SF Weekly's Peter Jamison on the continuing discontent of Libertarians

This may not quite count as "good press," and the SF Weekly journalist misdiagnoses what ails the party, but at least he's giving a decent national LP press release some coverage:

http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2010/01/libertarians_2010_disasters.php

  Here's the response I posted (though as of this sending it has not appeared on the site):

Bashing ideology has become fashionable in the media of late. And unquestionably, ideology has its dangers -- many of the most brutal regimes in history have grown out of ideological movements (Communist China under Mao, Nazi Germany under Hitler, etc.) Strangely however, contemporary critics of ideology rarely focus on that historical record, but tend instead to center their criticisms on allegations that ideology (i.e. approaching public policy with a clear set of principles) is *too rigid*, *impractical*, *unpopular*, etc.

Peter Jamison has done some admirable pro-freedom writing for SF Weekly, including this piece documenting SF city government's wasteful war on graffiti among many others -- http://www.sfweekly.com/2009-12-09/news/coverup-worse-than-crime-s-f-outspends-other-cities-fighting-graffiti. His frustration that the Libertarian Party nominated former Republican Congressman Bob Barr for president in 2008 is completely understandable.

Nevertheless, I think he should give ideology a chance. Just as some of the worst people in history have been highly ideological, so have some of the most kind, noble, and enlightened. Consider what Mahatma Gandhi said about adhering to principle:

“A principle is a principle and in no case can it be watered down because of our incapacity to live it in practice. We have to strive to achieve it, and the striving should be conscious, deliberate and hard.”

In an era when politicians are generally *expected* to be lying hypocrites, and when most of them plainly view politics as a career opportunity to gain money and power -- i.e. they are willing to say or do whatever will "maintain their viability within the system" (as Bill Clinton explained his craven decision to go against his own beliefs by supporting the draft) -- I find political figures who have a consistent set of principled beliefs rather refreshing, even when I disagree with them.

I would rather see the Libertarian Party stick to its principles, even at the risk of remaining "distant from the levers of power," than sell out those principles and become just another vehicle for the ambitious and the corrupt. Ironically, the party's 2008 nomination of Bob Barr that Peter Jamison rightly criticizes was not an example of being too ideological, but just the opposite -- a triumph of misguided "pragmatism" over ideology. Barr was and is far too conservative for the LP, and I believe most of the Libertarians who voted to make him our presidential candidate did so mainly because they saw it as a chance to make the party more mainstream and attractive to voters.

Libertarians who opposed Barr's nomination, including myself, widely viewed the choice as a horrible mistake and gave his campaign only lukewarm support if any. My hope is that those party members who were seduced by the apparent possibility of getting closer to the "levers of power" by running a prominent former member of Congress have learned their lesson from this failure, and will not make a similar mistake again.

Instead of faulting the LP for not doing more to grasp for power, well-meaning journalists like Peter Jamison would do better to help educate the public to make better choices and understand the importance of voting for smaller, alternative parties that are not bought and paid for and candidates who take positions based on their beliefs rather than on expediency. A lot of people who supported Obama out of a desire for real change may be ready to hear this message.

I'm proud to stand for the ideology of libertarianism, because I believe non-aggression is the fairest, most compassionate, and most harmonious way to achieve social justice (see e.g. http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf).

Love & Liberty,

Starchild 2010
Candidate for SF Board of Supervisors, District 8

  If you post a comment, I hope you won't be too hard on Jamison -- if he wasn't sympathetic to our point of view, he probably wouldn't have bothered to write about this press release at all.

Love & Liberty,
        ((( starchild )))

Thank, Starchild. Interesting. However, I still do not understand why Libertarians only have this dreaded ideology problem. Is not the "Chicken in Every Pot and a Car in Every Garage" ideology? Is not "Country First" ideology? Is not "Support our Troops" ideology? I feel like I am missing the point, here; I admit. But I cannot think of a better example of ideology than for example the insistence that health care is a right possessed by all, even in the face of a country going literally bankrupt! Sure you can say, "but that is money grubbing by big pharma, etc."; but you could not pull such a stunt as health care without ideology as a driving force.

Marcy

Marcy,

  You make an excellent point. I think you're right that other ideologies *are* driving a lot of what's being debated by the political establishment, even if few members of that establishment are themselves ideologues. They simply pander to the ideologies held (if often unrecognized as such) by their constituents -- nationalism, health care as an entitlement, safety over freedom, etc. I encourage you to make your argument as a comment on the website.

Love & Liberty,
        ((( starchild )))

Hi Starchild,

I took you up on your encouragement (thank you) and posted my two cents on the SF Weekly website. BTW, at times like this, I briefly forget the bad stuff and am thankful for the good stuff, such as Freedom of Speech.

http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2010/01/libertarians_2010_disasters.php

Marcy