10 years ago, in 4 out of 5 cases, telling someone my political identification was "libertarian" drew a blank stare followed by a neutrally curious "what's that?" Most of those who knew what the word means would respond to it much the same way people respond to hearing the mention of any political identification, with instinctive praise or disdain. Most of this minority familiar with the word, however, based their praise or disdain on an accurate and somewhat scientifically valid understanding of the word's meaning; whether they agreed or disagreed, they could mount a credible, rational argument based in facts to defend their standing.
My, how the times have changed. I honestly can't remember the last time I've encountered the blank, neutral response described above. The praise or disdain paradigm remains almost unchanged when it comes to those familiar; but with the growing number of familiar people, what has really suffered is the ratio of those who have heard it to those who accurately understand it. This applies to both praisers and disdainers - they do so having absolutely no idea of it's definition and make arguments in favor or against that are silly, elementary, and make easy effigies for opponents to burn. As should be obvious from what I described in the first paragraph, I'd nary heard before the last couple of years a praise or criticism of libertarianism that reeked of this ignorance and scientific inaccuracy - the kind of qualities most arguments regarding both traditional conservatism and traditional liberalism are predominantly composed of. While I firmly affiliate with the pro-libertarian arguments, I nevertheless give credit to the counter-arguments rooted in scholarly discourse - libertarianism is not perfect and its hypothetical nature leaves much room for speculative dissent. What interests me, however, is the recent onslaught of popular criticisms of this political identification from politically ignorant detractors; the knee-jerk hisses of "they're racist!" and "they're kooky, conspiracy-believing, obsolete fundamentalists!", and mockery of libertarians as participating in and benefitting from the system while claiming to disagree with it. This doesn't insult me, it makes me hopeful that libertarianism will soon emerge as a mainstream school of thought in the United States. What is clear is that in becoming a popularly accepted political movement, even if it isn't quite mainstream at this point in time, libertarianism has become marginalized, and if you think this is BAD for libertarianism, you are simply delusional.
Essentially, the silly attacks on libertarians boil down to two grossly logically flawed marginalizations; attempting to paint all libertarians in the colors of their kookiest and most socially unacceptable supporters, and pointing out that they engage in questionable political practices like everyone else. The idiocy of the first should be obvious and I'm sure we've all witnessed it. Libertarian politicians, many blogs and forums affiliated with them, their campaign events, and so forth, have a notable history of attracting kooks as supporters and contributors. These kooks include both political extremists whose views and agendas mainstream Americans find so abhorrant that they are threatened with censorship such as NeoNazis, militant anti-immigration organizations, and religious fundamentalists of the Christian variety; and political outcasts who are free to express their views but are unlikely to be taken seriously such as truthers, birthers, globalist conspiracy theorists of various types, and so forth. The attractiveness of libertarianism to these organizations is fairly obvious - the offensive type think themselves oppressed and find that a libertarian model would allow them to freely express their objectionable views, the outcast type find that libertarians agree with them on a number of policy proposals such as the abolition of the Federal Reserve and a dissociation from various corrupt and inefficient supernational organizations, the far more rational and scientific backing of these proposals from libertarians and our significantly less extreme proposed means notwithstanding. However, marginalizing libertarians as agreeing with either of these types of supporters is simply idiotic. For one, neither type of kooks actually identify themselves as libertarian; they merely see libertarianism as a vehicle toward more recognition and liberty of expression for themselves. The liberty of expression expectation may be partially accurate, but the expectation that their ideas will become mainstream through a rise of libertarianism is quite flawed wishful thinking - an unsurprising fallacy when committed by Nazi apologists and conspiracy theorists, but disturbing hysteria when commited by detractors. More importantly, however, judging a political identification by segments of idiot-supporters is a horrendous hasty generalization. I'd be thoroughly surprised if the ratio of politically ignorant, extreme thinkers to intelligent and educated ones in the ranks of supporters and affiliates to either major party wasn't exponentially that of libertarians; but alas, the research hasn't been done to compare the two. Nevertheless, using availability sampling, think of how many kooks you've met who identify as Democrats or, more importantly, support and vote for them, because they believe that corporations and a profit-based model are the root of all evil, that a socialist or at least almost-socialist economic model would create some sort of earthly utopia, and that said party represents minorities, the poor, the underpriviledged, and so forth. Regardless of what you think of such political stances, the fact is that the Democratic Party doesn't represent them and NEVER has; it's policies are at best a Keyensian model that involves plenty of corporate power and trickle-down economics. Conversely, think of how many kooks you've met that have a similar relationship with Republicans because they claim this party represents Christian moral values, a commitment to American nationalism and security, and (these make me chuckle every time) limited government and a free-market economic model. Again, regardless of your views on said principles, the idea that Republicans represent them is an absolute joke and ALWAYS has been, their stance being at best a mixed supply-side/Keyensian model that is slightly less tolerant of social practices objectionable to Christianity than Democrats', but not by much. Just to not leave anyone out, far-left parties such as Greens and Peace and Freedom and the emerging Progressive fringe in the Democratic Party are also often marginalized for the support they get from Communist apologetics, militant minority movements like the Black Panthers and MEChA, and religious extremists of the non-Christian variety - and like the other political affiliations, these parties don't in fact espouse said supporters' beliefs and the supporters' don't claim to identify with said parties. Despite the obvious disconnect between these supporters and the respective political movements, each movement also has a history of scrutiny and logically flawed criticism that marginalizes it as agreeing with said supporters, and the more known the movement in mainstream discourse, the greater percentage of it's critics rely solely on this marginalization. The takeaway message is that every political movement has its share of kooky, ignorant, and extreme supporters, and whether or not they actually claim to identify with said movement, it is silly to ascribe said supporters' policy proposals to the movement until you can present statistical evidence that they are a majority of it or identify politicians wearing the movement badge that have advanced said policy proposals. Until then, "racist, fundamentalist libertarians" is the equivalent of "pinko, islamist-apologist democrats" and "greedy, corporate-conspiring republicans"; and anyone who advocates any of these stereotypes should be met head-on with the reminder that they sound like their idiot-counterpart from the other side(s).
The accusation of hypocrisy in questionable political practices is less widespread, but I feel I should at least explain it. Ever heard someone make fun of people who disagree with public welfare programs for collecting social security, taking out student loans, driving on public roads, and so forth? Ever heard the accusation that libertarians "buy" their popularity by advertising straw polls and events, bussing people to participate, and so forth? Yes, we do all that. My counter-question is where anyone got the idea that we are above it. As far as the use of public services, one of the most fundamental and salient libertarian economic arguments is that a system that offers these services eliminates the possibility of any other option even if it doesn't effectively BAN them, leaving common people no choice but to rely on the corruption and inefficiency of the welfare state. As I've discussed multiple times in previous posts, government subsidies and regulations drive up the costs of whatever they subsidize - education, retirement, roads - making it impossible for free market alternatives to compete, then the government rations its inefficient services so it looks like every average person has an opportunity, although as study after study shows, efficiency may be compromised but equality is far from achieved. Using these services because there aren't other options doesn't make libertarians hypocrites or secretly thankful for their existence - by that logic all residents of the USSR who disagreed with that country's economic policies should have lived in the streets and remained unemployed because all housing and labor were completely top-down government controlled. We advocate the theory that affordable alternatives don't exist because the government has regulated them away, that doesn't mean we aren't people and don't need to use the services like everyone else in the absence of said alternatives, we simply have the courage to point out they make the situation worse, not better. As for political behavior, quite simply - what political movement DOESN'T do that? When the SEIU bussed supporters the to capital in Wisconsin, that was "popular discontent", but when libertarians bus college students to a rally or debate where a politician we like is appearing, that's "buying popularity"? Contextual reliability people, please. Further, every political movement CLAIMS to have popular support as a result of such targeted antics to LOOK popular, it is a political strategy that libertarians have shown prowess at just like everyone else. People who BELIEVE these claims, such as the idea that straw polls or event attendance are scientifically representative of any sort of political popularity, are simply ignorant of how politics works; and seeing as most Americans fit into this class, it makes sense to utilize such antics. Getting mad at libertarians for succeeding at it is just desperate denial that libertarianism is becoming popularly accepted; both major parties have used these tactics for DECADES.
So, the marginalization of libertarianism, at least in my view, is an inaccurate portrayal of it; but it is obviously a more widespread view of it than 10 years ago, how is that a GOOD thing for libertarianism? Well, to put it bluntly, they call us "racist, fundamentalist hypocrites", but at least they call us. Inaccurate popular detraction is a fundamental quality of any well-known, even semi-mainstream movement - I touched on the inaccurate popular detractions of both Republicans and Democrats. I used to say that libertarianism has a difficult time competing with mainstream movements because it is dominated by politically-educated intellectuals and it's only critics are also people who fit that description. Complex and hypothetical, it has little mass-appeal to the overwhelming majority of Americans who think of politics in layman's terms, but support from a cross-section of said majority is necessary for political success. The emergence of popular detractors has resulted from a focus on libertarianism - particularly as part of attempts to marginalize the Tea Party in 2009 - by media forms that are frequented by average Americans, and such attention grants us not only popular detractors, but popular supporters as well. Witnessing the mind-numbing propaganda that calls libertarians racist and extreme, Americans become interested in seeing this "monstrous movement" for themselves whether it's to confirm these views or seek more balanced descriptions. Embarking on this search, a significant plurality find that they agree with libertarianism to some extent, especially the more visceral messages such as "downsize government, it's inefficient and corrupt" or "stop spending money on foreign aid, we're broke here at home," even if said messages are oversimplified. As for the equivalent plurality that begin with ignorance and emerge hating us, guess what - they weren't voting for us anyway! The net result is a gain of supporters, and if anything, the detractor plurality does us a favor by spreading our message further; their mudslinging netting more supporters gained than their ignorance. So, if you think we libertarians are crazy and extreme, PLEASE tell your friends and family, it is the least you can do to help us secure a mainstream presence in this country's political landscape. :}
