Mainstream libertarians tend to cloak themselves in the full regalia of the American founding. They do this in the modern way that venerates democracy.
On the other hand, they like to act as though they are uncompromising in their support for freedom.
Unfortunately for these libertarians, democracy necessitates compromise – lots of it.
To see what I mean, consider a mainstream libertarian response to extreme Tea Party candidates. Here, for example:
But there is a delicate, almost aesthetic question that remains: Do we [i.e. mainstream libertarians] back candidates like Carl Paladino and Christine O’Donnell—people we wouldn’t ask home to dinner, except in a Dinner for Schmucks sense? Put another way: Is our thirst for a resounding defeat for the statist Democrats so great that some of us would be prepared to swallow a mouthful of “Paladonnell” rotgut along with the premier cru of a GOP victory in the House, the Senate, and elsewhere?
Personally, I would love to see Paladino and O’Donnell lose, since they’ve distracted attention from the small-government message by adding in their own social conservatism and cultural weirdness. Republican primary voters need to be reminded to be more grownup, and practical.
Think of the electorate as a black box. Candidates for elected offices go in and winners come out.
The question for libertarians is: how do you get smaller and better government out of the black box?
The problem is that a mass electorate has never shown much desire for small government. Libertarians like to think that they have sound intellectual basis for their beliefs, but the black box is not very intelligent. Thanks to mass migration, in which we select for low IQ, the black box is getting stupider all the time. I have no idea how to make the black box produce good results. Neither do libertarians.
So, what does mass – i.e. viable in a democracy – libertarianism look like? I think it probably looks a lot like the Tea Party. What am I missing? My point is that mainstream libertarians who reject the Tea Party and embrace democracy are being retarded. A vehicle like the Tea Party is the only way in which libertarianism can achieve electoral success. If you’re waiting for a mass movement that embraces doctrinaire libertarianism, don’t hold your breath.
I should note that I do not want to give the impression that I support or endorse the Tea Party. I reject the idea that any good outcome can come from the ballot box – an appeal to mediocrity cannot, after all, generate excellence. I’m simply wondering when mainstream libertarianism will wise-up and reject democracy.