Like it or not, it is almost impossible to discuss political effectiveness without an understanding of the nature of compromise. Speaking as an insider of the liberty movement, I believe we have a particularly uncomfortable relationship with it, which we must examine if we are going to cease to be political outsiders.
I'm in the very early stages of preparing a campaign to try to run in the 2016 election for US President. I'll be doing it as a transhumanist for the Transhumanist Party, a political organization I recently founded that seeks to use science and technology to radically improve the human being and the society we live in.
John P. Walters, director of drug control policy under President George W. Bush, wrote on what he views as an inconsistency between libertarian philosophy and support for ending the war on drugs. He claims libertarians get it wrong on drugs. Mr. Walters gets it wrong on drugs, as well as on libertarians.
Many Democratic women believe Clinton deserves the 2016 nomination because she was a graceful loser in 2008 and a good soldier thereafter. Nonetheless, having Clinton and Warren debate Democratic principles would be good for the party. However, the most serious problem with a Clinton-Warren battle is not gender or ideology. It's money. Many Democrats believe that having Clinton as their presidential candidate would ensure that Dems would receive millions in Wall Street donations, and enough campaign funds in general, to triumph over any likely Republican candidate.
This is why the religious right lost the battle on gay marriage. They erroneously believed that the common American value system was their religious beliefs. It wasn't. Our nation's value system is a belief -- often inconsistently held, but one held nonetheless -- that individual rights and individual liberty matter.