Reinventing Libertaria

The Washington Dispatch ^ | May 27, 2003 | Gary Cruse

[gcruse]

---

Reinventing Libertaria

Should the Libertarian Party, a party that barely shows up on political radar as it is, be further split? Has the LP written itself out of post 9/11 America? In a country moving perceptibly to the right, does a retrenched, leftist Democratic Party open up middle ground for its own replacement to the right?

As a small 'l' libertarian, I increasingly find myself at greater odds with the LP than I am with conservatives. When social conservatism is replacing the Tenth Amendment (the powers not delegated to the United States ...are reserved to the States) with any number of Commandments, a party of individual liberty and responsibility should be highly visible. The Democratic party has been equally contemptuous of the Tenth when that party has been in power. Are the pieces there for assembling a real party of Liberty?

The Libertarian Party might be poised to make such a run, but not in its present incarnation. A couple of planks in the party platform are serious anachronisms and must be dealt with first.

Completely out of step with America today,a'foreign policy of non-intervention and peace' sticks out and resonates with recent anti-Iraqi war sentiments. Isolationism was almost a necessity when the oceans made dealing with the rest of the world more nuisance than blessing, but not any more. Anti-terrorism cannot be a winning hand without the cooperation of nations capable of harboring future Osamas. As to an announced policy of peace, let the lambs be silenced. There is an insidious, woolly-headed thinking among the naifs of society who are willing to settle for lack of conflict, for now, and call it peace, without regard to the wolfy machinations on their doorstep.

France and England had a treaty with Poland to come to each other's aid if attacked. When Germany invaded Poland, the treaty was enforced to the extent that war was declared but nothing else was done, bringing about the Phony War that allowed Hitler to gobble up someone else (it's always someone else who needs to sacrifice for the common good) while Poland's friends worked to restore the 'peace.' We used to call that appeasement, but now it's peacekeeping. The subtle shift in emphasis from defending what is worthwhile to redefining 'necessary' as 'expendable' isn't negotiating, it is surrender. Well, maybe it's negotiating. "I'll give you everything you want, but that's my final offer," might be dressed up enough to dance with, if you're that desperate.

As road maps go, expecting Israel to give up the Golan Heights, a strategic sacrifice of elephantine proportion, for useless promises of peace from those who unfailingly call for her extinction, secures a peace that passes understanding, not to mention overtaking credulity. The Libertarian Party's notion of peace is appeasement in Birkenstocks.

The other disconnect I have with the LP platform is the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, which, coming from the Libertarian Party of Texas is a 'kick me' sign I wouldn't want to wear around the Alamo. I'd still be laughing at that if I didn't know they were serious as a front yard fiesta del tercer mundo.

Can the Libertarian Party even coexist with War on Terrorism? The party platform seems singularly incapable of keeping suicide killers out of the country or doing anything pre-emptively to stop the creation of terrorist cadres not already here. The primary mandate of sovereignty is survival, a principle easily translated into libertarianism's recognition of the individual, with his full complement of rights and responsibilities. At the national level, this is vaporized without border control and amounts to shattering the individual writ large.

That's why I got the 'L' out of Libertarian in favor of raising a little 'l' of my own. Being a libertarian may be a step in the direction of conservatism, but being a Libertarian puts me in the pocket of people out to kill me.

As constituted, the LP will remain off the political radar, and small 'l'ers will agonize over how far down the ticket the silliness has to be before one can safely vote for it. So far, dog catcher is not far from the ceiling. A party rethought without these suicide clauses might do well as the major parties peel away from each other. The Republicans look to have a lock on 2004, so there's plenty of time to get a new dog ready. This one won't hunt.

---

Gary Cruse is a steely-eyed photofinisher in Texas.

[Protagoras]

I have called no one a name prior to them calling me one.

Nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, he said it first!

Mommy, he started it!

LOL, you are great for laughs.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Many people have complimented my wit and great sense of humor. Not the witless of course.

I don't mind exchanging insults but rarely start it. In fact, I like a good insult fired at me and an intelligent debate. Unfortunately, that leaves you out. :^{

[Protagoras]

Many people have complimented my wit and great sense of humor.

Your Mom and who else? LOL

Your best attribute seems to be your humility. The ladies love you and everyone thinks you are smart and funny.

You need a personality transplant.

[justshutupandtakeit]

I assume you have contacted those who have name-called and insulted me, O Guardian of Etiquette. Please, it has me sooo down I can hardly think of a proper response to your enlightening remarks. And you are sooo concerned about my lapses.

[moneyrunner]

LJ,

In my reply to you I never said anything about the Republican party. I am a conservative and, as a conservative I generally vote Republican since that party most closely corresponds with my own political philosophy, and is one of two contenders for governing. The party, like any other party in our system is a coalition of diverse interests. That is both its weakness and its strength. Coalitions are big enough to win elections. On the other hand, they may include people and philosophies that you find distasteful. That’s life. You must find the coalition that is least distasteful to you.

You may be right about the Republican party becoming more liberal, although I would contend that Reagan and Bush are both ideologically more conservative than Eisenhower, Nixon or Ford. Parties evolve, and the party that has evolved farthest is the Democrats. What a long way they have come from the party of Kennedy and Truman.

Libertarians and conservatives have allied themselves in the past to resist the statist forces of the Left when they are in power. However, when the Right gets into power, libertarians demand the immediate dismantling of the welfare state, open borders, a foreign policy George McGovern would like, and the end of drug laws. That’s for the first 100 days. After that, we turn the country back to the 18th century.

What they may not like, is that during the 18th century the franchise was restricted, blue laws were enforced, some of the states had official state churches and your neighbors intruded into your life a lot more than they do today; and they DID care what you did in the bedroom.

When I observe the Libertarians as a party, and read their posts on FR, I say a word of thanks that these people don’t inhabit the my part of the ideological spectrum. They are not conservative, they are not even right wing, they simply fail the kook test and have lost touch with reality. That does not mean that they do not have an impact. It simply means that, like Ted Kaczynski, they inhabit a mental parallel universe.

Part of being an adult, as opposed to being grown up, is to understand reality, to understand where the levers of power are, and if you have political views that you wish to see accepted you must find ways of having your fellow citizens agree with you.

From what I have observed, the libertarians at FR really don’t care to see their views accepted. They are playing with ideas, and pretty silly ones at that.

[LittleJoe]

I hear what you're saying, don't get me wrong. Libertarians live in a world civilization hasn't seen yet.

In the perfect Libertarian world there would be no government at all. If mankind were truly civilized, there would be no need for government.

They, like us, believe in limited government intrusion into our lives. We need their help.

It's a new world out there. Bush has brought patriotism back in style and we've got the momentum. We need to be strong enough to win the war against against the left by 2008.

If we lose, the whole world loses and the Borg will rule the world.

[CyberCowboy777]

Bump for later