johnson took a bullet in the arm for his trouble, but no "national conversation" was started about the violence-inciting rhetoric of the left - even though Corkins literally selected his target due to the Southern Poverty Law Center having labeled FRC as a "hate group" for their opposition to gay marriage, yet they've never advocated or participated in any kind of violence against gay people.

I figure there are two big reasons why most people probably don't remember this.

The first is simply that Corkins' plans failed. He didn't kill a dozen people and stuff sandwiches into their mouths, and thus, as macabre as this really is, there were no bodies to show on the nightly news. However, I also suspect that had the roles been reversed and a conservative extremist working off a list supplied by the Family Research Council attacked an gay organization, it would have dominated national news for a week regardless of whether or not he'd actually succeeded.

And turns out, Mary Katharine's book supplies an awful lot of evidence that this would, in fact, have been the case.

From their book:
 "Gabriel Malor, a lawyer and blogger in Washington, D.C., has spent several years cataloging the various violent incidents attributed to the political Right during President Obama’s term in office that later turned out to be either apolitical or inspired in part by liberal politics:

“Media assumptions that violence is right-wing are routine—and routinely wrong,”he wrote in a 2012 New York Post column precipitated by the occasion of ABC News investigative reporter Brian Ross’s speculation in the aftermath of the Aurora, Colorado, mass shooting that killed twelve that accused shooter James Holmes was a member of the Tea Party. He was not, but Ross’s casual association of the two with no verification is representative of the media’s reactions to such incidents.

Malor offers this troubling list and explains the tautology that leads to these repeated mistakes:

“Media figures sincerely believe the right wing is violent, so naturally they assume that violent people must be right-wing.”
  • September 2009: The discovery of hanged census-taker Bill Sparkman in rural Kentucky fueled media speculation that he’d been killed by anti-government Tea Partiers. In fact, he’d killed himself and staged his corpse to look like a homicide so his family could collect on life insurance.
  • February 2010: Joe Stack flew his small plane into an IRS building in Austin, Texas. The media immediately suggested that the anti-tax rhetoric of the Tea Party led to the attack. In fact, Stack’s suicide note quoted the Communist Manifesto.
  • That same month, a professor at the University of Alabama, Amy Bishop, shot and killed three colleagues at a faculty meeting. The gun-loving Tea Party came under immediate suspicion. But Bishop was a lifelong Democrat and Obama donor.
  • March 2010: John Patrick Bedell shot two Pentagon security officers at close range. The media went wild with speculation that a right-wing extremist had reached the end of his rope. Bedell turned out to be a registered Democrat and 9/ 11 Truther.
  • May 2010: New York authorities disarmed a massive car bomb in Times Square. Mayor Bloomberg immediately speculated that the bomber was someone upset about the president’s new health-care law. The media trumpeted the idea that crazed conservatives had (again, they implied) turned to violence. In fact, the perp was Faisal Shahzad, an Islamic extremist.
  • August 2010: Amidst the debate over the Ground Zero Mosque, Michael Enright stabbed a Muslim cabdriver in the neck. It was immediately dubbed an “anti-Muslim stabbing,”with “rising Islamophobia”on the political right to blame. In fact, Enright, a left-leaning art student, had worked with a firm that produced a pro-mosque statement.
  • September 2010: James Lee, 43, took three hostages at the Discovery Channel’s headquarters in Maryland. The media speculation was unstoppable: Lee was surely a “climate-change denier”who’d resorted to violence. Oops: He was an environmentalist who viewed humans as parasites on the Earth.
  • January 2011: Jared Lee Loughner went on a rampage in Tucson, Ariz. Again the media knew just who to blame: the Tea Party and its extremist rhetoric. In fact, Loughner was mostly apolitical—a conspiracy theorist who, to date, has been judged too mentally incompetent to stand trial.
In 2013, Malor added the initial reaction to the Boston Marathon bombing to the list. Because it happened on April 15, many in the media immediately speculated it was a crime of antigovernment or tax protesters commemorating either Tax Day or Patriot’s Day. In fact, the date holds significance for Muslim Chechen separatists, whose cause the Tsarnaev brothers embraced.

We’ll add another instance you probably haven’t heard of: in the early morning hours of September 11, 2014, someone attempted to firebomb the district offices of Missouri congressman Emanuel Cleaver, a Democrat.

An investigation determined that the perpetrator was a twenty-eight-year-old white male who held very intense political opinions, such as: "The Missouri congress has been a willing partner in the US governments [sic] capitalist war hungry agenda." Ah. The dude was a Far Left "Occupy" type. Rather than touching off a national civility emergency, the arrest of Eric King was met with ordinary, mostly local, news coverage."
To be clear, I don't share all this to make light of any of these cases, or to make light of Charleston in any way, shape or form. Nor is it to insinuate that (Ah ha!) all the truly violent people are leftists. I don't think that's the case at all. In reality, I don't think that mass murder of any kind fits neatly into those kinds of boxes. Reality is rarely so simple.

Most cases aren't even "about" anything specific. Most of the time, there's no political statement, no big social change goal, no grand scheme... Usually it's just an insane person.

But the media's double standard is fascinating to me.

I think it sort of gets to the heart of how a lot of people in America might ultimately think about Charleston. If all they've ever been led to believe is that violent crime against black people is on the rise (even though it's not), and that there are racist "hate groups" lurking around every corner (also not true), then the Dylann Roof shooting fits right into that narrative.

If all that is true, then he's not just a lone, deranged terrorist with delusions of grandeur, he's part of a rising pattern of evil.

It's not - at that point - just about him anymore, it's about "society". It's about racial disparities in education, and criminal justice. It's about Trayvon Martin, Mike Brown, Eric Garner, Freddie Gray... It's about #blacklivesmatter.

Suddenly, Dylann Roof is emblematic of everything that's wrong with the United States.

And well...... Maybe I'm being too optimistic here, but I just don't think he is. Consider for a second that even in Roof's own demented "manifesto", he wrote:
"I have no choice. I am not in the position to, alone, go into the ghetto and fight. I chose Charleston because it is most historic city in my state, and at one time had the highest ratio of blacks to Whites in the country. We have no skinheads, no real KKK, no one doing anything but talking on the internet. Well someone has to have the bravery to take it to the real world, and I guess that has to be me."
I know this is going to sound nuts to a lot of people, but isn't this - in some way - a bizarre sign of progress? In one of the most historically segregated cities in America, Dylann Roof couldn't even find a community of racists big enough or active enough to carry out his insane plan.

That's the sliver of good buried inside a flood of terrible evil.

So maybe the lesson we should take away from all this is that when the dust settles, there are actually way fewer murderous racists out there than there are good people who want to live peacefully with all of our neighbors, regardless of our various differences. We're all in this together, and maybe now would be a good time to remember that.

At least... That's what I'd like to think.

Monday, December 29, 2014

Dear Mr. Cantwell...

I'm not normally one to jump into the internecine squabbles of seventh tier embarrassments like this, but I recently revived an older video of mine and it was immediately the subject of a lengthy diatribe by the libertarian "movement's" resident charity case, Christopher Cantwell. If you don't know who he is, well... That's not terribly surprising, and also, you're a luckier person than I.

Anyway, the video in question was a crowd favorite from The Libertarienne Show called "How Not To Talk About Liberty".

Watch it here:

Impressively, Cantwell's screed got just about everything humanly possible wrong about the video and the intent behind it. And what's always fun for me... He attributed it wholesale to the ladies on-screen, and didn't even realize that I wrote and produced it. Pro-tip: Most of the time, there are people behind the camera who actually do most of the work. Just sayin'.

For some reason, I decided to respond at length in the comments of his blog post, but shockingly, he seems to have refused to publish my remarks.

I already shared them with friends on Facebook for a bit of a laugh, but I figured I'd better record them here for posterity's sake. It also includes my first-ever public explanation of why I essentially shut down The Libertarienne Show YouTube channel, so that might be note-worthy as well.

Without further adieu, I bring you...

My reply to Mr. Cantwell

Dear Christopher Cantwell,

First... You should know that while both Marianne and Cathy contributed some funny ideas, they did not write or produce the "How Not To Talk To People About Liberty" video.

I did.

Secondly... You should know that I'm unequivocally not a left-libertarian, and in no way is this video about "left-libertarianism" or "social justice". For those who don't know me, see the following for more on what I believe in that regard: Thick... Thin... Or Just LibertarianismPLUS?

You are mistaken regarding the purpose of the video.

It is about how so many libertarians - yourself very much included, and more than I could possibly count - often fail to adequately communicate libertarian ideas to non-libertarians who do not already share in a preconceived understanding of what the philosophy is, or even what "liberty" itself actually means as a concept. It is a hopefully comedic effort to talk about the *presentation* of libertarian ideas, not to be confused with the baggage of left-libertarianism that you presume the video to include.

Thirdly, I suppose you might be interested to know that the video "disappeared" for a while because I made it and everything else Cathy Reisenwitz is in on that YouTube channel private.

I did this rather intentionally for reasons you might even appreciate. You see, at the time, I took the video down because Cathy had suddenly and disruptively quit our show to pursue a path that I actually found to be abhorrent in many ways. Ironically perhaps, she essentially became your equal opposite extreme and I did not want to lend any support to that career.

I had since been asked numerous times by many fans what happened to this video, and for a long time I would simply tell them the truth: That I had taken it down so as to not give Cathy any added support. But recently, when Marianne Copenhaver asked me as a personal favor, I decided to revive it from the "dustbin of history" in which you seem to prefer it would have remained.

Incidentally, part of my decision to revive it was made on the basis that Cathy (whom I have not spoken with in over a year and a half) seems to have dropped out of "public life" as an activist and public speaker in libertarian circles.

All that said... This video was written and conceived as a way to joke about the numerous ways in which libertarians are completely tone-deaf in their attempts to spread the ideas they hold most dear. Both "left" and "right" are offenders, and I don't consider myself part of either group.

It would be difficult to boil down my decade of experience working in commercial entertainment and now non-profit advocacy film production, the perspective I gained through studying music and film-making in college and graduate school, or to share all the lessons I've learned as a successful producer of libertarian media content... But I can say with certainty that the one thing most libertarian advocates seem to be utterly incapable of doing is understanding how to effectively read a room.

When many, if not most, people in America are generally afraid of guns, and think of people who open-carry at rallies and wave guns around in public as dangerous nutjobs, it's not the best strategy to build your hopes of influencing people toward a libertarian stance on gun rights by putting those people on the poster. Instead, as a suggestion, you might find more success promoting heroic human interest stories about the ways in which guns have been used to defend people against criminals - and by "criminals", I don't mean meter maids, just so we're clear.

Likewise, most people in America really aren't that into polygamy or polyamory, they're uncomfortable with the kind of libertine social culture a lot of "left" libertarians promote, and basically no one likes to be called racists, bigots, sexists or anything else deliberately inflammatory toward their motives. So building an outreach strategy around those kinds of statements is also virtually guaranteed to fail.

And believe me, I also warned Cathy that the path she chose was a poor one for a reason, and not just because I find most of the collectivist bullshit and resistance to intellectual challenge she wanted to import from leftist feminism to be ludicrous, but because it was guaranteed to be divisive and create more enemies than friends.

What's sad to me is that neither you nor Cathy seem to have properly grasped the lessons jokingly written into the video you're criticizing, and perhaps neither of you understand why it's apparently amusing for the fifty thousand or so viewers who watched it within a month or so of its creation.

In no way is the point to endorse "statism", though thank you very much for so aptly demonstrating part of the video's point.

"Annoying for Liberty"
No... It is to make light of the fact that so many libertarians (like yourself) don't realize that the only way to wind up with a more libertarian world in *reality* is to win hearts and minds, and that to do that, you can't yell at people like a raving lunatic, oblivious to their concerns. instead, you have to essentially do the opposite. You have to listen to others, find out what matters most to *them*, and present your case in a way that appeals to the values they hold most dear.

This really is basic, Dale Carnegie 101 stuff, after all... And the fact that you don't understand this point is precisely why you ended up (fortunately only briefly) as the laughingstock of America on the Colbert Report. You didn't win any friends for libertarianism with that... But you did make a lot of people think we're all idiotic assholes.

You gave ammunition to one of the most influential shows in America to paint libertarians as, in Stephen Colbert's words, "Shitstains" and "huge douchebags." It's that kind of completely out-of-touch outreach "strategy" - if you could break the meaning of that word beyond all repair - that sets our ideas back in the minds of other Americans and moves us farther and farther away from the goal of a more free society for everyone.

So thanks for that.

Best regards,

- Sean W. Malone