Finally, we will conclude by making some recommendations for any libertarian politician for whom the final goal of preparing, promoting and culminating a generalized reform to liberalize the economy and society prevails over his wishes to get into power and remain there.
Firstly, we should reiterate the fact that, in any case, it is always better to do too much than too little. In other words, the message should be radicalized to the point where it puts both the members of his same party and the rest of the citizens to the test. Only in this way is it possible to find out whether, in fact, a politician meets the requirements to belong to group four, that is to say, whether he is able to excite and stimulate the electorate in favour of a correctly expressed libertarian reform policy. The worst that can happen is that, as a consequence of taking up a relatively more radical position, he does not succeed in his own party and is left on the sideline by his more «pragmatic» colleagues. Nevertheless, precisely the acceptance or otherwise of his person and his message is the irrefutable and final proof of whether or not he should continue to devote his efforts to political activity. If he is not accepted, it could be better for him to allow other professional politicians with less commitment (belonging to groups three and two) to temporarily take the lead, in order not to burn himself and squander his efforts, which will possibly be much more fruitful in the long-term in other (non-political) activities related to the study and dissemination of libertarianism.
In this way, he will not waste time or exhaust himself with activities that, in view of restrictions imposed by the environment, make it very difficult to pursue his ideal and which, in any case, may be carried out by other, less committed, politicians. However, it is always advisable that the necessary number of libertarian politicians should be kept «in reserve» in case circumstances change in the future and, in the light of more pressing needs, he is called upon to occupy greater political responsibilities in an environment where he can develop his libertarian program without being unnecessarily shackled by his own party.(31)
There is, therefore, an obvious relationship between what the political environment allows one to do and the advisability of the personal involvement of a politician with strong libertarian convictions. The greater the restrictions, the more difficulties he will have to act in that environment and the more possible it is that other colleagues, with less ideological convictions (belonging to groups two and three) will be able to carry out their work adequately. On the contrary, in circumstances where it is possible to drive forward a more radical program, his personal participation and involvement will be more difficult to substitute, since other colleagues with less education and ideological commitment cannot be expected to recognize and take advantage of the historical opportunity which emerges to implement profoundly libertarian reforms. As is logical, the evaluation of whether the existing circumstances are of one type or the other depends on the discernment and intelligence of each free market politician.
In any case, the main risk of the recommended strategy is that the group four politician may finally be accepted by his party and, after presenting his program and steadfastly defending it, fail to win the elections or fall from power. Nevertheless, even in such adverse circumstances, which have repeatedly occurred throughout history (32), the negative result should not be considered a failure in the strict sense of the term. From the libertarian point of view, it would only be a real failure to either betray the principles or to have fallen short by encouraging only diffident liberalizing policies when the circumstances would have allowed things to go much further. Outside these two cases, failure to win elections in a determined historical circumstance should merely be considered a tactical defeat in the long and difficult struggle to win over the future for liberty.
«No part of this work may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form
or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter
invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information
storage or retrieval system, without citing the name of the author and the
source from which it has been taken.»
______________________________________
(31) Furthermore, in these periods when the more «tepid» politicians (groups one, two and three) are in control, it is nevertheless advisable not to break all links with the party, in order to continue to play a necessary role as the critical libertarian conscience that constantly draws attention to the contradictions and errors of those in power.
(32) We should remember, among other cases, the unsuccessful libertarian reform attempted by Jacques Turgot in 18th-century France and, in our own century, the presidential candidatures of Barry Goldwater in the United States and Mario Vargas Llosa in Peru, together with the failure of the libertarian program of Forza Italia designed for Italy by Antonio Martino.