Voting Libertarian

I posted the following in a discussion of this article on the future of libertarianism at Reason.

Why I don't vote Libertarian:

1) Lousy candidates

I joined the Libertarian Party in 1996 after reading Peter McWilliams' Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do and Harry Browne's Why Government Doesn't Work. I began subscribing to Liberty and Reason magazines at that time as well. In November of 1996 I voted for Harry Browne for President.

Over the next four years, Liberty editor R.W. Bradford convinced me that Browne's use of campaign funds was, at best, inept. In 2000, being unwilling to vote for Browne or Gore, I held my nose and voted for Bush.

In 2004, the Libertarian Party nominated Michael Badnarik. It was my informed opinion based on a number of Badnarik's stated positions that the man is a kook and a crank. His nomination convinced me that the LP could not be taken seriously. I tried to make myself vote for John Kerry, but just couldn't do it. In the end, I painted my nostrils with VapoRub, held my nose, and voted for Bush again.

This year, the LP nominated Bob Barr. That nomination leaves me considerably more hopeful about the party's future. It is a serious, rather than silly nomination. That being said, I did not find Barr's conversion convincing. If I'm going to vote for a Republican, I might as well vote for the one on the GOP's own ticket.

When choosing between the Dems and the GOP, I am primarily an "economics issues" voter. As lousy as the Republicans are on economics, in general the Democrats are worse. Barack Obama promised me a massive expansion of government. I voted for John McCain in the desperate hope that he might be slightly better on growth of government, and because after following his career for a number of years, I respect him, even though I think he is deeply wrong on many things.

2)Libertarian "Purity"

I am an atheist, but don't hate religion. I oppose hate crime legislation and flag burning amendments. I believe the Department of Education should be abolished, as well as the DEA. I support increased immigration, and an amnesty for illegals already in the country. I like homosexuals just fine, but believe businesses should be allowed to discriminate on any basis they like. I'm a lousy fit for either of the two major parties. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, I agree with libertarians on every single issue except monetary policy and the use of American military force.

Now, no one (well, almost no one) has ever wanted to kick me out of the club for disagreeing with Ron Paul on the Fed. But I supported the invasion of Iraq and that support hasn't wavered, despite being disgusted by how badly it was managed by Bush and Rumsfeld.

As I said, I'm a poor fit for the Democratic or Republican parties, but most of the time it's fairly clear that both parties have room for someone like me.

Meanwhile, libertarians who can't even poll 1% want nothing to do with me because of this single disagreement (and its broader foreign policy implications). Often, I am not only wrong, I am evil.

Welch and Gillespie characterize Neal Boortz as "in the tank" for the GOP as much as Kos is for Democrats. I've certainly never gotten this impression, the religious right hates him, and Boortz agrees with libertarians on most issues, but is apparently excommunicated over Iraq and immigration.

I think Boortz is wrong on immigration, but I think it's too bad that there apparently isn't room for him in the party either.

It's questionable whether the Libertarian Party can still be the Libertarian Party if the tent becomes too big. But I believe a bigger tent is probably the only way the party can ever be viable.

In the past, I have discussed, debated, persuaded, conceded and learned, and I will certainly continue to do so. However I will not argue any of my above points at this time, as it is not my intention here to convince any of you that my conclusions are the right ones. Several people have wondered why self-described libertarians might not vote libertarian, and the above represents my personal experience, in the event that it might provide some insight to the curious.