The "L" Word

Why is "libertarian" the go-to slur against outspoken conservative Republicans?

Factions are inevitable in any large group. Like-minded people will always band together to move the organization in their preferred direction, and these bands often coalesce into two competing groups - Republicans versus Democrats, Tories versus Whigs, Coke versus Pepsi.

Factionalism is not necessarily a bad thing. Where it goes awry is when the success of the faction becomes an end unto itself. For example, if our metric for success is Republican victories with no distinction as to the principles or positions of the candidates in question, then what have we truly won? Go Elephants!

There are several overlapping factions within the Republican Party both at the national and state levels. However, the battle lines in Idaho are clearly between the so-called establishment and the so-called libertarians.

I am not going to rehash the arguments today; I have already expounded on the various ideological differences between the two groups. Besides, the primary is over and we are unified now. In any case, this same basic conflict has been going on for generations. In the 1940s, the establishment united behind Thomas Dewey while libertarian conservatives supported Robert Taft. In the 1960s the same battle was fought between Nelson Rockefeller and Barry Goldwater. In the 1980s it was George Bush versus Ronald Reagan.

Senator Taft and Governor Dewey, circa 1948

The establishment often claims that anyone to their right is an extremist who has no chance of being elected. When that prediction turns out to be correct, as with Goldwater in 1964, they gloat. When that prediction turns out to be wrong, and a conservative candidate not only wins but wins handily like Reagan in 1980 and 1984, they act as if he was their guy all along.

I have already explained my own definition of establishment: those who are part of the existing political system and work to maintain it. I try hard to make my words mean something rather than just throwing around epithets - for example, I think the term RINO has become nothing more than a catch-all slur for Republican politicians the speaker dislikes.

On the other hand, I have seen several instances where establishment figures use the term libertarian to describe any Republican to their right. They use it dismissively, as if the term itself is enough to shut down any possible debate. I do not believe it is a fair label for most right wing Republicans. When most people hear the word libertarian they likely picture a hipster in an anarchist t-shirt advocating for marijuana legalization, and I suspect this is the image that users of the word want to conjure. While this might apply to some, such as some in the Ammon Bundy camp, for instance, I do not believe it is an apt descriptor of conservative Republicans such as Janice McGeachin, Scott Herndon, Priscilla Giddings, Ron Nate, Dorothy Moon, or Brent Regan.

Let us distinguish between libertarian ideals and the Libertarian Party. Many conservatives have certain libertarian ideals - taxation is theft, individual rights are more important than the public good, the government that governs best governs least. If these positions make one a libertarian, then Ronald Reagan was a libertarian.

The Libertarian Party, on the other hand, supports open borders, believing that it is a violation of individual rights to keep people out of the country. They also support abortion, believing that the convenience of the mother outweighs the right to life of the unborn child. They support legalizing most or even all drugs. The previous Libertarian candidate for president, the extremely unserious Jo Jorgenson, came out in support of Black Lives Matter for some reason. At their 2016 national convention, a candidate for party chairman stripped naked on stage.

The Libertarian Party is an utter circus. The Mises Caucus recently took over the national party, so perhaps we will soon see a return to sanity, but in the meantime the Republican Party - for all its faults - remains the best organization fighting for liberty in America.

Congressman Ron Paul, circa 2012

Many libertarian-leaning Republicans follow the ideals of former Texas congressman and Republican candidate for president Ron Paul. Dr. Paul opposes foreign aid and military adventurism, opposes nearly all government spending that is not explicitly called for in the Constitution, and has called for an end to the Federal Reserve. Unlike the Libertarian Party, however, the former OB/GYN is strongly pro-life.

Dr. Paul came in third in the 2012 Republican primary, but his passionate supporters proceeded to take over many GOP central committees throughout the nation. State party platforms were strengthened in their support for liberty and freedom, and this movement laid the groundwork for the populism of Donald Trump in 2016.

When establishment figures in Idaho call right-wing conservatives libertarians they either mean we have the sort of classical conservative positions that have become passe the more the Republican Party drifts leftward, or they mistakenly believe we agree with the Libertarian Party platform. The former is a compliment - conservatives should be conserving after all - while the latter is simply untrue.

Allow me to use Wayne Hoffman as an example. As president of the Idaho Freedom Foundation, he is public enemy #1 for the both the Republican establishment and the corporate media in Idaho. He and his allies are often called libertarians by the more moderate Republicans. But is that true?

Full disclosure: I recently signed on to write for the IFF. Yet this does not change my opinions; I would not have agreed to write for them if I did not already believe in their mission.

IFF President Wayne Hoffman, circa 8/16/22

I had the opportunity to listen to Mr. Hoffman speak to the Ronald Reagan Club of Ada County this week. I wish that all those who dismiss him as a libertarian could have been there.

Capital-L Libertarians are often pro-abortion, but Wayne Hoffman is pro-life. Nearly every Republican in Idaho is pro-life, in fact, but it seems that establishment candidates use differences in tactics to accuse their opponents of being outright pro-abortion. Hoffman’s position - and mine - is that we need to look beyond obvious stances such as being pro-life, pro-gun, and pro-cop, and take a closer look at the records of our elected leaders.

Capital-L Libertarians give a pass to drag queen story time and groomer schools, out of a misplaced idea that the government should not take any role in protecting children and families. Wayne Hoffman and the IFF, on the other hand, have expended tremendous time, energy, and money in exposing CRT, Queer Theory, and the other awful propaganda being pushed on our children in public schools. In fact, the IFF just launched the Lead Map, an interactive website that pinpoints just how much social justice nonsense is being peddled in every public school in Idaho.

Capital-L Libertarians generally favor direct democracy. Wayne Hoffman explained that he does not support direct democracy, and in fact believes that the initiative process should be abolished in Idaho entirely. In that he is on the same page as State Representative Mike Moyle, who will likely be Speaker of the House in the next session.

My experience with citizen’s initiatives came from Washington state, where conservative activists used the system to enact tax cuts and constraints on the legislature. Conversely, the system is used in Idaho by progressive activists to expand government and increase taxation - Reclaim Idaho’s tax hike this year is just the latest example. Mr. Hoffman believes that our Founding Fathers never intended for citizens to directly write our laws, and that we should instead be more careful about who we elect to the legislature. I cannot think of a less Libertarian position than that!

The establishment likes to call us libertarians, but there are really several distinct factions on the far right of the Republican Party - paleo-conservatives, neo-reactionaries, and yes, some libertarians. However, Pedro Gonzalez, editor of Chronicles Magazine, recently expressed the feelings of many in the New Right:

My point here is simply that libertarian has become just as much of a meaningless slur as RINO, extremist, and racist. Name-calling only serves to obfuscate the actual issues on which we disagree.

Factionalism is fine - it is how like-minded people can change the course of an organization like the Idaho Republican Party. Factions often end up labeled, that’s fine too. But let’s be real. Let’s retire meaningless slurs and have a real debate on the issues.