Thursday, 17 of May of 2012

American Glob

Print

In Which I Respectfully Disagree With Will Wilkinson

I don’t know Will Wilkinson personally but I know he’s a Libertarian writer who has worked for the highly regarded Cato Institute.

Wilkinson wrote an article for The New Republic today in which he calls Ron Paul an “embarrassment” to the creed of Libertarianism.

I like many of Ron Paul’s ideas and disagree with others, specifically his approach to foreign policy but my objection to Wilkinson’s article has nothing to do with Ron Paul.

It’s based on the first half of his second sentence…

In 2006, I tossed a few dollars at the Democrat running for Senate against the loathsome Rick Santorum. It could have been a three-headed goat, for all I cared, but Wikipedia says it was Bob Casey.

Before you jump to conclusions, let me state for the record that I am not now, nor have I ever been a supporter of Rick Santorum. I don’t believe he is a “loathsome” person as Wilkinson characterized him, I think he is probably a decent man despite our political differences.

My problem with Wilkinson’s article is simply this:

I don’t believe it’s possible to be a Libertarian and support Democrats. Ever.

In an election for city council, congress, president or local dog catcher, I believe a Libertarian’s realistic choices are to vote Republican, Libertarian, Independent, or write-in.

There is nothing Libertarian about the Democratic Party and our current president is a perfect example of my point.

Barack Obama ran against the wars – then expanded them.

Barack Obama ran against federal wiretapping programs – then expanded them.

Barack Obama ran against Bush’s faith based initiatives – then expanded them.

Barack Obama ran against Bush’s debts – then expanded them.

I could go on…

With all due respect to Mr. Wilkinson, I do not believe personal dislike for a Republican candidate justifies Libertarian support for any Democrat. Ever.

Ron Paul is not likely to be the Republican nominee in 2012 but if he was and I was faced with a choice between Paul and Obama, I wouldn’t think twice about voting for Paul.

Anyone who would do otherwise is simply not a Libertarian.

UPDATE: Welcome, Instapundit readers.

---

Leave a comment

Comments RSS TrackBack 34 comments

• Reply

  Instapundit » Blog Archive » LIBERTARIANS AND DEMOCRATS: Respectfully disagreeing with Will Wilkinson….

  in September 2nd, 2011 @ 23:17

  [...] LIBERTARIANS AND DEMOCRATS: Respectfully disagreeing with Will Wilkinson. [...]

  ---

• 
  Reply

  teapartydoc

  in September 2nd, 2011 @ 23:40

  The kind of person like a Steve Chapman, or this Wilkinson bloke, who hold such a low opinion of R’s that they can justify a vote for an obvious statist is simply NOT libertarian. The point should not be to criticize the way they vote, they should be shunned.

  ---

• 
  Reply

  Clint

  in September 2nd, 2011 @ 23:52

  Couldn’t agree more. One cannot call himself a Libertarian and vote for a Democrat—ever. The ONLY freedom Democrats fight for is a woman’s freedom to terminate the life of her unborn child. That’s it. The rest of their agenda amounts to nothing more than curtailing personal freedoms.

  ---

• 
  Reply

  JDW

  in September 3rd, 2011 @ 00:08

  So, Wilkinson, after hating on Santorum, reveling in what he perceives as Giuliani’s discomfort, and attacking Ron Paul, is the true Libertarian. All these proofs while at the same time being apparently proud of his PAST affiliation with CATO, and touting predictable left-wing talking points.

  For Wilkinson, and certain unacknowledged leftists, their rare form of libertarianism is basically for people who are reflexively liberal but without the courage to say so. Or admit it.

  ---

• 
  Reply

  JDW

  in September 3rd, 2011 @ 00:12

  And, anyway, who the f*ck! names their kid William Wilkinson? And what self respecting libertarian type augments that by deciding upon “Will Wilkinson”? What staunch libertarian would stand for such alliterative idiocy? If Will-WIlk was legit he’d have changed his name to something like “Free Pot Now” (qua “World Be Free of the NBA) than endure that blight of a name upon his persona. So, yeah, his easy acceptance of such a name? Libtardation!

  ---

• 
  Reply

  Tenther

  in September 3rd, 2011 @ 00:39

  Very true. If the Democrats ever lived up in some significant way to their own self-image as being so much in favor of freedom from tyranny, you could almost see a Libertarian voting for them on occasion. All they would have to do, say, is seriously try to get fewer people put in prison for victimless crimes. Or possibly ease up on the War on Drugs (if not actually legalizing drugs.) Or maybe oppose the death penalty (although I don’t know if that’s necessarily a Libertarian position.) And if there were any single instance besides abortion where Democrats supported doctors being able to freely treat their patients as they see fit without interference from the state, then one could imagine being torn, saying, “well it’s true that the Republican wants to lower taxes and cut spending, but his Democratic opponent supports policies that will keep hundreds of thousands of non-dangerous young men out of prison.” But no, the freedoms that the GOP support are opposed by the Dems, and the state tyranny supported by the GOP are in general also supported by the Dems.

  ---

• 
  Reply

  Lee Reynolds

  in September 3rd, 2011 @ 01:01

  The Republican party has gotten away with an awful lot simply because the Democrats are so awful. They got away with earmarks, pork, attempts to build bridges to nowhere, and other such malfeasance with public funds for a very long time.

  Their much vaunted Contract With America turned into business as usual style corruption that greatly increased our national debt long before Obama came along with the spendulus.

  It goes to show just how diseased our nation is when the voters are forced to choose between diabolically evil leftists on one hand, and corrupt Republicans who see elected office as a way to funnel money into the pockets of their business partners back home.

  ---

• 
  Reply

  Buck O'Fama

  in September 3rd, 2011 @ 01:07

  As Christopher Hitchens once said, “I dislike the Republicans but I despise the Democrats.”

  Yup.

  ---

• 
  Reply

  Oschisms

  in September 3rd, 2011 @ 02:33

  Don’t respectfully disagree with Will W. He won’t extend the same courtesy to you.

  ---

• 
  Reply

  Sailor

  in September 3rd, 2011 @ 02:47

  I think you forgot the option of refusing to vote.

  ---

• Reply

  Libertarians and Democrats «ScrollPost.com

  in September 3rd, 2011 @ 03:20

  [...] [...]

  ---

• 
  Reply

  StoneHeads

  in September 3rd, 2011 @ 03:26

  Agreed. The Democrat Party, even on the social issues where I believe many libertarians are in agreement with their goals, use methods that are statist and which infringe individual freedom. Big Government is by definition incompatible with libertarianism, which is founded on a strong individualism and a belief that man should be free to make his or her own mistakes, so long as those mistakes do not injure others. Current Democrats are hypocritical in that they run on false statements that do not reflect their true political philosophy. As this author points out, Democrats have not kept a single campaign promise. In addition, DEmocrats use the power of the State to achieve their ends and they are constantly working at expanding the reach of that State. This is not to say Republicans are particularly good for libertarians either. Too many of them also like to use government’s powers to achieve their ends. But as a group, they are closer to libertarian goals and unlike the Democrats, Republicans occasionally make real efforts to roll back some of the State’s tentacles. For that reason alone, they are a better choice than the Democrats.

  ---

• 
  Reply

  M. Simon

  in September 3rd, 2011 @ 03:31

  Uh. I voted for Obama over Keyes in 2004 for similar reasons. My libertarian creds are fairly solid. But I hang with the Libertarian Republicans these days because they win elections. Say. Isn’t Ron Paul a Libertarian Republican? Just asking.

  ---

• 
  Reply

  Francis W. Porretto

  in September 3rd, 2011 @ 05:05

  At some point, persons such as Wilkinson, who wrote this back in 2002:

  What people are interested in is a sense of identity. If a party grates against our sense of the kind of person we’d like to be, then we don’t want anything to do with it.

  So, if the alternative to being an uptight, sanctimonious, moralistic asshole is to be a Democrat, then we’ll want to be Democrats—even if we do end up getting shafted by Taxman. And I think that’s the way a whole lot of folks in my demo (BoBo Gen-X) see it. To large swaths of the public mind, choosing to put a gargoyle like John Ashcroft in charge of norm enforcement is like choosing to put Michael Moore in charge of the Fed.

  …will be compelled to answer a rather urgent question:

  “Am I more concerned with Candidate X’s opinion of my sex life than I am with his plans for my liberty, my property, and the rule of law in this country?”

  Irregularly throughout my sixty years, I’ve had to cope with others’ disapproval of decisions I deemed private. It doesn’t appear to have affected my curve ball. To be obsessively concerned with a politician’s opinion of what you do with your genitals prioritizes the least important thing about him above all else that he says, does, and has achieved.

  And now for the unspoken word: ABORTION.

  How much of Mr. Wilkinson’s loathing of Rick Santorum arises from Mr. Santorum’s conviction that abortion is murder — a conviction far better, wiser, and more accomplished men than either of them have held throughout recorded history?

  ---

• 
  Reply

  Jennine

  in September 3rd, 2011 @ 06:30

  Wil Wilkinson favored the melding of liberal and libertarian ideas, a theory once called “liberaltarianism”. As you might imagine, this concept of bringing together who worship the state with others who hold their individuality to be sacrosanct, this fusion was antithetical and frankly insane and the movement died a merciful quick death.. Wil was a big sponsor of this which might tip his hand as to where he would like to be and how he views the world politically.

  I used to follow his Twitter feed but stopped after I realized something quite obvious in that when the libertarian worldview let’s him down he heads towards liberal territory for cover.

  He is a LINO. (libertarian is name only.) Cato is very open minded to keep him around.

  ---

• 
  Reply

  Bill Dalasio

  in September 3rd, 2011 @ 06:31

  Will Wilkinson isn’t a libertarian. But, he plays one at the New Republic.

  ---

• 
  Reply

  Nigel Ray

  in September 3rd, 2011 @ 06:36

  I’m one of those religious right types, and think very highly of Rick Santorum, so you know where I’m coming from. But I want to write in support of the general ideas in this post.

  Libertarians and Social Conservatives have a joint interest in making government a lot smaller. You people for obvious reasons, and me and mine because bigger governments inevitably crack down on our religious freedoms.

  Having said that, we aren’t going to vote for candidates unless they are at least friendly toward our social agenda (saving babies, public decency, etc.). If you really want to shrink government, you need to find candidates that give you much of what you want, while still throwing us some red meat. Dr. Paul is no where near my first choice for this election, but he does have a very nice point of view on abortion, for example.

  ---

• 
  Reply

  Bill Dalasio

  in September 3rd, 2011 @ 06:42

  By the way, Ron Paul ran as the Libertarian candidate for President in 1988. Will Wilkinson was 15 at the time.

  ---

• 
  Reply

  Slocum

  in September 3rd, 2011 @ 06:46

  Yes, Obama has been very poor on most issues libertarians care about. You forgot to list the tragic, moronic ‘war on drugs’ featuring dog-shooting, middle-of-the-night SWAT raids on supposedly free citizens — and Obama hasn’t been any better on that either. But his administration has been a little better on the treatment of gays, and that’s not nothing. Certainly not enough for libertarians, but not nothing.

  But the idea that there could never be a Democrat that libertarians should prefer? Nonsense. You could have a Democrat who favors free trade and free markets and actually holds the line on the size of government (as Clinton did) and is actually serious about civil liberties and ending the war on drugs (unlike Clinton, unfortunately), and such a candidate would be worthy of serious consideration by libertarians.

  ---

• 
  Reply

  Chuck M

  in September 3rd, 2011 @ 06:57

  “Ron Paul is not likely to be the Republican nominee in 2012 but if he was and I was faced with a choice between Paul and Obama, I wouldn’t think twice about voting for Paul.” …

  The subjunctive mood should be used:

  “Ron Paul is not likely to be the Republican nominee in 2012 but if he WERE and I was faced with a choice between Paul and Obama, I wouldn’t think twice about voting for Paul.”

  Aside from that – agreed.

  ---

• 
  Reply

  NukemHill

  in September 4th, 2011 @ 12:32

  I love grammar-nazis. They make my heart go all pitter-pat.

  ---

• 
  Reply

  tim maguire

  in September 3rd, 2011 @ 07:12

  This rant might be better directed against someone like Megan McCardle, who claims to be a Libertarian but voted for Obama. But “no voting for Democrats ever” is the wrong prescription. Relentless dedication to one party is how interest groups marginalize themselves. The only way to get either party to care about you is to put your vote in play. Make them earn it or they won’t.

  ---

• 
  Reply

  MIchael

  in September 3rd, 2011 @ 10:32

  Will Wilkinson resembles a British Liberal Democrat. He’s a social liberal with concerns about civil and economic liberties. He also is on record as favoring the Canadian health care system.

  ---

• 
  Reply

  Les Nessman

  in September 3rd, 2011 @ 10:53

  tim m: “But “no voting for Democrats ever” is the wrong prescription. Relentless dedication to one party…”

  I don’t think the author has a ‘relentless dedication to one party’; since he said in his article “I believe a Libertarian’s realistic choices are to vote Republican, Libertarian, Independent, or write-in.” Nothing ‘one party’ about that.

  ---

• Reply

  Classical Values » Libertarians who support Democrats are self-canceling

  in September 3rd, 2011 @ 14:10

  [...] Glenn Reynolds, some words of wisdom from American Glob: I don’t believe it’s possible to be a Libertarian and support [...]

  ---

• 
  Reply

  Rick Caird

  in September 3rd, 2011 @ 15:11

  The problem with voting for, say, a conservative Democrat is that you also are voting for Pelosi and Reid, too. Even a conservative Democrat has to vote to vote to organize the House or the Senate and that ends up giving control to the ranking members of that party. Consider the Michigan voter who voted for Stupak because he was anti abortion. Not only did that turn out to be true when the full weight of the party turned on him, but that voter also got ObamaCare, Dodd-Frank, a a “not so much” stimulus that did nothing expect produce nearly $1 trillion of debt.

  Growing up, I was taught to vote for the man not the party. But with the man, you also get what is probably the worst of the party.

  ---

• 
  Reply

  JB

  in September 3rd, 2011 @ 15:40

  Ron Paul has done more for libertarianism than Wilkinson ever will.

  ---

• 
  Reply

  rickl

  in September 4th, 2011 @ 10:39

  There’s already a word for “libertarians” who care about sexual liberty to the exclusion of all else: Libertines.

  ---

• 
  Reply

  NukemHill

  in September 4th, 2011 @ 12:31

  I believe the sentiment comes from the mistaken idea that Democrat = Classical Liberal. While this equation held a lose truth many years ago, the Democratic Party has been completely subsumed by the Far Left, and all of its anti-liberty ideals and precepts.

  To vote Democrat is to vote anti-individual rights, anti-freedom, anti-limited government, and to ultimate vote pro-statism. Period.

  ---

• 
  Reply

  Jim

  in September 4th, 2011 @ 13:22

  Cato and Reason are complete frauds. They are not libertarian, they are just two more gangs looking to ingratiate themselves with the insiders. What they did to Ron Paul in 2008 is unforgivable. Ignore them and their lies and focus on Ron’s record and his 35 year record of actually voting for liberty. They are just dog shit on his shoes. A lot of stink with no effect.

  ---

• Reply

  Libertarians Have One Choice In 2012-Vote Republican | Iron Mill News Service

  in September 22nd, 2011 @ 09:24

  [...] I recently wrote on my blog that Libertarians should not support Democrats. Ever. [...]

  ---

• Reply

  Please Read My Post At BIG Government » American Glob

  in September 25th, 2011 @ 00:36

  [...] Read My Post At BIG Government A few weeks ago, I wrote a post about Libertarians and Democrats which generated huge buzz and was ultimately linked by [...]

  ---

• 
  Reply

  Nathan

  in September 29th, 2011 @ 04:38

  Cato made this case many years ago. In places where the executive tends to have more power, wars, drug policy, immigration, etc. Democrats tend to be better. In places where the legislative branch has more power, like budgets, Republicans tend to be better. If we could have Republicans dominate one branch of the legislature it would bode well for liberty. All three branches, not so much.

  ---

• Reply

  American Glob’s Top 15 Posts of 2011 » American Glob

  in December 29th, 2011 @ 19:53

  [...] 15. In Which I Respectfully Disagree With Will Wilkinson [...]

  ---

American Glob uses WordPress as content manager.