I am done embracing the label “Libertarian”. Have I stopped being a believer in small government and individual liberties? No, not at all, but Libertarianism as it exists in America today, represented by the Libertarian Party, has become little more than an idealistic pipe dream perpetuated by self-aggrandizing man babies.
Year after year, the Libertarian party continues to offer up one of two types of candidates. The first type are limp wristed, lukewarm, politicians who think elections can be won simply on the premise of “hehe hey guys both sides are dumb, am I right? Am I right?”. These candidates are the ones who walk around acting like “fiscally conservative, but socially liberal” is some sort of great revelation that only they have ever thought of, and if they can only tell everybody about it they are a shoo-in for elected office. The other candidates, are the ideological purists. Existing almost at the other end of the spectrum, these intellectual giants, would rather sit around discussing and giving speeches on the moral implications of not allowing three year olds to buy heroin, than they would make any sort of effort to advance their broader agenda and make it more appealing to the mainstream. While this latter breed of Libertarian is arguably more respectable in terms of their commitment/stoicism than there flip-flopping compatriots, they are equally ineffective. On top of all this the party’s platform is full of policies that, while perhaps not contradictory in theory, are almost impossible to implement concurrently in practice.
Perhaps the best example of the first kind of Libertarian outlined above, is Gary Johnson. It is hard to think of a more boring, ineffective, inconsequential, joke of a candidate as Gary Johnson. The man’s entire campaign was essentially “HEY GUYS! DID YA KNOW YOU COULD BE FISCALLY RIGHT AND SOCIALLY LEFT? DID YA? DID YA?”.Mr. Johnson was, like many Libertarians, was arrogant enough to think that the only reason people weren’t totally in line with his ideas, was because no one was so smart as him to have come to the same conclusions on their own. This mindset is distasteful enough, but Johnson took it a step further, saying some incredibly ridiculous things in order to get his message out. In his efforts to attract young college voters he frequently described himself as “not that different” from Senator Bernie Sanders, an avowed socialist. On the other hand when addressing libertarian crowds he made the predictable references to individuals like Ron Paul, Murray Rothbard, and other giants within the Libertarian movement. This gets to the heart of the problem that exists with these kinds of Libertarians, they think they can be everything to everybody. In their minds they are the pied-piper who will walk the street of Hamlin playing their song of radical centrism and lead all the partisan children up the mountain to a land of freedom, compromise, and agreeableness. Not only is this untrue, it is condescending and seem antithetical to the ideas of individual freedom and free thinking which they espouse. As good as it may sound in theory there is very little historical evidence that this “the best parts of everyone’s ideas” approach to politics actually works.
Then of course there’s the militants within the party, the ideological purists as it were. The people who see the non-aggression principle as some sort of divine edict, the people who are upset by the fact that they aren’t allowed to own their own personal nukes, the people who see it as a miscarriage of liberty that toddlers aren’t allowed to purchase hookers and blow. While these individuals are perhaps more legitimate in their political leanings than people like Johnson, they are still entirely ineffective at making any real change. While spending one's time screeching about how tax is theft and the very existence of government agencies is a form of rape, is all well and good, it does very little to actually solve any problems. Look for example back to 2016’s Libertarian National Convention, then presidential candidate Austin Peterson, said on stage during a debate that “three year olds should not be allowed to purchase heroin” and he was booed for it, by almost the entire crowd. Being ardent and stoic in one’s principles is admirable of course, but when it comes to advancing an agenda, winning elections, and improving government, compromises have to be made. The problem with this sort is almost the polar opposite of those discussed in the previous paragraph. While Johnson libertarians want to be everything for everybody, these ideological purists seem to have no interest in being anything for anyone. They enjoy being on the fringes, they enjoy the sense of esotericism they get espousing ideas they know will never occur in practice. While this mindset may be great for initiating fascinating theoretical political discourse and philosophical musings, it is entirely impossible to build a political movement that’s going to gain any traction on.
All that being said, a political platform must of course be judged primarily on its policy, not just on its adherents. As it stands the Libertarian position is essentially a contradiction. Libertarians advocate for smaller government, less regulation, and minimal to zero taxation. The problem is they advocate these things while also calling for open borders and unfettered immigration. Multiple studies have shown over the years that immigrants, particularly from developing and third world nations, are overwhelmingly more likely to vote in favor of larger governments, more public benefits, and more progressive taxation. Take for example how Libertarians constantly sound the alarm on signs that we are moving closer to a Venezuelan type socialism, yet refuse to acknowledge the ethnic and demographic factors (mestizo/european tensions) that got Venezuela there. Libertarian giants like Ron Paul, Ludwig Von Mises, and Murray Rothbard were all in one form or another able to acknowledge that open borders and sudden large scale demographic change are detrimental to a people’s freedom, but modern Libertarians it seems, much like the Marxists they so claim to detest, would like to have their cake and eat it too.
Perhaps one day the Libertarian party will be capable of putting forward a candidate who is both sane and committed to their own beliefs. As it stands however, the greatest strides toward shrinking government and protecting personal liberties is occurring in the GOP, not the Libertarian party.
