From the Horse’s. . .
Famed anti-war Libertarian Justin Raimondo writes:
You and all your little yuppie “new wave” liberventionists are really just neocons who want to legalize pot. The Libertarian rank-and-file can see through all the slick rationalzations — Everything’s changed! We have to “libertarianize” the Empire! Gay bars in Riyadh! — and fully realize that you, and Glenn Reynolds, are no more “libertarian” than than the neo-Trotskyites over at the American Enterprise Institute.
Oh, but you’ve got Neal Boortz on your side. Wow! What a plus that is. But somehow, I think, us “old school” libertarians will manage to retain our ideological (and moral) compass.
You — take over? Forget it, bub.
If that’s what passes for reasoned discourse with the Big-L Libertarians (I think you’ll agree my original essay was pretty darn reasonable). . .
. . . well then, it’s really no wonder that the movement, such as it is, remains such a dismal and marginal failure.
Groucho Marx joked that he wouldn’t join any club that would have him as a member. That’s cute when a Vaudeville comedian says it, but rather pathetic when it’s the modus operandi of an entire political party.
Yep–the Libertarian Party would have a much better chance at seeing at least some of its initiatives enacted if they weren’t so dogmatic. I believe they alienate a vast number of Americans who have at least some sympathy with some proposals…
I had posted this on an earlier discussion before reading that I was behind. Iti s long, and if in poor taste to post, please delete it Mr. Green.
Last July I had an exchange with a friend who had worked for Cato. I have been a fairly long-time supporter of Cato and had recently “cut them off”. Here is the text of my volley to this friend:
I agree with the issue of growth of govt. being bad. I also am down on most Republicans. I am definitely a libertarian / market liberal – you seem to have me lumped in with the neo-cons because I thought the war was the right thing to do. Still do, BUT THAT DOESN’T MAKE ME A “NEO-CON.”
I feel like “neo-con” has become a label whose use precludes critical thought. Just saying it squelches thinking.
I probably agree with 99% of the Cato line – we just differed on the war thing. All this illustrates is that I’m not my label.
And just because I am fundamentally anti-Statist does not mean that I believe there is no function for the State. National defense tops the list and I felt, and still do, that our actions vis-a-vis Iraq were appropriate. Not perfect, but nothing ever is, especially in hindsight.
Again, I am not a Republican, nor do I consider myself a conservative in the right-wing Republican sense of the word. I am anti-statist and am just as unhappy with much of the “neo-conservative” movement. But I do agree with them on the war, but please don’t think I’m onboard with ANY other issue just because of that. I pick and choose.
My biggest issue right now with the left, for whom I’ve almost always had contempt due to their unabashed statism, happens to be fast becoming my biggest issue with Cato and many L/libertarians…
…rather than providing alternatives to the war, the majority of both groups have chosen to sit around and bitch.
…rather than admit that the war went quite well and that MANY noble objectives have been accomplished, the majority of both groups have chosen to sit around and bitch.
…rather than work to find common ground with those of us who supported the war but are disturbed and the ridiculousness of much of our domestic policy regarding “homeland security”, the majority of both groups have chosen to sit around and bitch.
…rather than attack bad policies, they have become hysterical and shrill about attacking the Bush Administration.
I expect it from the Left, they haven’t really changed nor do I expect them to. I find most on that end of things to be less rational, more hysterical, and certainly without humor.
I have been deeply disappointed that many from the L/libertarian center section have fallen into those same patterns. Too much scholarly analysis without regard to a longer view of what is right, too much hysterical criticism of the people instead of their policies, too much dour predictions of doom and gloom, and far too little reasonable alternatives regarding our national security. Blind adherence to Jeffersonian foreign policy is no solution, and near constant mental exercises to try to defend that tunnel vision is not helping.
It is getting to where the “I hate Bush” crowd is so “unfun” to be around that it is painful. Yes, he and his administration are a bunch of right-wing statists. Yes, they are not the friends of liberty that a bunch of libertarians would be. However, they are the best choice between lefty statists and righty statists, and those are about the only choices we have at the moment. The left will continue to get its ass kicked at the polls because they are peceived, correctly I believe, to be clueless at defense. The right will continue to see this as a mandate to grow govt. in their image. It sucks, but I don’t want to be one of those who sits around and bitches.
The best thing that we L/libertarians could do is quit whining and build bridges with those that will be in power for the forseeable future. Instead, we get bitching and name-calling. Get on board with the new foreign policy, you won’t change it. Until we do that, we won’t enough voice on other issues to matter.
Here’s a copy of the letter I sent Ed Crane:
The letter I sent to Ed Crane when I stopped giving received no response and they continue to treat me like a donor. Here it is:
Dear Mr. Crane,
I just received my annual invitation to renew my support for Cato and have decided to take a break for at least a year. As a citizen I will still continue to enjoy much of the benefit that Cato produces, thus I felt that I owed some explanation.
I think Cato has blown it on the War on Terror and the Battle of Iraq in particular. I fear that Cato has gotten so caught up in
when it’s the modus operandi of an entire political party
Justin Raimondo is not the entire Libertarian party, and the Libertarian party is not an important part of the Libertarian movement. You are acting as if there were a total of five “Big-L libertarians” who started life as identical quintuplets.
Look, I don’t even know who Raimondo is, aside from having seen him lambasted on Damian Penny’s blog. (“Justin Raimondo’s busy schedule of hunting down Israeli “art students” and defending Milosevic is taking a toll on his meagre budget.”) Here are the three libertarians who have most influenced me, every one of them a wouldn’t-it-be-nice-if-an-asteroid-hit-Capitol-Hill anarchist, along with their position on the war:
- David Friedman, who wrote The Machinery of Freedom, was an early influence on me and I haven’t read much of him recently. I did a quick Usenet Google and could not find whether he was for or against the War on Terror.
- Eric S. Raymond. He’s in your blogroll. He wrote the Anti-Idiotarian Manifesto.
- James A. Donald (a Usenet denizen) supported smashing the Taliban and had no problem with invading Iraq (though he does has doubts about whether it will work out in the long run). Oh, and for the guy who said that libertarians don’t want to upset their leftist friends, here’s some vintage James Donald:
“On the one hand, war is the health of the state.
On the other hand, if scum like Fisk are against it, there must be some good in it.”
TO: Stephen Green
RE: Indicators
“If that’s what passes for reasoned discourse with the Big-L Libertarians. . . well then, it’s really no wonder that the movement, such as it is, remains such a dismal and marginal failure.” — Stephen Green
I’d say you’ve surmized the situation accurately. And Mr. R’s venting is an indicator that he’s aware of the situation as well. He’s either not conscious of it or is not willing to admit to it.
What he IS willing to do is ‘vent’ his frustration. And in that venting he uses neither reason nor fact. Instead he applies what I call the Lawyer’s Third Rule.
When the law is against you, argue the facts.
When the facts are against you, argue the law.
When both the law and the facts are against you, call the other side names.
It’s easy. It’s effective. It’s human nature.
Let them flounder about. They are no different, in their behavior, than the Democrats. And, hopefully, the democrats will rescue their party too.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
That’s exactly the reason I’m not a Libertarian, instead of a libertarian.
There’s too many wackos in that party.
If only Ross Perot had attracted more of the crazies the Libertarian party could be the new conservative party, the GOP could be the new Democratic party and the Democrats could be the communist party.
Justin Raimondo worked to elect Pat Buchanan. He’s hardly in any position to give a lecture on libertarian purity.
Ha ha you fell for it! ” Justin Raimondo” isn’t a real person. He is a cleverly constucted “troll” designed by PNAC to discredit the REAL anti-war rothbardian anarchist Cadre.
His website is run by the 12 neocons that secretly run the world and from there they write nutter insulting pieces of garbage to discredit us true real libertarians. Don’t fall for it, “Justin” is a warmongering likkudnik neocon with a Hebrew accent.
George is absolutely correct about the neo-con gambit. As soon as someone starts frothing about “neo-cons”, you can with almost perfect surety write them off as being in spew-mode, without any substance to offer on whatever the topic might be.
Oh please. The “I’m so mature, aren’t I?” stance is tired beyond words. I responded to a post in which you wondered how pro-war “libertarians” could somehow grab control of the LP away from all those “old school” Libertarians, whose arguments are so obviously wrong that they needn’t even be refuted. Or, at least, that’s the implication, since you didn’t give ANY reasons why Libertarians (of the “old school”) should enroll at your New School of Liberventionist Marlarkey.
And don’t play dumb. Neoconservatism is hardly a mystery to anyone who has been paying attention to politics since the late 1970s. Just as soon as you realize that you can’t have a perpetual “war on terrorism” that involves invading and “transforming” the Middle East, and much of the rest of the world, you’ll realize you’re not a libertarian (or a Libertarian) at all, but just another neocon. You can then apply for a foundation grant: Olin, Scaife, Richardson, what-EVER. And you’ll live happily ever after.
But — trust me! — you can forget about taking over the LP. You THINK you have the stomach for war, but that’s one you wouldn’t win ….
Oh, wait… I see from your other post that you do have an argument, if you want to call it that. They hate us because “girls in short skirts” are supposedly making passes at …. you (?), or somebody. Hmmmm…. Sounds like a wish-fulfillment fantasy. Do you REALLY think OBL is mobilizing the Muslim masses to keep you from having a good time? I can hear him now: “Hey, you guys, can you BELIEVE those Americans with all those babes all over them like that?! Why should THEY have all the fun? Let’s go blow up the World Trade Center!”
Don’t make me laugh.
Oh yes, we’re in “the fight of our lives.” but it isn’t against the highly impossible prospect of OBL imposing Sharia law on the U.S.
If you’re worried about your precious civil liberty to party hearty, then the Main Danger seems to be FCC Commissioner Powell, who is “investigating” Janet Jackson-and Justin Timberlake.
The WOT is a LOT bigger than the War on Poverty or the War on Drugs. “We’re not there yet”? Check out the Patriot Act and its successors, my friend. The neocons mean business. Next is a national ID card: we’re well on our way to a police state, if the authors of “An End to Evil” have their way.
Oh, but I forgot. That’s “old school” libertarianism: we have to be “practical” and acknowledge that we “don’t live in a perfect libertarian world” — and never will, if the Stephen Greens of this world have their way.
Fortunately, most libertarians know a sell-out when they see one.
The idea that we can embark on a campaign of world conquest AND have liberty is absurd. As you implicitly recognize in your exhortation for “a healthier [i.e. bigger, more interventionist] state.”
Penis jokes and high production values indeed! The foreigh policy of this country for the past 50 years is abolished, overnight, by you. You believe the Islamists are as abstracted and divorced from reality as yourself. But OBL could never get the Boys in the Desert to launch a holy war on the other side of the earth because of … penis jokes. Not that you really believe that. it’s just more phony rhetoric.
It’s interesting, though, to see what you really care about. Hey, guys, they’re want to stop girls in short skirts from making passes at us! TO THE BARRICADES!!!!
You can’t be serious.
See what I mean? “Justin” is a neocon troll, trying to make “real libertarians” look bad. Check his IP address, I bet it is from Project For A New American Century.
Yeah, you’re a cadre, alright. But of what?
I am all for drastically reducing the size of the state, but the whole libertarian anarcho-capitalist pie-in-the-sky fantasy is not helping. Libertarians are setting themselves for irrelevance if all they do is fantasize about how cool it will be when government dissapears, and how much better Enlightened Monarchy is to mere democracy.
That’s why I quit reading Samizdata and Cold Fury a long time ago.
anonymous coward : you neocon scum!
Pew Mockwell?