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

[Bruno]

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

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.

[fisharmor]

Well, every time I see this topic come up I guess I'll have to force-feed the answer.
The LP is at best soft on abortion, and at worst perfectly willing to be complicit in its continuation.
They've successfully associated the word "libertarian" with "abortion", whether they meant to or not.
And their election returns pretty much exactly mirror the percentages of the population that want small government AND are ok with abortion.
I fully realize the contradiction in being anti-state and yet appealing to it to end abortion. I'm just stating the way things are. There are a lot more people out there who are anti-abortion than anti-federal reserve. And the "L" word has been corrupted for them.

If none of the mainstream politicians mention the "L" word, it's because they don't want to spend all their speaking time explaining that they are really against abortion. They'd rather let party affiliation and a simple "pro-life" on their site suffice, and talk about other issues.

[Ethek]

This sounds like some kind of libertarian purity standard. The libertarian brand has been blacklisted by propaganda from both sides. True Libertarianism is based on the principles of natural law. Gods law if you will. Its the purest form of religion and principle I know of.

There can be no second religion to the state. Marx said it first. Be it Republican or Democrat libertarians will need to prostrate themselves in the current duopoly to gain positions of influence and power or overthrow it by force.

I say libertarians need to quit with the purity stances and statements of principle. If you get cut down in media or elections you serve nobody any good. You need power to influence people Marx and G Edward Griffen were right about that as well.

The key point is libertarians under cover need to demonstrate enough of the underlying philosophy for people to know that they understand the principles involved and that they will guarantee a framework of a working constitution or something similar in its absence.

[Mini-Me]

As a self-described libertarian, I agree with both fisharmor and Ethek. Using the word "libertarian" when running for office under another party banner can be detrimental to your campaign, because most people associate the word with the Libertarian Party rather than with a particular set of principles. This carries "Hah, you're no real Republican/Democrat" baggage, and it also carries baggage associated with the LP's divisive stance on abortion. I hold no grudge against any libertarian (or mostly libertarian) politician who distances himself (or herself) from a mere label in order to boost electability chances.

[angelatc]

I don't think it's just about abortion. It's their never-ending insistence that if they educate people then people will suddenly understand their philosophy and then support it.

It's fine to personally believe that drug law should be abolished, and it's wonderful to be able to make a succinct case for the immorality of those laws, but it's political suicide to run on that platform.

Double ditto on police protections and public schools.

People aren't ready for that, and they won't vote for it.

Libertarians can't seem to settle for making inroads a little bit at a time.

[GunnyFreedom]

The problem is, like Ethek mentioned, that the word "libertarian" has been smeared by false propaganda from both sides. If a freedom-minded candidate (be they Rep or Dem) dares to breathe the word 'libertarian' then they will get piled on by a bunch of nut-jobs claiming they want to kill babies that have already been born, and feed crack cocaine to infants in cribs, and release serial killers from prison and give them machine guns.

It's a bunch of spurious nonsense, quite frankly, but it's a reality that candidates have to deal with if they intend to get elected. If you mention the word "libertarian" then the sheeple get their heckles up and you have to spend the next 30 minutes explaining 'why no, I do not want to inject heroin into kindergartners, that's not a libertarian position. why no, I do not want to abolish police and prisons and set Charles Manson and Ted Bundy and Richard Ramirez free and make them schoolteachers, that's just silly! That's not a libertarian position either."

It doesn't take about a week or two of that nonsense before you come to the conclusion that mentioning the word "libertarian" at all is a bad, bad idea.

[Mini-Me]

I don't think it's just about abortion. It's their never-ending insistence that if they educate people then people will suddenly understand their philosophy and then support it.

It's fine to personally believe that drug law should be abolished, and it's wonderful to be able to make a succinct case for the immorality of those laws, but it's political suicide to run on that platform.

Double ditto on police protections and public schools.

People aren't ready for that, and they won't vote for it.

Libertarians can't seem to settle for making inroads a little bit at a time.

I agree with you that the all-or-nothing approach is a mistake. We should learn from our enemies: Use and abuse the slippery slope of gradual cumulative changes. ;) There's a place for campaigns built around bringing the radical message and principals to more people, and there's also a place for campaigns with a more subdued soapbox but better chances of winning.

In his essay, Do You Hate the State, Murray Rothbard railed against gradualists who he basically believed were cramping the radicals' style. ;) However, I think both complement rather than oppose one another. After all, the communist revolutionaries / socialist radicals never got anywhere in commie-hating America pushing Marx directly...it was Fabian-esque gradualism that made shifts towards socialism seem like "progress," and it was this same gradualism that insidiously took over American politics and opened far more people up to being seduced by the message they would have rightly rejected so many decades ago. I don't think this tactic is exclusively effective for the bad guys.

That said, I think part of the problem with narrowing your argument to a "socially acceptable" range is that libertarian arguments consistently apply to more situations than is wise to admit in front of people who aren't ready. I imagine it's probably easy to box me in and make me reveal that such and such argument applies to <insert sacred cow here>, and that's the kind of thing that just makes people shut down. The sacred cow cannot and must not be questioned, and anyone who does question it must be thinking entirely wrong. :-/

[jmdrake]

Ummmmm.....I hate to break it to you, but Ron Paul never used the word "libertarian" on his 2008 presidential campaign website. Further in all of the official campaign material there was never a "Ron Paul the libertarian" slim jim. There was a "Ron Paul the conservative" slim jim, a "Ron Paul the pro life candidate" slim jim, a "Ron Paul on foreign policy" slim jim, a "Ron Paul the Christian" slim jim etc. I remember on New Years Eve we were marching downtown, carrying Ron Paul signs and passing out materials. One young lady was excitedly cheering us on until someone handed her a "Ron Paul the conservative" slim jim. She kept complaining loudly "But Ron Paul's not a conservative. He's a libertarian". It didn't matter to her that this material came directly from campaign HQ. All of these fights to make everyone in the freedom movement a libertarian and/or say they are a libertarian are rather pointless. Can't we just agree on the need to roll back the American empire, protect our civil liberties and push for sound money and sound fiscal policy first? Then we can talk about how "L" we want to be.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[GunnyFreedom]

I agree with you that the all-or-nothing approach is a mistake. We should learn from our enemies: Use and abuse the slippery slope of gradual cumulative changes. ;) There's a place for campaigns built around bringing the radical message and principals to more people, and there's also a place for campaigns with a more subdued soapbox but better chances of winning. I think we need both.

That said, I think part of the problem is that libertarian arguments consistently apply to more situations than is wise to admit in front of people who aren't ready. I imagine it's probably easy to box me in and make me reveal that such and such argument applies to <insert sacred cow here>, and that's the kind of thing that just makes people shut down. The sacred cow cannot and must not be questioned, and anyone who does question it must be thinking entirely wrong. :-/

Or you could just whip out a golden statue of a bull, plonk it on the table, point at it and say, "OK then, go ahead and worship it. You know you want to. Mind you Moses is going to melt it down and make you eat it a bit later on, but at least worshiping this sacred cow is less harmful than putting 1 of every 31 adults under the direct ownership of the Department of Justice."

LOL ok, that would probably backfire, but hey!

[Ethek]

Well, liberty is scary for people. I think that most of society has abandoment issues and goverment is their pseudo replacement tit.

A friend of mine says you have to coddle people who are new to liberty. You can't go strait for the reach around.

[GunnyFreedom]

Ummmmm.....I hate to break it to you, but Ron Paul never used the word "libertarian" on his 2008 presidential campaign website. Further in all of the official campaign material there was never a "Ron Paul the libertarian" slim jim. There was a "Ron Paul the conservative" slim jim, a "Ron Paul the pro life candidate" slim jim, a "Ron Paul on foreign policy" slim jim, a "Ron Paul the Christian" slim jim etc. I remember on New Years Eve we were marching downtown, carrying Ron Paul signs and passing out materials. One young lady was excitedly cheering us on until someone handed her a "Ron Paul the conservative" slim jim. She kept complaining loudly "But Ron Paul's not a conservative. He's a libertarian". It didn't matter to her that this material came directly from campaign HQ. All of these fights to make everyone in the freedom movement a libertarian and/or say they are a libertarian are rather pointless. Can't we just agree on the need to roll back the American empire, protect our civil liberties and push for sound money and sound fiscal policy first? Then we can talk about how "L" we want to be.

Regards,

John M. Drake

Libertarians regularly eat their own young for the improper use of punctuation. Some use ranch, some use barbecue sauce. Some like their young rare, and some like them well done. But misplace a comma by god and out come the carving knives!

Probably another reason candidates avoid "the L-word."

[fisharmor]

Libertarians regularly eat their own young for the improper use of punctuation. Some use ranch, some use barbecue sauce. Some like their young rare, and some like them well done. But misplace a comma by god and out come the carving knives!

HOW DARE YOU NOT CAPITALIZE THE 'G'???!?!!!

:p

[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 (http://reason.com/archives/1975/07/01/inside-ronald-reagan)