When Ronald Reagan was President, he used to drive reporters crazy by sidestepping their questions.

They'd ask him a question about the deficit, and he'd launch into a speech about America's greatness. They'd quiz him about Grenada, and he'd talk about tax cuts. They'd question his Medicare proposals, and he'd discuss private charities.

Reagan lost points with some for being "evasive." But he won the day. He was able to advance his agenda.

We forgot the reporters' questions. But we remembered Reagan's answers.

What was Reagan doing, and why should libertarians do it too?

Reagan recognized a very important principle of communication: It's not just how you answer the question that counts. It's which question you answer.

Which issues you put on the table -- and keep on the table.

Whether a question comes from a panelist during a TV debate or a friend at a party, our first reflex is to answer it. We don't want to appear evasive or foolish, so we immediately reply with the best libertarian arguments we can muster.

Most of the time, we get so busy trying to answer the question that we lose sight of what's really going on: He who controls the question directs the conversation.

When a reporter interviews a libertarian, what's the reporter's goal?

Is she trying to report the news in the most balanced and objective means possible? Or do her questions slant the news a particular way?

Is she addressing issues that viewers care about? Or insider issues that her editor, manager, or publisher care about?

Do her questions help everyday working people understand the benefits of libertarianism? Or do they instill doubts?

Is the reporter obsessing over trivial issues that distract attention from much more important ones?

What assumptions do the reporter's questions contain?

That a certain human problem can only be addressed through government?

That we need a new Big Government program, and the only real question that remains is how much to fund it?

That existing Big Government programs can never, ever be eliminated?

Which issues are the reporter avoiding?

Whether existing government programs have worked, had no effect, or failed?

Whether they created new problems?

Whether free enterprise and private charity solutions work better?

Libertarians get so caught up in answering questions that we forget to talk about libertarian alternatives and to sell libertarian proposals.

Instead of pushing to cut billions of dollars in taxes, the questioner gets us talking about a line item that's less than 1% of the budget. Trivial pursuit.

Instead of talking about how we'll free up space in our prisons for real criminals when we end the War on Drugs, we get sucked into a debate about the health risks of smoking marijuana.

Instead of proposing to end all government central planning of education, the unwary libertarian argues against a state mandate to extend the school year by one week.

When we allow others to control the questions, our proposals get lost in the noise. We fail to show that we offer something dramatically better than the usual Big Government choices.

>CONTINUED AT TOP OF NEXT COLUMN

Worst of all, the scope of political discussion remains limited to Big Government. We leave Big Government advocates in the driver's seat.

As libertarians, we must refuse to concede the agenda. We must refuse to fuel conversations that aid and abet Big Government.

Libertarians must set the agenda!

We must constantly refocus the discussion on our libertarian proposals to make government small. We must replace Big Government questions with ones that advance liberty. That move us in the direction of small government.

Reagan wasn't always smooth when he deflected unwanted questions. But you can be.

There are many ways to redirect the conversation. As Michael Cloud points out, you can simply say. "That's the wrong question. May I explain why?"

Now you've responded to the question in a way that makes sense -- without answering it. You've made the reporter look evasive if he refuses to allow you to explain. He will likely give you the floor.

You can briefly point out why the question is irrelevant or refute the false assumptions it contains. Then launch into libertarian proposals that people really care about -- jobs, taxes, financial security, restoring liberty -- and spell out their benefits to voters.

In 2002 I was the sponsor of the Massachusetts ballot initiative to end the income tax, and I also ran for governor. I was excluded from two of the four televised gubernatorial debates.

In the debates where I was excluded, the media moderators kept the conversation neatly within the confines of Big Government. The Democrat and Republican candidates happily consented. They both proposed new Big Government programs. They attacked the other's ability to run a large state government. They avoided any issue that challenged the fundamentals of Big Government and instead distracted the viewers with trivia.

When I was in the debates, I talked about our ballot question to end the income tax -- at every possible turn.

I contrasted Big Government versus small government. I redirected bogus questions as quickly as possible and extolled the benefits of Ending the Income Tax: 3,000,000 taxpayers will each get back an average of $3,000 -- every year. We'll create 300,000-500,000 desperately needed new jobs.

The result? Taxes and jobs dominated the debates I was in. My opponents were forced to talk about high unemployment in Massachusetts -- which they had virtually ignored. In the last two weeks of the election, the Republican ran $2 million in TV ads to convince voters that he was a tax cutter -- and paint his Democrat opponent as a tax-and-spender.

By Election Day, the focus had turned from the petty, the bashing, and the proposals for more Big Government towards taxes and jobs.

Forty-five percent of Massachusetts voters voted to end the income tax. A near majority of voters validated and approved a major libertarian proposal.

Whether we're in a TV debate, giving a speech, crafting a campaign platform, or simply having a conversation about politics, we have two choices.

We can obediently respond to questions that validate and sustain Big Government.

Or we can create a bold new conversation that makes possible our quest for liberty.

* * *

SUGGESTION: If you enjoyed this essay, you'll like Carla Howell's speech, "How to Detect & Correct Big-Government Bias," which is available on audio CD from the Advocates.