I Am Not Optimistic

Donald Luskin announces "The New Libertarian" as "a new journal designed to revitalize libertarianism as a political movement much as National Review did for conservatism in the 1960s".

I might as well speak directly to this: I did not laugh right out loud when I read that because all I could do was shake my head.

Now, mark my words, ladies and gentlemen, because I'm telling you right now on the record: there is no chance in hell that that -- or anything remotely like it -- is ever going to work. That's simply fantasy. And years from now, you're going to be able to say that you read it here first.

I expect the thing to make a fair amount of noise, but that's what it's going to be. It will not have the effect that Luskin is so enthusiastic about, for all the very same reasons why the Libertarian Party is not working, and that goes to principles, which is anathema among those running The New Libertarian. If you don't believe me, then go attempt to state a rational politics from principles to those men. Set your watch, and see how long it is before you run into the classic smear of "extremism" or some synonym. ("Ideological purity" is a good one.)

These people believe that they can vote their way out of the straits this country is in, these days.

I am not happy to quote what Frank Chodorov told the Party at its inception, but reality demands it:

"Your problem is that you're trying to clean up the whorehouse while you keep the business."

No sort of pandering to any democratic impulse (which -- make no mistake about it -- is exactly what this attempts) is ever going to resolve the basic conflict, here.

Now, it could very possibly take years, but you just watch and see who's right abut this.

(Later) -- Jay Jardine e-mails:

"Barely 30 seconds before I stumbled across this revolting nonsense at qando. 'Words for libertarians to avoid' my ass - these are actual definitions that are fundamental to the getting to the essence of the problem."

Try to understand, ladies and gentlemen: these people wish to influence the culture without identifying their concepts. This necessarily means that they must endorse their opponents' concepts, because they don't have any of their own, and they are quite ready to give up all the ones that matter because their opponents find them objectionable. Observe the post that Jay has pointed out. There, Jon Henke quotes and points to "most valuable libertarian post of the day", the author of which condemns the words "collectivism", "tyranny", "anarchy", "minarchist", and "statist". That author condemns these words because they are meaningless to non-libertarians. This, of course, is not true. They do mean things to non-libertarians. (The person that Henke cited even notes this, himself, in the cases of some of them.) What's also true, of course, is that those meanings (to non-libertarians) have absolutely no basis in reality, while those words can be -- and are -- connected to reality by people who use them rationally, and that is what "libertarians" (presumably "neo", by now) are supposed to give up. We're supposed to do it because the use of definitions offends dolts and waterheads, who -- by the way -- are the ones to be sold on "libertarianism" in order that they might vote for it.

Now, you tell me: what exactly do you think people like that are going to vote for?

Henke is explicitly endorsing the proposal to un-focus the arguments. Consider what is going to happen to their "movement" when it dives headfirst into the intellectual marketplace. Given this degree of intellectual precision and commitment, they're going to disappear like a drop of water in a septic tank.