I am what most people would call a hard-core libertarian.

I believe deeply in personal freedom, and especially building a society on principles that work, instead of ideals that fail in the face of human nature. I scoff as the federal government throws away money on social programs that don't work, and taxes the economy into recession.

I shake my head sadly at the liberals who assert that Big Government is better at taking care of citizens than the citizens themselves; and I smirk at conservatives who emphatically declare that the government should keep its nose out of your business, unless of course that business happens to be your sex life or your religion.

I have noticed a trend among libertarian arguments -- in literature, speeches, or discussion at my local libertarian group -- of failing to reach the audience because, instead, they launch straight into the argument's central point.

I respect this; libertarians are, by nature, direct and honest people. We want to get straight to the heart of the matter.

But this fails to take into account the subtle but important aspect of a successful sales pitch: Connecting with your audience. As a result, the arguments presented often fall on deaf ears.

To sell someone on your idea, you must first convince them of the validity of the source. In other words, why should they listen to you? And the only way you can do that is to convince them that you have something in common.

In terms of political or philosophical arguments, this means starting by showing them that you share some feelings on a given subject. You present a common starting point, a place where your mind and theirs are in sync. When they are comfortable with that, then you launch into your argument.

Want a quick example? Go back and look at the top of this article.

I didn't start by saying, "Libertarians don't know how to argue, that's why no one listens to us!" -- even though that's my point. If I had done so, you would have immediately felt defensive ("We do so know how to argue! We're the only ones that tell it like it is!"), and most likely would not have been receptive to my point of view.

Instead, I laid groundwork by presenting a viewpoint that most of us can relate to. Not until the sixth paragraph did I present my argument, by which time you have (hopefully) come to accept that I am a credible source.

Members of my own political movement are an easy audience to target. What about talking to a staunch liberal, where there is seemingly no common ground? Should you bend the truth to accomplish your end?

>CONTINUED AT TOP OF NEXT COLUMN

Of course not. There's always common ground; it's up to you to find it. Here are some short examples. The orientation text comes first, and then bridges to the argument with a "that's why" statement.

• Pro-welfare liberal: "Every time I see a person homeless on the street, in the cold with no roof over their head, I think about what we can do to reduce poverty in this country. That's why we need to move poverty relief programs out of the hands of the government and into the hands of church and community organizations, who get four times as much out of every dollar contributed than does the federal government."

• Socialized healthcare: "Improving the quality of healthcare is an issue for everyone, from newborn children up through our senior citizens. That's why I believe in our private-sector healthcare industry; it has produced the best care in the world, because it generates capital that rewards brilliant doctors and researchers, and provides the resources necessary for the development of new drugs and surgical techniques to combat the diseases that we all worry about."

• Anti-drug conservative: "Drug abuse is a horrible thing. Addiction is a disease which hurts people, families, and communities. That's why I want to end the War on Drugs, because it's making the drug abuse and addiction problem worse by introducing a huge black market and forcing addicts to hide their problem instead of seeking the help they need."

• Anti-private education: "We all want the very best education for our kids, because they are our future. That's why I support private schools over public: They give a better, safer education, for less overall cost."

• Affirmative action supporter: "Minorities have faced a long, cruel history in this country, and [their/our] struggles continue today. That's why we should eliminate affirmative action and other programs which segregate on the basis of race. The black, Hispanic, and Asian peoples have the strength, intelligence, and force of will to succeed without any crutches, despite all the adversity [they/we] have faced in the past."

Over-dramatic, maybe even sappy to those used to the cold, hard facts, statistics, and analysis of libertarian arguments. But I guarantee you that a soft padding of emotion and human relevancy will create a more receptive audience for our arguments.

And we all want that.

* * *

SUGGESTION: For an expanded look at a similar concept, see the classic speech, "The Ransberger Pivot," by Marshall Fritz.