Boortz and LP "Purity," pt. II
I chose in my first entry to actually address the purity issue. Now I'd like to point out that in significant ways Boortz' raising of the purity issue in this context functions as a diversion.
As someone else very insightfully put it, the purity argument is a "straw man."
A few thoughts on this:
The issue of Bush's imperialistic foreign policy is not, at this time in our country's history, just another issue that Libertarians have divergent views on. Any person looking at the world objectively can see this, and the concerns of most Americans reflect that.
It makes sense and is justified that Libertarians place such great emphasis on Mr. Boortz' variance on this single issue.
Further, this level of concern really requires very little discussion of principle.
Mr. Boortz' fame and influence have real effects in the physical world. Particularly when it comes to Iraq, he is a major source of disinformation. The mere fact that there is a legion of people who can thank Boortz for their view that President Bush is just "doing what needs to be done," attests to the real world effects of this disinformation.
Boortz' painting of petition supporters with the "purity" brush just serves to detract from this reality.
It's quite likely that Boortz' influence has, since 9-11-01, done more to undermine the attainment of a non-interventionist foreign policy than the entire LP has so far done to achieve it.
And yet the LP leadership honors Mr. Boortz' fame and its effects.
Posted by Jeff Smith at December 9, 2003 07:53 AM | TrackBack
I am as "big tent" a libertarian as anyone. It is fine to agree and disagree on issues and tactics. Difficult issues like abortion and religion will remain difficult, yet need not divide us. Nevertheless there are lines which should not be crossed.
The line here is bold and broad. If it is OK for the US government to invade other countries who have not attacked us and if it is OK for the FBI to spy on US citizens and indeed hold citizens indefinitely without trial as "enemy combatants", then the libertarian principles of non-aggression and individual sovereignty have been tossed out the window in the name of "national security". At that point is there anything left worth keeping?
If we abandon our fundamental principles, then why bother? We should just make out our checks to the Republicans or the Democrats and keep our mouths shut. We will have nothing meaningful left to say.
Thousands of people are _dying_ because of this.
I don't want to sound like I'm "Mr. Compassion," but I'm astonished at how little this reality seems to have actually gotten through to people.
Mr. Boortz has been one of the most vocal cheerleaders for this. To hear all the mild-mannered, half-concerned affirmation of giving the guy a podium from which to speak is, I don't know, a little spooky.
Maybe it's partly the way the media has failed to give us a true impression of what's happening. Or maybe these darker-skinned, non-European people just don't seem to have much value, appearing to us as simple, insignificant folk who exist in a non-technological fashion that somehow registers to us as being less than fully human.
There's some truth in the perception that Libertarians perceive the world through their wallets. That's something the LP really needs to work on.
You guys are silly! I persoanlly think it is very un-libertarian of you to even think of banning an individual from speaking because you diverge from his views. Boortz has done more to promote the cause of liberty than all of you put together and he has put the LP on the map you should be thanking him not banning him.
Posted by: JB at January 19, 2004 09:19 PM