Politics is a game of perception and coalition building, and let’s be honest: libertarians struggle with both of these concepts. The most recent and disappointing example of this can be seen by Jordan LaPorta’s article at The Libertarian Republic.
After decades of allowing others to drive their narrative and failing to achieve their political goals in the process, you would think they would have adapted in true praxeological and free-market fashion (kek). Yet it appears that those writing under the banner of libertarianism today are more interested in respectability than liberty. With Mr. LaPorta and The Libertarian Republic we find that in the interest of “ideological purity,” libertarians are being urged to reject the alt-right in total and bend the knee to Johnson-Weld’s Libertarian Party platform, a platform that amounts to little more than an ideologically diluted tourist trap for disaffected, low-information Middle Americans.
The author begins by observing that “the alt-right is difficult to pin down.” This is the only remotely insightful comment Mr. LaPorta makes on the subject of the alt-right. Mr. LaPorta wastes several paragraphs unbraiding Thomas Woods for daring to have meaningful, respectful interaction with Milo Yiannopoulos and Vox Day. I’m sure the Mises Institute senior fellow has been greatly humbled and shamed by this. The article falls apart at the conclusion, where any hint of serious engagement with different ideas is eschewed in favor of squishy, emotional language. “Collaboration with those with hateful hearts is bad,” concludes the fellow who quite obviously allows a more liberal slant to drive his narrative… An all-too-common rhetoric you find with libertarians today.
Libertarians like Mr. LaPorta are more than welcome to represent their pablum as somehow reflecting libertarianism in a positive light. But libertarians who actually care about maximizing liberty in any consequential sense should not pay much attention to the suckups and sinecures in their “party” who would silence new ideas in order to pander to feminists and neoconservatives.