Who is the most charismatic libertarian(s) out there?
Unfortunately, it appears that many individuals out there follow charisma as opposed to reason, a positive feeling as opposed to coherent logic. Anyone know of any charismatic libertarian(s), whose reason matches their charisma?
Larry Sechrest strikes me as a positively charming fellow.
Walter Block is also extremely engaging, but in a less general sense than Larry Sechrest.
But that’s coming from me, and I’m about as charismatic as a cinder block.
A burned cinder block.
I’m thinking John Stossel.
You don’t give yourself enough credit. I think you’ve got plenty of charisma 
I’m a big fan of Thomas Woods
I would say Penn Jillette, when it comes to charisma, by far; I happened to watch Bullsh*t just at the right time to fully appreciate it.
Me!
Aw shucks, miss lady…
Ron Paul. Some disagree because they don’t like his run. But I haven’t seen someone so inside politics be so knowledgeable about what the Mises Institute is all about. And hasn’t backed down one bit.
We’re in trouble if RP is the most charismatic we can come up with. He has a whiny voice and demeanor, and is only average looking. Hard to believe he got the cult of personality thing going, but God bless him…
I thought he was very articulate and clear. I don’t really care if he isn’t cool looking or the owner of nice hair and suits like Romney. Nor for that matter would a cosmopolitan “intellectual” appeal to me. I think there is more to charisma and likeability to the average person than that, though. That is a major vote-getter probably in some ways (Obama is definitely that stereotype). But I think libertarianism itself is hard to push in today’s statist atmosphere. That was Ron’s biggest problem – is facing the establishmentarian monster. Which is both the RNC and the Kochtopuss. And I was very proud to see that he did better than I would have imagined in a million years. It’s just gotten so hard to gauge what the American people want anymore. There are so many areas of this country that like what he said, but did not enjoy everything he said. But they liked that he spoke the way he did. Most would vote for him on a few issues, but did not feel he could win against the establishment monsters at the DNC and RNC – nor could he move the mountain of statism that is congress and the senate. Most libertarians on TV are very condescending and/or not good at explaining their position. But Ron cut right through. Particularly on some of the financial shows. People downplay the fact that he got a lot of great moments in on TV for someone that was marginalized in the actual race by the Party. No one was asking for Kucinich or Gravel to chime in on the housing bubble or the fed.
Michael Badnarik seems pretty charismatic.
Stefan Molyneux.
Rand (although she’d object to being called a libertarian) and Friedman were also very eloquent speakers in their day. I also consider Hoppe to be a good speaker, though perhaps not charismatic (he has an element of frigidity to him.)
-Jon
P.J. O’Rourke.
I would also second Rand as well, despite her own objections, as instrumental (in parallel) to libertarian thought, Rothbard fall-out or not.
Drew Carey seems to be attracting a good amount of attention for his videos over @ Reason; although I probably wouldn’t agree with everything in them. I’m generalizing a bit since the videos are on Reason, which I would itself consider cosmopolitan / vulgar libertarian. He has a good amount of charisma though, and I’m probably not the only one who liked his show as well.
Charisma is a tricky concept. It doesn’t mean exclusively Obamasque idolatry. Anyone who attracts a following mainly through his/her personality can be described as charismatic. So by that definition Paul is charismatic; many were and are drawn to him due to his straightforward demeanor. The main problem is that the media filter isn’t very conductive for such charisma.
I agree with whoever mentioned Walter Block. The only thing about Block is that he is not as well known as Rand and RP.
I would say charisma is a subjective concept, due to the vast difference of opinion regarding who has charisma. As for RP’s charisma, I would actually attribute that to a reluctant or forced upon charisma that a number of individuals perceieved RP as something he may or may not be, or if he was, exagertated such attributes.
For example, the mainstream concept of a “dark horse” candidate: another word for ‘underdog’, but that’s not used widley in the mainstream as it would imply a heroic or good candidate; whereas you find the both word’s used widley in Internet coverage. The mainstream media knows a story can be made from using such concepts, and while Kucinich, for whatever reasons you can sum up, was at some point their choice for such a story, he was no where near as controversial as RP as he was running as a Republican, despite his more Libertarian resume.
A certain amount of attention, charisma, etc. is foisted upon an object, figure, or event by outsider viewers, while another amount is more related to the actual effects of said object, figure or event. That’s my 2 cents, at least.