Skip to main content

The amazing things you find out about yourself on the Web

Maybe it's ego--OK, yes it's certainly ego--but every so often I google my name and "Libertarian" to see where I'll turn up. That's how I found out (albeit belatedly) that I had been quoted by Time.

Now I discover that my ditching of Bob Barr over his interview making DOMA a pillar of the new States' Rights Dixiecrat Libertarianism was actually carried over at Freedom Democrats, where--I am exceedingly pleased to note--I am carried in the same paragraph as Steve Kubby and Thomas Knapp:

Bob Barr's appearance on Fox News Sunday has triggered a backlash or sorts in the libertarian community, specifically with respect to Barr's comment regarding DOMA....

This prompted Steve Kubby to post “States’ Rights” is an Anti-Libertarian Concept. Steve Newton is now finished with Barr. Thomas Knapp posts that Barr is a Dixiecrat States Rightest in the tradition of Strom Thurmond and George Wallace.

Not that I'm in the habit of being a Barr apologist, but I believe this reaction is a bit over the top.


Imagine, lil' ol' me, famous for over-reacting.

Maybe I'm also over-reacting to Senator John McCain's homophobic views about gay adoption [h/t to Waldo for pouring through the transcript for this disgusting nugget]:

Q: President Bush believes that gay couples should not be permitted to adopt children. Do you agree with that?

Mr. McCain: I think that we’ve proven that both parents are important in the success of a family so, no I don’t believe in gay adoption.

Q: Even if the alternative is the kid staying in an orphanage, or not having parents.

Mr. McCain: I encourage adoption and I encourage the opportunities for people to adopt children I encourage the process being less complicated so they can adopt as quickly as possible. And Cindy and I are proud of being adoptive parents.

Q: But your concern would be that the couple should be a traditional couple.

Mr. McCain: Yes.


OK, this officially places McKKK-cain behind Bob Barr in my estimation. I suppose that's over-reacting as well.

What's intriguing about all this brew-haha over Libertarian politics, is that amazingly enough in places as different as Freedom Democrats and Eric Dondero's Libertarian Republican I have somehow acquired a reputation as a radical Libertarian.

I'm not quite sure how that happened: I came out against Mary Ruwart's candidacy on the age-of-consent issue, supported George Phillies for the LP nomination, and strongly held a "wait and see" attitude toward Bob Barr for several weeks.

If you examine the archives of this blog, you'll find that my political and philosophical positions are much more pragmatic than radical, and Tom--my local anarcho-capitalist reader--will readily tell you that I'm not willing to ditch as much of the government as he thinks I should.

So how did I become a radical?

I think that it is possibly the result of having a few positions in my inventory from which I will hardly budge.

I can think of two at the moment.

If you're in favor of continuing an interventionist foreign policy, replete with an empire of military bases around the world and a defense-industrial establishment capable of wagging the dog, then I'm not going to vote for you.

[Bob Barr passed that one; Barack Obama and John McCain both failed miserably.]

If you're in favor of institutionalized governmental discrimination (at any level of the government) against American citizens based on their sexual orientation, then I'm not going to vote for you.

[Barack Obama seems to be passing this one; Bob Barr and John McCain both fail.]

This would seem to leave me with Cynthia McKinney, except for provisional intractable position number three:

If your IQ doesn't appear to be measurable in at least the high double digits, then I'm not going to vote for you.

[OK, sure, that was in bad taste, but this is a f**king blog for God's sake--get over it.]

Point being: apparently holding non-interventionism and non-discrimination as core values makes one a radical.

If I'd known that, I'd have applied for my card a long time ago.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Steve:

Nowhere in my piece did I call you a radical. If you read my post, what I elaborated on was the distinction between States Rights and Federalism, where the former explicitly rejects the Incorporation Doctrine. To the best of my knowledge, Barr does not reject the incorporation doctrine, so the insinuation that he is a Dixiecrat States Rightest is erroneous, even if he goes on conservative talk shows and semantically uses the term States Rights.

Btw, I tend toward the anarchist spectrum of libertarianism, but since I don't envision a mass voluntary opt-out from the State occuring anytime soon, i do tend to be a bit more pragmatic politically, which means it takes more than semantics to get me riled up.


If Dondero is calling you a radical, that's between you and him, but it's inaccurate to be lumping in FD into that running narrative.

ka1igu1a
Anonymous said…
Welcome to my world, Steve. Lots of Libertarian centrists have been slammed as "radicals" both inside the LP and outside of it, simply for insisting that self-described "libertarians" ascribe to some consistently libertarian thought pattern.

Ironically, four years ago we were all blasted as sell-out compromising statists by the same people. But we haven't changed -- they have! ;)
Eric Dondero said…
Definitions:

Libertarian Centrists - Rudy Giuliani, Jack Kemp, David Dreier, Arnold Schwarzenegger, William Weld, Steve Forbes, et.al.

Radical Libertarians - Boston Tea Party, Tom Knapp, L. Neil Smith, Ernie Hancock, Anthony Gregory, George Phillies, Mary Ruwart, David Bergland, et.al.

Hardcore Libertarians - Libertarian Party.

Mainstream Libertarians (right smack dab in the middle of the libertarian movement) - Eric Dondero, PJ O'Rourke, Cato, Jonah Goldberg, Reason, Republican Liberty Caucus, Leon Drolet.

Paleo-libertarians - Lew Rockwell, Ron Paul, et.al.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...