The Great "Libertarian Democrat" Hope Calls it Quits
Matt Welch | January 9, 2008, 7:27pm
Bye Bye, Bill Richardson. (Or, as the Drudge Report cleverly put it for a few minutes, "Adios Amigo." ... Get it??) Once again, Tim Cavanaugh's election predictions turn out wrong.
Richardson was far and away my most favored Blue-team candidate when this campaign first started, back there in the 1980s. A western, tax-cutting, gun-liking, bad-bolo-tie-wearing, pro-medical marijuana bon vivant seemed to hold promise in what was shaping up to be a grim Hillaryverse of left-jerking populism. But his libertarianism, as predicted by Dave Weigel, turned out to be skin deep, and for what very very little it's worth, I found him to be deeply disappointing in person, utterly failing to convince me of the very cut-and-run Iraq strategy I myself favor, warbling on about "fair trade," and showing about 1/200th of the intellectual spark of, say, Arnold Schwarzenegger.
A fun bit from Weigel's piece:
All this hype is a bit perplexing to Richardson's predecessor, former Republican Gov. Gary Johnson. A strong supporter of school choice and drug decriminalization, Johnson was, without much debate, America's most libertarian state executive.
"I don't think Bill Richardson has got much to offer libertarians," Johnson says. "He plays up the fact that he cuts taxes when, if you add up all the fees he's approved, there's been a net tax increase. It's an indictment of Cato and the Club for Growth that they'd consider him a tax cutter." How much of an indictment? "It makes me a little less impressed by the good grades Cato gave me."
Also, so as not to invoke Tim Cavanaugh in three separate posts on one day, his take on the Ron Paul newsletter flap is a must-read.
JasonL | January 10, 2008, 10:01am | #
Good piece by Cavanaugh.
My personal experiences with libertarian thought had, until a few years ago, lacked broad exposure to fringe elements. I was moved from conservatism to libertarianism by way of Reason magazine in college, and my philosophy of freedom was mostly a private affair that evolved as I continued to read The Big Names. My exposure and conversations with other libertarians was accomplished mostly by way of Hit and Run, which is a pretty moderate crowd.
Then, a few years ago, I went to a Freedom Fest FEE event in Vegas, where my exposure was considerably broadened. I met Ron Paul, I had a discussion with David Friedman about anarchy, I watched and I listened. I found myself more similar in character to a Tyler Cowen or Virginia Postrel sort of libertarian than a Ron Paul type. I became less radical and more interested in improvements on the margins.
Mostly, I became unnerved by the more radical elements I met. Conspiracy theorists, racists, sexists, and the other groups Cavanaugh mentions, when their numbers are combined, are not a fringe anymore - they are a substantial percentage of all libertarians I met at these conferences.
The war radicalized the movement yet further, to the point that q&a was impossible by the second FEE event I attended. Two out of every three "questions" for David Kelley or Ron Paul would be grandstanding expositions about government coverups of free energy devices or something equally embarrassing to hear. You'd hear not about bad policies, but about government committing murder.
It occurred to me that what I'd come to respect did not represent the bulk of the movement. The public choice types from GMU at my table had very little in common with Ron Paul and his firebreathing support of those elements I was least comfortable with.
I haven't been back to any of those events and I doubt I will. I left very uncomfortable with where the reasonable core was in the overall movement - pushed to the sidelines. I'm a libertarian but I'm skeptical of revolution. There has to be a place where policy can be nudged in the right direction without taking on all that baggage.
