Michael J. Totten writes about his past experiences with the Libertarian Party, and how their radicalism forced him away.
Back in the early 1990s I joined the Libertarian Party. I didn’t know much about it at the time, but I did know they favored freedom more than anything else. It helped that they were different from the Democrats and Republicans. 1960s left-overs were unappealing then as now. And the 1992 Republican convention in Houston, where Pat Buchanan declared a “culture war” on America - with the nightmarish Pat Robertson by his side - was enough to keep me out of the GOP for a long long time.
I was put on the Libertarian mailing list. It turned me off pretty fast.
They wanted to legalize dope. Fine, fine, I’m still fine with that. They also wanted to abolish the IRS. They wanted to privatize the roads and set up toll booths to pay for it. (Any idea how much the tolls would cost each time?) They wanted to quadruple my college tuition by yanking subsidies from universities. They would have ruined me.
This radicalism is one of the major weaknesses of the LP. Never mind if such plans as privatizing roads would work, and I think they would, they just won't happen. Even if a large number of Libertarians suddenly found themselves in office, those sorts of things are politically impossible. But potential voters, and even LP candidates themselves get caught up in irrelevant debates. There are a handful of things Libertarian officeholders could do, things the established parties won't touch. Fixing Social Security. Ending the war on drugs. Most importantly, scaling back the size and scope of government. Take each of these items on their own and you don't see society-busting radical reforms, you see good ideas that many people agree need to be done. The nation would be stronger as a result.
Instead we get debates on toll roads, and we elect Dems and Repubs who fight to maintain the status quo.
Totten now sees a new face of libertarianism espoused by such people as the writers for Reason magazine.
It’s not news to everyone but it is news to me that there are different kinds of libertarians, just as there are different kinds of lefties and righties. Reason magazine is a lot more…reasonable than I would have thought. As Matt Welch told me, their libertarianism is not an ideology. Rather, it is a way of looking at the world. Social liberalism plus a healthy respect for the market economy.
I've never been totally comfortable with the Democrats, but my frustration with them right now is higher than ever. I've been tempted many times to declare myself libertarian again. The folks at Reason are some of the smartest around, certainly preferable to the fossilized anachronisms at The Nation. They're also more refreshing than the crusty old conservatives at National Review....
I'm a big Reason Magazine fan as well. It may surprise a lot of readers, but a majority of the LP sound a lot more like that than the radicals who get the press attention. The fault lies in part with the LP, who haven't been too careful about who they put on the ballot, but more importantly they allow themselves to be sucked into discussing these irrelevant topics.
Link via Vodkapundit.
Posted by Walter at October 15, 2003 11:09 AM