As purveyor of The Libertarian Chick, I have discovered that it is impossible to please all of my fans. Over the years I have gotten cranky emails from readers who call me “The Tea Party Chick,” “The Republican Chick,” “Democrat Chick,” “hippie chick,” among others (some are too mean to include here — my mommy reads this blog!)
It is no different on my Facebook page. When I post an article about government welfare I am a “heartless neocon”; when I express support for Ted Cruz, I am “bought out by the Republican Party”; when I post about legalizing hemp I am a “left-wing nut job.”
All this capricious griping has become the norm among the libertarian community. The mindset seems to be that if you don’t agree with every aspect of the Party platform, then you are not really a libertarian.
This stubborn purism became especially real to me after I was blocked from the official Libertarian Party Facebook page. (Yes, they blocked the Libertarian Chick! Isn’t that ironic?) After expressing an opposing opinion *GASP* to one of their vocal Admins, he kicked me off the page. Just like that.
The Libertarian Party has a big problem on its hands. The exclusive nature of the group — requiring litmus tests on such topics as immigration, tax policy, government spending and social issues — is largely why we have been unable to affect major change.
We libertarians are principled people. We have strong convictions, which is what led us to break out of the the two-party system in the first place. But clinging to these convictions without allowing any dissent is what often hinders us from actually getting anything done.
I have spoken to many sanctimonious libertarians who say they will never support any candidate unless it is (fill in the blank). This is exactly what the Democratic Party is counting on. This kind of pig-headed stubbornness will send Hillary straight to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Ask yourself: Would you rather have Ted Cruz as your president, or a corrupt liberal like Hillary Clinton? Would you rather elect Marco Rubio for president, or Elizabeth Warren, who will make Obama’s current gun control policies seem like an NRA dream? Wake up, you libertarian purists! You will never get a perfect candidate. There are no perfect libertarian candidates (although Ron Paul was pretty close, in my humble opinion).
So let’s stop cannibalizing each other when we debate whether we support Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, or one of the other candidates. Expressing support for any freedom-loving candidate who understands the Constitution shouldn’t result in a full-blown, libertarian hissy-fit.
Libertarianism is all about embracing individualism. That means that all voices should be welcome at the table — even those that don’t conform with every last one of our own beliefs.
The libertarian generation is growing fast, and we have the ability to be a powerful force and affect meaningful political change. But in order to do that, we must have a robust debate, stop ripping down other libertarian candidates, keep a positive message, and come together. The future of our nation may depend on it.
5 thoughts on “Libertarians’ Big Problem (and How to Fix It)”
AMEN to THIS, Libertarian Chick! I’m sick of hearing how each candidate isn’t the perfect libertarian, so they do not deserve our support. That’s a sure way to elect another socialist to the White House.
HILLARY CLINTON-1 : HOW SHE TRIED TO KILL KGB SPY KRYZHANOVSKY”
by Mikhail Kryzhanovsky
Read online version:
Your are right, Libertarian Chick – If we don’t work together to elect someone who understands freedom (even if he’s not the perfect candidate), we will get another ass like Obama for 4 years.
Thank you for this article. I too am sick of the stubborm purists that would rather be right than win elections.
Intolerance is the death knell of any political body simply because it polarizes the process. It is possible amongst sentient people to have discourse on opposing political ideas without resorting to either hyperbole or personal attack. The Progressive notion, born from the nineteenth century religious movement from which it sprang, has always arrogated unto itself the moral high ground. If you oppose, you must be evil, stupid or both. This is the standard ad hominem liberal play and has been their motif for over a century. Libertarians, to succeed, must be the opposite — inclusive, respectful of others political beliefs even if they are not in lock step. The other parties want to use the coercive power of government to further their own agendas and fill their supporters coffers. We want to be free to support our own.
Comments are closed.