From A. Barton Hinkle at Reason:
Funny thing about those professing to care about libertarian values. This year the Republican candidate, Ed Gillespie, came from the more establishment wing of the GOP, and could not be mistaken for a libertarian even on a moonless night. This made Sarvis the undisputed libertarian in the race. Yet those conservatives who last year urged support for Cuccinelli because he was ostensibly the real libertarian did not, this year, urge support for Sarvis. You can’t help thinking their unctuous concern last year for the cause of pure libertarianism might not have been wholly sincere. (It is of course dismaying to contemplate the prospect that not everything in politics is always wholly sincere. But we must be grown-ups and admit the possibility, however remote.)
Democrats also compete for the libertarian vote. Like libertarians, they favor less military action abroad. They also talk a good game on social issues such as gay marriage, civil liberties, and the war on drugs. When he ran for president, Barack Obama was particularly emphatic on the need to restore those constitutional rights that had been eroded by the war on terror. Once in office, though, he became an enthusiastic supporter of the Patriot Act and other tools of the leviathan state.
Mark Warner seems to find this less troubling than some other Democrats do, just as he is untroubled by market interventions such as the Export-Import Bank—for which he voiced support earlier this year. And because Gillespie was less strident on social issues than Cuccinelli—but also less forceful in support of economic freedom—Warner and Gillespie took votes from Sarvis in more equal measure. According to exit polls, Sarvis got 3 percent of the vote among self-described conservatives, 3 percent of the vote among self-described moderates, and 3 percent of the vote among self-described liberals.
On the other hand, while zero percent of self-identified Democrats voted for Sarvis, 3 percent of self-identified Republicans did. This has led to some of the same recrimination on the right as last year. While conceding Sarvis is “a serious, well-qualified guy,” for instance, Power Line—a prominent conservative blog—spoke for many when it accused him of becoming “a professional spoiler.”
But a spoiler of what? A spoiler of GOP hopes, is the implication. The response to that is twofold. First, that premise is often wrong. And second: Even when it is right, so what?
The reason libertarians don’t vote for candidates from the two major parties is not because they suffer from a false consciousness that leads them to misapprehend their own political preferences. The reason they don’t vote for Republicans or Democrats is because—brace yourself now—they don’t want either Republicans or Democrats to win.
Read the full article here.
Brilliant work by A. Barton Hinkle in the original. I’m spreading it on FB…
Wow, NF, I didn’t know that’s what it stands for. It makes sense, now that I realize it’s usually in written in all CAPS.
You’re right, that sounds significantly less friendly.
I just wish learned people would use the correct form when referring to the USAPATRIOT Act. By just saying Patriot Act we just play into the mind games of the government that makes this terrible and unconstitutional law seem so safe and protective. The act stands for Uniting (and) Strengthening America (by) Providing Appropriate Tools Required (to) Intercept (and) Obstruct Terrorism. Somehow THAT seems a LOT less friendly to me!
Here’s a wonderful sentence: ” The reason they don’t vote for Republicans or Democrats is because—brace yourself now—they don’t want either Republicans or Democrats to win.”
So simple, and so true.