Pajamas Media: I Was a Card-Carrying Libertarian: Confessions of a Black Sheep Republican
I stopped voting Libertarian for local candidates, leaving lots of blanks on my ballot. Next year, I’m not sure which party I’ll support for President, much less which candidate. From here, it looks as if the Republicans have become wrong and corrupt, the Democrats are stupid and corrupt, and the Libertarians have gone plain crazy.
Do I ever understand where Steve is coming from, because I live in the same damned place.
(And we seem to have shared a lot of actual living in the same places - Denver and - Steve? You were in SF? Did you hang at the ISIL bookstore on Market? My best friends at the time ran (still do) ISIL.)
Anyway, Libertarians and libertarians…. I started making the distinction even before I started Daily Pundit, because I was watching what was happening to the LP from the inside, and it wasn’t pretty. In large part, supporters seemed - and seem - to have become just another flavor of generalized anti-Americanism, coming from a part of the ideological spectrum asymmetrical to the conservative-liberal axis. The deal-breaker, for me, was the isolationist-antiwar stance in a world where such had become simple lunacy. If you aren’t willing to do what it takes to defend your nation, then don’t tell me how you love it - because, as somebody else said, you don’t love America, you love some wish-fantasy you have of an America that doesn’t exist.
I’m still a registered Libertarian. Here in California, I don’t pay any voting penalty for that. I can vote in any primary, for any candidate. But if there were limits, I’d formally leave the LP and register as a Republican. I live in the real world, where dangers are considerably more than theoretical, and Ron Paul isolationism is an invitation to disaster. Even Ayn Rand, who would have regarded today’s formal LP with loathing, conceded “defense and doing justice” to the state as legitimate functions. The LP wants to dismantle the defense function. For me, that just relegates them to the realm of barking moonbats, along with the body-purity whack-job right, and the commie nutroots left.
And that is a shame, in many more ways than one.
UPDATE: Welcome, Instapundit readers!
Submit to Stumbled Upon!
I’ve never been a Libertarian or libertarian but have toyed with the idea many times. I was a Dem for over 30 years and now am a very disgruntled Republican. Libertarianism can look extremely attractive by comparison. (Some of it is also an “I’ll show them!” mentality, which shows the childish appeal of the ideology.)
As Dennis Hopper says, I’m an adult, not a child. The dealbreaker of Libertarianism for me is the same as for you and Stephen: a naivete about America, the world, and our enemies in the world, that is not only insane post- 9/11 (if not before) but so dangerous I dare not even pay lip service to libertarian ideology. I may be in agreement with many stances but can never, ever give them my vote.
The whole Ron Paul episode has shown me more about libertarians than I ever wanted to know. They make BDS look sane.
Steve’s article hit home with me too. I’ve gone from describing myself as a “Libertarian” to then “small “l” libertarian” and now “libertarian hawk.” I can’t possibly call myself conservative or Republican, because I’m a musician, and I’d lose most of my friends, some of whom I actually enjoy, despite the fact that they are politically clueless. I got rid of a lot of them early on by being pro-GWOT: No great loss in those cases.
For years I have described myself as a Constitutionalist with libertarian leanings. I believe that the Constitution should be enforced AS WRITTEN. If the government wants to do something else there is an amendment process. And whatever private individuals want to do in their own home and to their own bodies should be left up to them as long as they are not infringing on anyone else’s rights.
Naturally, neither party satisfies my political leanings. I tend to hold my nose and vote Republican primarily for the national security element, and the “less government” aspect of the conservative moment.
If the Libertarian Party would just wake up and smell the coffee, I would be one. However, they appear hopelessly naive on the global front. And Ron Paul is certifiable.
In an age of WMD, unforseeable by our founders, war is inevitably against the civilian population. That means the bastards are trying to kill our children. In defending my children, I also defend yours, that’s what a nation is about. Unfortunately, MAD strategies don’t work against these guys, who are yearning for martyrdom. So we need to go to preemptive strategies. This is beyond being a political issue for me. The parts of the Libertarian movement who don’t want to defend our kids are mired deeply in denial and schizophrenia. Simply, they’re nuts!
It is easy to complain about the libertarians, but then what are the Republicans or Democrats doing except winning elections. If the only issue that separates you from libertarianism is the War in Iraq, then you really should be more moderate in your complaints. Ron Paul voted for the “Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists” passed by the United States Congress on September 18, 2001. He is against the Iraq War, which the United States invaded to enforce a United Nations resolution that Saddam was ignoring. Liberty Magazine published libertarians in support of Afghanistan and Iraq as well as opposed. While it is easy to complain about libertarianism there is little low government low tax conservatism on the Republican side. If your only issue is Iraq and pro-war then Rudy is your candidate. He was a fine mayor. If you expect him to prosecute the war and expect nothing in the way of small government you will be happy with Rudy.
Count me in, too! I’ve called myself a little “L” libertarian for quite some time. I believe I even voted Libertarian once.
However, 9/11 changed everything and I take every vote deadly seriously now. I just wish I had someone to vote for who did so as well!
From 1992-2002 I was a registered Libertarian in California. When I moved to Washington in 2002, I discovered that they don’t register voters by party (although I realized by that point that the LP was no longer a viable option for me, despite the blizzard of mail they sent my way. It was not until this year, when I moved back to Florida, that I actually registered to vote under a political party, and it’s not the LP. I am rather underwhelmed by all of the choices currently available to me, because they all have some sort of baggage attached.
You’re wrong about being able to vote in any primary: you must be registered in a political party to vote in partisan primaries. GOP registrants can only vote in GOP primaries. Libertarian registrants can only vote in Libertarian primaries. Etc. So if you’ve been voting in other parties’ primaries while registered as a Libertarian, you’re either hallucinating or else the SF voting system is seriously out of whack … and illegal.
You’re also wrong about the LP’s position on defense: nowhere in the platform does it state that the LP wants to privatize the military. Another of your hallucinations.
As commented over on Steve’s site, don’t give up hope just yet. A new bread of Libertarian’s are coming of age. The Reality-Based Libertarian’s.
Horseshit. Prop 198, which mandated fully open primaries, was indeed overturned by the courts, but California now has a Modified Closed Primary System , which means:
In 2004 and 2006, Dem, GOP, and Indy parties permitted “decline to state” voters to vote in their primaries. So I’ll have to go from Libertarian to “decline to state,” I guess. Or GOP.
My hallucinations? Where did you come up with the privatize the military stuff? The dog in your brain whisper it to you?
You’re wrong about the semi-open primary. The GOP has never allowed “decline to state” voters to vote in its primary. I’m not sure about the Democrats. If you’re a registered Libertarian you can only vote in Libertarian primaries, period.
And the LP, contra your assertion, does not advocate dismantling the nation’s defense, although it does oppose wars of aggression.
These days when people ask me my political affiliation I usually say “I’m a secular, pro-war, pro-freedom individualist. What party do you think I should belong to?” The typical answer is a blank stare. I’m thinking of switching to saying “I’m an Objectivist” and seeing what that garners instead.
Oh, really? Do tell us what else you’re an ignoramus about, would you?
Modified Closed Primary System , which means:
In 2004 and 2006, Dem, GOP, and Indy parties permitted “decline to state” voters to vote in their primaries.
California Secretary of State - Elections & Voter Information Decline to State - Voter Information
Um…
The current interpretation of that would prevent the US from pre-empting extremely deadly attacks on the country. Those who believe that the rules of warfare that made sense in 1800 are applicable to today are fools. You fit the bill nicely.
I’m a capital L Libertarian.
I’m also for the war on terror.
I’m not in the majority of my party on this, yet I’m still an active member. I feel I have little to no hope of influencing either of the major parties (or any other minor party for that matter) towards a more libertarian stance.
I don’t like how in so many people’s minds, the LP is defined by its most extreme members. It’s my goal to change that.
There are plenty of Libertarians who do view politics with a more practical eye. By no coinidence, this includes the few who have actually held elected office. It’s a shame they get ignored over the blue skinned candidate and the convention delegate in drag.
Bill:
SF Libertarian:
Actually, both of you are wrong. If you are registered with a party affiliation, you can only vote in that party’s primary. If you are registered “Decline to State,” you may vote in the primary of any party which has elected to allow you to. The Democrats allow DTS voters in all their primaries. The Republicans allow DTS voters in all primaries except the presidential.
DTS info
Personally, I’m registered DTS, but will probably reregister R so I can vote in the presidential primary next year.
Back on topic, I was never actually active in the LP, but I voted Libertarian in 1996 and 2000. Both times in non-competitive states (TX and CA). Can’t imagine voting for them these days.
John: See above from me:
Under Prop 198,had it not been overturned, there would have been no primary voting penalty for being registered as a libertarian.
And, actually, you are wrong as well:
See from my post above:
The GOP did permit DTS voters in its Presidential primary of 2004.
Really need to refresh page before writing a comment…
Not true. See this page from 2004. Semi-recent noise about changing it.
Really? What would that have changed? John was citing the same page I did two or three comments earlier.
It is much easier to piss down on the party from an ideological pillar than it is to roll up sleeves and fix the damn thing. Like nobody has ever written about how they’ve left the LP because of some vocal borderline anarchists shouted some crazy talk about how the LP should be isolationist or support returning the gold standard. The two parties have violated every American’s trust in their government through pork-barrel spending and corruption. So have fun in those camps, when gov’t spending continues unabated, maybe you will think about looking back. You are letting down all those practical libertarians that don’t have time, or care to read blah blah blogs, or argue within comment threads.
None of your precious principles will mean a damned thing if the only country in the world that actually subscribes to many of them in its establishing documents is destroyed by outside attackers. And if the loons currently running your party (no, it’s not my party any longer, and I’ll make that change as soon as I can) had their way, the chances of grave danger to the US would shoot through the roof. Much as the barrel of that ideological gun you aren’t wielding is aimed through the roof of your mouth.
What’s with the “even Ayn Rand”? Rand always hated the Libertarian Party, and trying to bump up your libertarian credentials by arguing that you’re where she is says nothing about your relationship to liberty:
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=education_campus_libertarians
Q: What do you think of the Libertarian Party? [FHF: “A Nation’s Unity,” 1972]
AR: I’d rather vote for Bob Hope, the Marx Brothers, or Jerry Lewis. I don’t think they’re as funny as Professor Hospers and the Libertarian Party.
Well said Bill. I’d only argue that a good portion of these folks aren’t so much anti-American as nihilistic. On the other hand, our British friends at Samizdata don’t suffer from this isolationist-antiwar dementia, so perhaps there is a froth of anti-Americanism on our Libertarians’ general ‘blow it all up’ sentiment.
Trying to do what, you driveling imbecile? I’m trying to get as far from the Big LP crazies as I can.
As for my “relationship to liberty,” I’ll be more than happy for the most part to stand on liberty’s pedestal with Rand.
Oh, and here’s something else on Rand that appeared here on this blog long before we were ever the recipients of your encyclopedic knowledge of Rand and libertarianism:
Daily Pundit » Idiots, Morons, and Imbeciles, Oh My!
As for my “relationship to liberty,” I’ll be more than happy for the most part to stand on liberty’s pedestal with Rand.
…as long as she has her immigration papers in order.
Right?
(oh crap, I posted on the poseur Randian's blog after swearing not to. I sentence myself to reading Daily Kos for a week as punishment.)“…if the loons running you party had their way…” this is my favorite part: “the chances of grave danger to the US would shoot through the roof.”
…Wow…OH Well, thats quite a point you have there! You’re just as closed minded as the people you are criticizing. I’ve only been active within my state LP, so I can only speak to that, but your belief that anything more than just a minority of the members are isolationists is wrong, btw, it’s mostly the same people who are the gold bugs which have forever been a thorn in my side. But instead of being an asshole online, I engage in friendly discussion with friends, family, and strangers to encourage them to write their representatives and vote libertarian.
Rand had very little specific to say on immigration, although she generally favored it. Of course, she favored gun control laws, too. But she also favored a legal system and obeying the laws of the system, so I doubt she’d be out in the streets supporting La Raza-style floods of illegals.
Anyway, Sheetrock, let me know when you decide to become something other than an anonymous coward engaged in the drive-by defacement of blogs run by your intellectual, moral, and ethical betters. Then maybe we can discern just how much of a poseur you are.
No, actually, your post demonstrates you do a fine job of that, too. Which must be difficult for a guy whose full-time occupation is obviously being a dumbass.
Bill,
I lived in SF — in the Tenderloin no less, 900-block of Geary, near Polk — back in ‘93-’94.
Don’t remember the book store you mentioned, but I did spend an awful lot of time buying war games (remember the ones with the big maps and little cardboard pieces?) from a great grognard store on Haight. I miss the Muni and the BART and the sheer variety of people.
However, I’ve gladly given up the smell of human urine for the clean, dry air of the Rockies. Life at 7,500 feet is pretty sweet, my friend.
Sigh. I remember. Back in the ’70s, me and a couple of buddies went in on a two-bedroom condo in Georgetown, on the far side of the lake from the highway. I eventually bought them out, then sold it in ‘84 to finance my move to San Francisco. Cleared a bit over a hundred grand. I wish I’d held on to it now, even though my knees won’t let me ski worth a damn any longer.
If the “war” or “wars” as it now appears to be are so important to America why can’t congress just follow our constitution and “DECLARE WAR” No they cannot do that because its all politics, they would rather pass some legislation to give the president all the power to do what he wishes and then, down the road bash him on his foreign policy blunders. All you republicans should stand up and pay attention to what the dems have done to your party. They have baited you and now have you right where they want. The “non-aggression principle” of the libertarian party is the only way to go. Only an official declaration from congress can even begin to correct the mistakes that have been done. I think that Ron Paul has actually recomended taking the issue back before congress and putting some teeth into our foreign policy. If america wants war, so be it, but it better damn sure come from the people and not King George.