Posted on 11/17/2002 5:08:05 PM PST by Commie Basher
WHY MICHAEL MEDVED NEEDS GLASSES
by L. Neil Smith
Exclusive to TLE Issue 199
Some years ago, I wrote a column that was an open letter to the just- diselected southern California congressman Robert K. "B-1 Bob" Dornan.
Dornan was bitterly complaining that he'd lost the election because there was a Libertarian Party candidate running against him, depriving him of votes -- in his peculiar view -- that were rightfully his. He pointed to other races that year where LP candidates had won more votes than the margin between the winning Democrat and the losing Republican, and chastised libertarians for failing to recognize and act for the "higher good" of helping Republicans defeat Democrats, as if libertarians were somehow the second-string team in the fight for freedom.
For some reason, Dornan never wrote back to me. I wanted to ask him why it was that he imagined libertarians -- many of whom had disgustedly departed Republican circles back in 1968, and others of whom had never been anything but libertarians -- should have any interest whatever in seeing any Republicans elected to any office, anywhere.
An election or two later, Michael Medved, neoconservative movie critic, syndicated radio host, and the most egregious dogwhistle this side of Cal Thomas began calling those who choose to live by the Zero Aggression Principle "Losertarians", whimpering, like Dornan before him, that individuals of that persuasion are essentially vandals who, without genuine reason or purpose, damage Republican electoral hopes by drawing off votes that would otherwise go to GOP candidates.
I trust by now that everyone knows what a dogwhistle is. I started to write an open letter to Medved, too, but selfishly allowed myself to get distracted by the frivolous desire to earn a living and feed my family.
We've heard it all before, anyway. I remember one election in which Patrick J. Buchanan, former Nixon speechwriter and mortal enemy of free trade, open immigration, and a woman's right to sovereignty over her own body, smugly advised libertarians to back his independent presidential campaign because it was "the only train in the station headed in their direction". Clearly Buchanan failed to understand what direction libertarians are actually headed in, but that's all right. Buchanan's presidential hopes (if not his aspirations) are gone with the wind. The Libertarian Party is still here, however battered and bowed.
This year, Medved's at it again, reportedly calling libertarian electoral efforts "masturbatory". Mind you, I haven't heard him say it myself. I used to keep four or five radios running all over the house, every weekday, so I could hear three or four conservative talk shows in a row (none of them Medved's), as my morning took me from room to room. I haven't listened to them since September 11, 2001, when they switched from talking about individual liberty (they were always good at _talking_ about individual liberty) and resistance to socialism, to spewing propaganda in support of the Bush Administration's naked fascism.
Blubberers like Medved and Dornan, however -- and their general ilk -- need to get something straight, for once and all: throughout its long, dismal history, the Republican Party has, time after time, promised to support individual liberty, and promptly betrayed it. There wouldn't _be_ a Libertarian Party if that wasn't true. On that account, if no other, we're not buddies, friends, allies, or fellow travelers. We're enemies, as surely as we're enemies to Democrats. We've always been enemies, but it was on an almost friendly basis until ...
Until when, exactly?
For me, it may have been until then-Senator Robert Dole, with no discernible motivation except his longstanding and utterly Nixonian loathing of freedom, helped the Clinton Administration ram the Brady Bill through, and with it (just as it was becoming clear that armed individuals were reducing crime by double digits) an unconstitutional prohibition on efficient personal weaponry and magazines of adequate capacity.
Or it might have been until "revolutionary" Republicans tucked their tails between their legs and slunk away, instead of seeking truth and justice in the matters of Ruby Ridge, Waco, and Oklahoma City.
Or it may have been until the same "revolutionaries" failed, like the Eisenhower and Reagan Administrations before them, to stamp out every remnant of the New Deal and run government on a constitutional basis.
Or it might have been ... to hell with that. The Republican Party was born for no other purpose than to oppress Americans. It has done nothing but that since the War between the States. The GOP is the party of conscription, the income tax, the loyalty oath, fiat money inflation, political censorship, and the midnight knock on the door. The only reason they got away with it is that Democrats were so much worse.
That's all over now. Doing exactly _opposite_ of what's really needed to ensure "homeland security", Republicans have turned this country's airports into rape zones where, if you protest at what they do to you, you're guaranteed a thorough anal probing as punishment for exercising your First Amendment rights. In the past year, Republicans have trampled the Bill of Rights at home until it's unrecognizable, while bombing, shooting, and otherwise terrorizing helpless peasants all over the planet in a bald attempt to corner the world supply of petroleum.
As hard as it may once have been to conceive, from the standpoint of individual liberty, Republicans are vastly worse than Democrats. George Junior has managed to make Bill Clinton look like a statesman. The only strategy libertarians ought to follow -- the only one that works for us, apparently -- is to prevent the election of as many of these goose-stepping imbeciles as possible. If it were up to me, I'd dedicate all of the Libertarian Party's resources to that and nothing else.
The truly silly thing is that all the Republicans have to do to eliminate the terrible threat that we libertarians represent is to be better than we are on the issues that count. Put a stop to the current War on Everything. Call the troops home for good. End the evil War on Drugs. Outlaw "civil forfeiture". Repeal 25,000 gun laws. Seriously reconsider taxation -- extortion and theft -- as a means of funding government.
The ball is in their court and always has been.
Why should anyone vote for candidates from a political party that not only failed to protect this nation from the attack on the World Trade Center (whose foreign policy, along with that of the Democrats, made the attack inevitable, and whose domestic policies made it easy) but cynically use it as an excuse to obliterate every remaining trace of the Founding Fathers' America? Something that we all need to get straight is that it doesn't advance the cause of liberty to elect Republicans, it hasn't for a long time, and it probably never really did.
So I would ask Medved and his fellow freedom frauds, given the choice between those who stand up publicly for what's right by voting libertarian -- in a venue where, in terms of swaying the public, one vote for a third party candidate is easily worth 100 votes for anybody -- and those who vote for Republicans in the demonstrably false hope of achieving freedom in our lifetimes, who's really masturbating, here?
And have you stopped shaving your palms?
- - -
Three-time Prometheus Award-winner L. Neil Smith is the author of 23 books, including _The American Zone_, _Forge of the Elders_, _Pallas_, _The Probability Broach_, _Hope_ (with Aaron Zelman), and his collection of articles and speeches, _Lever Action_, all of which may be purchased through his website "The Webley Page" at . Autographed copies may be had from the author at .
- - -
L. Neil Smith writes regular columns for _The Libertarian Enterprise_ , _Sierra Times_ RoadHouse , and for _Rational Review_ .
I'll disagree.
GOPers who truly value individual freedom, 2A rights, Constitutional rule, abolishing the IRS, etc. won't be put off by an article like this. If they actually share the basic libertarian values they can look past personalities.
Those that can't or won't get past the bluster in an article like this are simply using the article as an excuse to stay in a comfort zone with the Republicans party.
It is like those who say that they could vote Libertarian EXCEPT for the open border policy (which is a misnomer) while at the same time fully supporting the current administrations open border policy.
Excuses don't have to be rational or even valid, and one is just as good as another when one really doesn't want to do something.
Some people no longer have confidence in the GOP to actually do the right thing in a pressure situation (impeachment, etc.).
If you you really think our government is really, really trying to do something about these evils, then you have to admit they are totally losing the war. Personaly, I don't think they are trying.
Good question. Some local governments try to keep these things under control, either outright through legal bans, or covertly through zoning regulations. Take that power away from them and I think you would see an increase. Even if states and local governments don't use the powers they have, it's still good that they have the possiblility of dealing with situations that are getting out of hand.
Would it be true that in a wide-open libertarian society one could open up a porn store, brothel or head shop anywhere, even next to a school? And if one tries to prevent this has one taken a big step away from the maximalist libertarian program?
Certainly, prostitution, which is illegal in most states, would increase with legalization and would win greater legitimacy in society if it remained legal. Court rulings restrict what local governments can do about abortion or pornography, but losing the minimum control that they have probably wouldn't help things any.
Drugs are the toughest question. Some people think that legalization and the resulting decrease in price would dry up the crime and vice and predatory behavior of the illegal drug culture, but it's far from clear that this would happen. There are things to be said on both sides. But if you think of old Chinese opium dens, they really weren't a conducive environment for responsible liberty and self-government. The same was true of the collegiate drug culture of the 1960s and 1970s.
Libertarianism rests on an idea of the rational and responsible individual, but one can't assume that all individuals fit this pattern or that libertarian policies would increase the number of such citizens.
I wouldn't even go so far as to call Libertarians a "second string team." A red shirt squad would be more appropriate. Afterall, the Libertarians are pretty lame!
Libertarianism is not pacifistic, but rather does not advocate the initiation of force.
If the US would follow the advice of the LP, we'd be screwed, big time
No, we wouldn't be at "war" in the first place. When you spend a lot of time the last 50 years or so NOT respecting the sovereignty of a single other nation, people in these nations tend to get a little "bitchy"
Good question. Some local governments try to keep these things under control, either outright through legal bans, or covertly through zoning regulations.
No such thing, constitutionally, as a 'legal ban'. Local/state gov's can regulate, but not prohibit possession of property. 'Covert' efforts prove this point.
Take that power away from them and I think you would see an increase. Even if states and local governments don't use the powers they have, it's still good that they have the possiblility of dealing with situations that are getting out of hand.
Things are 'out of hand' because of the 'war'. Regulate drugs as we regulate booze, and the main problems of black market lawlessness dissappear, as the end of alcohol prohibition once taught us.
Would it be true that in a wide-open libertarian society one could open up a porn store, brothel or head shop anywhere, even next to a school?
No one reasonable is advocating such a "wide-open" society. Libertarians advocate a return to our constitutional principles, as written.
And if one tries to prevent this has one taken a big step away from the maximalist libertarian program? Certainly, prostitution, which is illegal in most states, would increase with legalization and would win greater legitimacy in society if it remained legal.
Has it increased in Nevada? - Nevada probably has less open prostitutuion [streetwalkers] than most states with prohibitory type laws that are ignored.
Court rulings restrict what local governments can do about abortion or pornography, but losing the minimum control that they have probably wouldn't help things any.
Again, no one is advocating that local gov's lose their power to regulate criminal conduct.
Drugs are the toughest question. Some people think that legalization and the resulting decrease in price would dry up the crime and vice and predatory behavior of the illegal drug culture, but it's far from clear that this would happen. There are things to be said on both sides. But if you think of old Chinese opium dens, they really weren't a conducive environment for responsible liberty and self-government. The same was true of the collegiate drug culture of the 1960s and 1970s.
Nor is the present 'WOD' "a conducive environment for responsible liberty and self-government."
Libertarianism rests on an idea of the rational and responsible individual, but one can't assume that all individuals fit this pattern or that libertarian policies would increase the number of such citizens.
Your point is a generalization, true of any political idea based on individual liberty. -- Thus:
'Republicanism rests on an idea of the rational and responsible individual, but one can't assume that all individuals fit this pattern or that republican policies would increase the number of such citizens.'
I won't read any further. Some "Zero Aggression Policy" the losertarians have when violently invading a pre-birth child's home, pureeing the child, and sucking its remains into a sink somehow fits into their policy against initiating aggression.
In the past two years I've gone from almost joining the Libertarian Party to loathing them. And I know I'm not the only one.
Libertarians somehow expect to reverse 75 years of creeping solution in one magnificent election that will turn all that around. "Just let us win one, and we'll make it all better."
Sorry, but that is not going to happen. I lean libertarian on most issues, but the Libertarian Party is simply unrealistic. Political change in this country is evolutionary, not revolutionary. Socialism came here slowly, and seduced the electorate bit by bit. It's reversal is going to have to come in the same fashion because Americans almost never vote for truly radical changed.
Many Libertairans are former Republicans who became disenchanted with the GOP. But look, if you couldn't muster sufficient strength to win the ideological battle within the GOP, which is only 35% or so of the electorate, how do you ever expect to gain majority power outside the GOP? Its the whole big pond/little pond scenario. The percentage play for libertarians is to stay in the GOP and fight for the soul of that party. Sure, you're going to go at loggerheads with the religious conservatives, so avoid the divisive fights in the beginning and find common ground on other issues. Win your agenda slowly, because that's the only way its ever going to get enacted, Ayn Rand fantasies of Atlas Shrugged notwithstanding.
My guess, though, is that most Libertarians prefer to play the martyr card, bemoaning the lack of intellect within the electorate and the creeping socialism enabled by their abstinence.
And killing it in the process. You know, like murder?
So, if my 3-year-old child acts up too much in my "sovereign" house in the dead of winter, can I expel her - knowing that she will freeze to death in the yard?
Keep this crap up, losertarians. You're "expelling" more voters back to the Republican Party.
So true. Like all things, the ones who would do right are going to do so without the laws,usually.
I believe prostitution is morally wrong and just totally incomprehensibile to me as a woman - but I have never understood a nation that can condone abortion and keep prostitution illegal. Just makes no sense.
As for the college drug culture of the 60's and 70's, while it may have subsided some in the colleges, I think it has just moved into the offices and board rooms. It is not just the street people who are using this. IF it were, it would not be so profitable.
I don't know the answer, just don't think the governments way of handling it is working and I don't think they intend it to be handled. It is either too lucrative for them or it provides too much cover for trampling civil rights.
Throw open the doors to drugs, porn, prostitution and abortion, and if the result is a society that loses its freedom, then it never deserved it in the first place. The world could only help but be improved by its loss.
I quoted L.Neil Smith on the "sovereignty" of the woman's body. I quoted Commie Basher too. Just because you don't like my treatment of the libertarian view of baby killing, doesn't mean it isn't a fair or true statement.
And if you've forgotten how we were on the same side in many of the Bushbot-bashing threads one could chalk that up to the short-term memory loss experienced by so many Libertarian party members.
I quoted L.Neil Smith on the "sovereignty" of the woman's body. I quoted Commie Basher too.
Big deal, -- then they do not fairly represent libertarian attitudes, which conform to those of our constitution, IMHO.
Just because you don't like my treatment of the libertarian view of baby killing, doesn't mean it isn't a fair or true statement.
Just because you imagine all libertarians to have such a view, doesn't make it true. It only makes you look absurd.
And if you've forgotten how we were on the same side in many of the Bushbot-bashing threads one could chalk that up to the short-term memory loss experienced by so many Libertarian party members.
If you regain your rationality, we may be on the same 'side' again. Your call.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.