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.

Questions for Candidates

On the list of things that will never happen, I would like to ask a number of politicians some questions about illegal drug use.

Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Barack Obama, and New York Governor David Paterson are all widely known to have confessed to illegal drug use. So have John Kerry, John Edwards, Michael Bloomberg and Howard Dean. Hillary Clinton and John McCain are both married to people who have used drugs illegally. All of these politicians continue to support the War on Drugs, and yet there can be little doubt that all of these individuals would be worse off today had they been incarcerated for their crimes.

I am not arguing that drug abuse is a good thing, only that the prosecution of the War on Drugs does a great deal more harm than the drugs themselves. One of the great things about America has been the volume of class mobility. If we succeed in creating a permanent underclass in this country, it will be the result of the one-two punch of the War on Drugs and the disgraceful state of government school education, particularly in the inner cities.

John Adams and Patriotism

I just finished watching the first two episodes of HBO's excellent miniseries, John Adams. From what I've seen so far, I would definitely recommend it. The second episode includes a number of scenes of debates during the Continental Congresses in Philadelphia. It was a strong reminder of just what an astonishing thing it is that the United States exists at all. That the thirteen colonies were able to keep their somewhat fragile alliance together, beat back the British, and eventually forge a unified country is amazing.

There is an episode of the television comedy Sports Night in which the character Dana, who adopts a sophisticate's contempt for Broadway musicals, takes her niece to see The Lion King on Broadway. She loves it. When she returns to her work and tells her boss how wonderful it was, her eyes are shining and she says, "It was like church. I didn't know we could do that. Did you know we could do that?"

I have had moments where I am awestruck by the capacity of individuals and of mankind to do great things. The feeling I get always makes me think of Dana saying, "I didn't know we could do that."

The United States of America is an incredible country. I am lucky and grateful to have been born here. I am sharply critical of a great many things about America, but I still believe that I live in the greatest country that is or ever has been, and I love America fiercely.

John Adams reminds me of what a chancy enterprise the founders were engaged in, and the great risks they took to try, however imperfectly, to build a free republic nearly from scratch. I didn't know we could do that.

Herding Cats

I take the title of this blog from the view that getting anyone to see reason on anything is like herding cats. Most people are far less interested in truth than they are in comfortably maintaining their assumptions and prejudices about the world and themselves. I am hardly immune from this phenomenon.

Additionally, keeping my thoughts and ideas organized can also be as difficult as herding cats. I am told that blogs with a narrow focus tend to be more successful than those with a broader orientation, but whether others will characterize my interests as broad or narrow remains to be seen.

Generally speaking, I am interested in political issues from a moderately libertarian perspective, as well as issues of ethics and morality.