In 1990, a Black Democratic legislator who ran Jesse Jackson's campaigns twice implemented Milton Friedman's free-market education ideas.
This is how liberty can win through unlikely alliances. 🧵
Meet Polly Williams and Milton Friedman. On paper, they had nothing in common.
Friedman: Nobel Prize-winning economist, architect of free-market theory.
Williams: Former welfare recipient, inner-city Milwaukee representative, civil rights activist.
Yet together, they revolutionized American education.
In 1955, Friedman published "The Role of Government in Education," arguing that parents should control education dollars through vouchers.
Competition would improve schools, he claimed. But for 35 years, it remained academic theory.
Williams would make it reality, though for completely different reasons.
Williams wasn't interested in economic theory.
She was furious about forced busing that sent Black children on 45-minute rides across Milwaukee while white kids stayed in neighborhood schools.
"The burden of desegregation was put on Black children," she said. "Our children were being taken out of our community."
When the education establishment told frustrated parents "What do parents know? They're not educated," Williams had enough.
She wanted power in the hands of parents, especially low-income families who "always get left out" when programs claim to help them but benefit others instead.
Williams formed what she called "The Unholy Alliance."
Out of 99 Assembly members, she needed 50 votes.
Her own Democratic Party opposed her.
The teachers' unions opposed her.
Liberal establishment opposed her.
So she worked with conservative Republicans who supported Friedman's market approach.
The coalition made strategic sense. Republicans got to pilot free-market education reform.
Williams got to empower low-income Black families trapped in failing schools.
Both sides focused on the outcome they wanted rather than ideological purity about who they worked with.
Williams insisted on three non-negotiable principles:
This wasn't about helping the wealthy; it was about giving poor families the same choices rich families already had.
The opposition tried everything to stop them.
They proposed a fake choice program where the school district would select students based on "seven negative criteria"—essentially designing it to fail.
Williams rallied 200 parents to testify for three hours. Her colleagues couldn't vote against those parents.
The Milwaukee Parental Choice Program launched with 1,000 students receiving $2,500 vouchers for private schools.
It was the first modern school choice program in America.
Not because of abstract economic theory, but because a grassroots leader found practical allies to solve real problems.
Williams understood something many liberty advocates miss: "Labels do not tell you much about me.
I'm not a liberal; I believe in what works."
She worked with Jack Kemp and Newt Gingrich because they shared her goal of empowering families, not because they shared her party affiliation.
When asked if her Republican allies were sincere about helping Black families, Williams replied: "I don't care. I think they are, but they don't have to be.
They just have to sincerely want to push my agenda." Results mattered more than motivations.
The lesson for today's liberty advocates is clear: Stop demanding ideological purity and start building coalitions around shared outcomes.
Williams proved that a welfare recipient and a free-market economist can both want to empower individuals—just for different reasons.
Find people who want the same practical outcomes you do, even if they arrive there from different philosophical starting points.
True liberty advances when we focus on empowering individuals rather than winning partisan battles.
Sometimes the best ally for free-market solutions is someone who's never read Hayek but knows firsthand what it means to be trapped by government systems.
Williams changed American education forever by understanding what many miss: politics is about building coalitions, not finding perfect ideological matches.
She got results by finding common ground with people who shared her goal of empowering families.
Ready to learn how to navigate hostile campus environments without compromising your principles? The College Survival Kit teaches you to debate professors, connect with allies, and turn setbacks into opportunities—just like Polly Williams did in Wisconsin.
A Czech playwright predicted the Soviet collapse 11 years before it happened.
While CIA analysts studied missile counts and economic indicators, Václav Havel explained why communist regimes would fall from moral exhaustion, destroying itself from the inside.
The experts dismissed him. History proved them wrong. 🧵
In 1978, The Soviet System Looked Permanent
Western analysts treated communist rule as unchangeable fact. Military power. Total surveillance. Complete control.
Political scientists predicted gradual reform at best. Revolution seemed impossible.
But they were missing one important factor.
Havel Understood What The Data Couldn't Capture
In his underground essay "The Power of the Powerless," written in 1978, Havel identified the regime's hidden fragility.
Communist systems didn't survive through force alone. They required mass participation in obvious lies.
Every citizen had to pretend the system worked. Every worker had to attend celebrations for policies they knew were failing. Every student had to repeat slogans contradicting observable reality.
This created exhaustion that military strength couldn't cure.
Ronald Coase set out to prove that Socialism was superior to the chaos of the market.
So he went to America to see how giant industries were actually managed.
What he found destroyed his worldview. And won him a Nobel Prize.
This is the story of how a young socialist became one of the most important economists of the 20th century by following evidence over ideology. 🧵
London, 1929. A 19-year-old economics student at LSE calls himself a "soft socialist."
The intellectual consensus seemed obvious: markets were chaos, central planning was science.
His professors had a compelling argument: businesses are already mini-planned economies. If planning works inside firms, why not scale it to entire nations?
For young Coase, the logic felt inevitable. Scientific management promised order. The invisible hand looked like randomness.
But in 1931, he won a scholarship that would change everything: a chance to study American industry firsthand.
He went expecting to document techniques for improving socialist planning. He found something that shattered his worldview instead.
Everyone Wants Democratic Transition for Venezuela
But how do you restore democracy in a kleptocratic state captured by criminal elites?
To understand the problem, you need to understand how Venezuela got here. This story is a stark reminder that freedom isn't lost overnight, but slowly dismantled, one piece at a time. 🧵
The Liberation Myth: Venezuela Started With a Promise
In 1811, Simon Bolivar liberated Venezuela from Spanish rule. He dreamed of a unified, free South America built on republican ideals.
But Bolivar's revolution created a nation, not stability. What followed was a century of chaos.
A Century of Strongmen: The 19th Century Belonged to Caudillos
After independence came civil wars, military coups, and regional warlords fighting for control. Venezuela cycled through dozens of governments.
Power didn't come from elections. It came from controlling enough armed men to take Caracas. Whoever seized the capital claimed to speak for the nation.
“I'm against Maduro, but I think what Trump did was wrong.”
This sentence sounds reasonable, balanced, and mature. The kind of thing a serious person would say to avoid seeming radical.
The problem is that this sentence is, morally, one of the worst possible positions on Venezuela. 🧵
Not because it's moderate. But because it's a conscious escape. That "but" isn't prudence. It's a silent plea for moral exoneration.
The attempt to appear sophisticated while avoiding the thing that morality often demands: to hierarchize evil. To say what is worse. To choose.
Let's be clear about what we're "balancing" here.
Under Maduro's "socialism of the 21st century," Venezuela collapsed into hyperinflation exceeding 1,000,000%. Systematic scarcity created mass starvation. Venezuelans resorted to eating dogs and scavenging trash to survive.
These aren't political talking points. These are documented atrocities.