Why won't 'Libertarian-Republicans' use the 'L' word?

[bobbyw24]

While many libertarians decry the use of "litmus tests" to determine people's libertarian credentials, many have to ask: How libertarian can former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson be if he won't even mention the word "libertarian" on his website?

Independent Political Report (IPR) announced that, "Johnson has launched a new campaign organization to promote libertarian policy issues and back libertarian candidates for public office."

But without once mentioning the word "libertarian?"

IPR mentions the ongoing speculation that "he may run an anti-establishment Republican presidential campaign with significant support from libertarians in 2012, a la Ron Paul."

But without once mentioning the word "libertarian?"

A person can go to Johnson's new website, Our America, punch up every one of his web pages and perform a search on the word "libertarian" and never get a hit. Maybe, if a person wanted to watch and listen to every video on the website, the word might pop up in conversation at some point. Or maybe not.

Unfortunately, the same can be said for the website of Congressman Ron Paul, 14th District, Texas. Pop open every page and the "L" word never appears in the text.

Paul's son is no different. Rand's campaign website, Rand Paul U.S. Senate 2010, is large, full of text and videos, and covers a lot of political ground. He wants folks to donate money and time and effort, but he never explicitly admits to being even a little bit "libertarian" in the written prose anywhere on his site.

Wikipedia says, "Jeff Flake is known as one of the more libertarian House Republicans."

But that's Wikipedia. What does the man's own website, Congressman Jeff Flake, have to say? As with the others, the libertarian word is a no-show.

However, under the "Buzz" header there's a link to a Reason blog article that begins with the sentence, "In the Washington Examiner, John LaBeaume writes up a kerfuffle between two of the rootin-tootinest libertarian members of Congress, Reps. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.)." But the teaser text on Flake's website begins at the end of that sentence with "Reps. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.)." Suspicious, slighted, and/or paranoid Libertarians need to ask: Was it purposely done that way to prevent the "libertarian" word from showing up on Flake's website?

Typically, there are three reasons why a mainstream "Libertarian-Republican" politician won't mention libertarians. Either they're embarrassed to be associated with libertarians, afraid any mention of libertarians might scare away conservative Republican votes, or they're just not all that libertarian.

There's really little doubt that these particular politicos are by far more libertarian than any other mainstream politicians in America, so apparently they're just so embarrassed by their hick Bubba libertarian half cousins that they want to keep them in the closet like a redheaded bastard stepchild.

But don't forget: they still want libertarian's money, time, and effort.

http://www.examiner.com/x-26370-Libertarian-News-Examiner~y2009m12d14-Why-wont-LibertarianRepublicans-use-the-L-word

[Kludge]

Why don't authoritarian leftists campaign as Communists? It's radical, not "euphamized" (that is, made ambiguous), and is "Un-American."

[Dreamofunity]

Why don't authoritarian leftists campaign as Communists? It's radical, not "euphamized" (that is, made ambiguous), and is "Un-American."

:D

[Stary Hickory]

Because there are some crazy conspiracy theories and extreme anarchists that are often associated with the libertarian movement. If you are running for office you don't want people throwing that in your face.

Libertarianism as it is truly defined is great, however many Americans associate it with some extreme elements.

[cheapseats]

Why don't authoritarian leftists campaign as Communists? It's radical, not "euphamized" (that is, made ambiguous), and is "Un-American."

Are you suggesting that Libertarianism is likewise unwholesome?

[LittleLightShining]

Because Republicans marginalize those among us who refer to ourselves as libertarian-republicans.

[cheapseats]

Because there are some crazy conspiracy theories and extreme anarchists that are often associated with the libertarian movement. If you are running for office you don't want people throwing that in your face.

Extreme Anarchists as opposed to Anarchist Lites? ;)

Are you suggesting that the Democratic and Republican parties aren't host to a conspicuous number of Adulterers, Sexual Deviants, Extortionists, Hypocrites, Liars and Thieves?




Libertarianism as it is truly defined is great, however many Americans associate it with some extreme elements.

There'd be a reason for that.

[cheapseats]

While many libertarians decry the use of "litmus tests" to determine people's libertarian credentials, many have to ask: How libertarian can former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson be if he won't even mention the word "libertarian" on his website?

Independent Political Report (IPR) announced that, "Johnson has launched a new campaign organization to promote libertarian policy issues and back libertarian candidates for public office."

But without once mentioning the word "libertarian?"

IPR mentions the ongoing speculation that "he may run an anti-establishment Republican presidential campaign with significant support from libertarians in 2012, a la Ron Paul."

But without once mentioning the word "libertarian?"

A person can go to Johnson's new website, Our America, punch up every one of his web pages and perform a search on the word "libertarian" and never get a hit. Maybe, if a person wanted to watch and listen to every video on the website, the word might pop up in conversation at some point. Or maybe not.

Unfortunately, the same can be said for the website of Congressman Ron Paul, 14th District, Texas. Pop open every page and the "L" word never appears in the text.

Paul's son is no different. Rand's campaign website, Rand Paul U.S. Senate 2010, is large, full of text and videos, and covers a lot of political ground. He wants folks to donate money and time and effort, but he never explicitly admits to being even a little bit "libertarian" in the written prose anywhere on his site.

Wikipedia says, "Jeff Flake is known as one of the more libertarian House Republicans."

But that's Wikipedia. What does the man's own website, Congressman Jeff Flake, have to say? As with the others, the libertarian word is a no-show.

However, under the "Buzz" header there's a link to a Reason blog article that begins with the sentence, "In the Washington Examiner, John LaBeaume writes up a kerfuffle between two of the rootin-tootinest libertarian members of Congress, Reps. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.)." But the teaser text on Flake's website begins at the end of that sentence with "Reps. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.)." Suspicious, slighted, and/or paranoid Libertarians need to ask: Was it purposely done that way to prevent the "libertarian" word from showing up on Flake's website?

Typically, there are three reasons why a mainstream "Libertarian-Republican" politician won't mention libertarians. Either they're embarrassed to be associated with libertarians, afraid any mention of libertarians might scare away conservative Republican votes, or they're just not all that libertarian.

There's really little doubt that these particular politicos are by far more libertarian than any other mainstream politicians in America, so apparently they're just so embarrassed by their hick Bubba libertarian half cousins that they want to keep them in the closet like a redheaded bastard stepchild.

But don't forget: they still want libertarian's money, time, and effort.

http://www.examiner.com/x-26370-Libertarian-News-Examiner~y2009m12d14-Why-wont-LibertarianRepublicans-use-the-L-word

Yep.

[ChaosControl]

Are you suggesting that Libertarianism is likewise unwholesome?

Its all about perception.

You don't want to be seen as "extreme" as a candidate, even if it is about "extreme" freedom.

[cheapseats]

Its all about perception.

You don't want to be seen as "extreme" as a candidate, even if it is about "extreme" freedom.

But you DO want to be seen as a person with peek-a-boo principles, ill-defined positions and plenty o' wiggle room to never be accountable for anything?

BET HEDGERS R US.

[Matt Collins]

Why? Because it's the kiss of death. One of the things they tried to use to kick me out of the Republican Party Vice Chair position in Nashville was that I was "a Libertarian". They had either heard me use or saw me write the "l" word somewhere previously, and many of them are too stupid to know the difference between "Libertarian" and "libertarian". But the leadership uses the ignorance of the masses to their advantage and did so with me.

The best thing to do is to quote Ronald Reagan in this situation:

If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism...The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is...I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path.http://reason.com/archives/1975/07/01/inside-ronald-reagan

[Andrew-Austin]

However, under the "Buzz" header there's a link to a Reason blog article that begins with the sentence, "In the Washington Examiner, John LaBeaume writes up a kerfuffle between two of the rootin-tootinest libertarian members of Congress, Reps. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.)." But the teaser text on Flake's website begins at the end of that sentence with "Reps. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.)." Suspicious, slighted, and/or paranoid Libertarians need to ask: Was it purposely done that way to prevent the "libertarian" word from showing up on Flake's website?

Typically, there are three reasons why a mainstream "Libertarian-Republican" politician won't mention libertarians. Either they're embarrassed to be associated with libertarians, afraid any mention of libertarians might scare away conservative Republican votes, or they're just not all that libertarian.

There's really little doubt that these particular politicos are by far more libertarian than any other mainstream politicians in America, so apparently they're just so embarrassed by their hick Bubba libertarian half cousins that they want to keep them in the closet like a redheaded bastard stepchild.

But don't forget: they still want libertarian's money, time, and effort.

http://www.examiner.com/x-26370-Libertarian-News-Examiner~y2009m12d14-Why-wont-LibertarianRepublicans-use-the-L-word


This article sounds to me, as an attempt to piss off and severe the support of libertarian leaning crowds on the internet. One must wonder why.

But really out of the three reasons they mentioned, I would bet on the second one: that they just don't want to alienate non-libertarian leaning voters and draw any more discriminating vibes from the republic party establishment. They have already decided to work within the Republican party (the party of neocons) with some libertarian ideals, to make any headway within the party they must keep that on the down low.

[LibertyEagle]

The best thing to do is to quote Ronald Reagan in this situation:
http://reason.com/archives/1975/07/01/inside-ronald-reagan

Yeah, I've used that a bunch of times.

They're just trying the good 'ol divide-and-conquer strategy. We do enough of that all by ourselves. :p:)

From what I've found, people are lightening up to the word, "libertarian", the more the economy tanks. But, yeah, they kept calling Ron Paul a libertarian during his campaign, in an attempt to make it seem like he wasn't really a Republican to voters. While that would've probably been a good thing in the general election, it was not helpful for a Republican primary.

Don't anyone let this stupid article divide us. It's just a stupid article.

[Kludge]

Are you suggesting that Libertarianism is likewise unwholesome?

Yes. My perception of the word is it's radical, still has meaning, and is unpatriotic. It is thus no surprise no politician would associate themselves with libertarianism.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Yes. My perception of the word is it's radical, still has meaning, and is unpatriotic. It is thus no surprise no politician would associate themselves with libertarianism.

I can't stand Tories. :p

[Southron]

Once Libertarian becomes a mainstream Republican word then it will be time to find another word to describe liberty lovers...

I can't bring myself to use liberal to describe the Statists Democrats nor conservative to describe the Republicans. Words have meanings.