Commenter Anthony F. Lewis writes:

The pacifist position of the Libertarian Party is irrational in today’s world. In a strained effort to appear consistent (i.e. proponents of a “non-coercive” government) the party has adopted a foreign policy position that has solidified its position as a philosophical debating society, not as a political party with real-world aspirations of holding power some day.

If you consider most of the Founding Fathers to be libertarians, you have to also consider that they had no trouble fighting for their beliefs.

Interesting point. I’d say, however, that much like libertarianism as a philosophy, the wisdom of the founding fathers (on which I rely in almost all other endeavors, including buggy repair) has little to tell us about foreign policy today.

The position of a small, vulnerable set of former colonies in danger of being ripped apart or swallowed by any number of world powers is simply too far removed from that of the world’s only superpower to bear much comparison or analogizing.

Reader T.C. writes:

As libertarian Republican I am indeed concerned about the future of the libertarian movement. I never cease to be amazed at the political naiveté of those who support the
Libertarian Party.

The LP has achieved absolutely nothing except to have helped to elect several liberal Democrats who would very likely have lost but for the presence of an LP candidate to take away votes from the Republican candidate.

Libertarians could do far more for the cause of limited government and free markets if they would work within the Republican Party and help to elect conservative candidates.

While many conservatives leave a lot to be desired from the libertarian perspective, the vast majority of conservative officeholders are with us on far more issues than the leftwing Democrats who would otherwise be elected.

Libertarians have to grow up and recognize that politics is a serious business not to be trifled with.

A common view. But how well does it hold up given the Bush assault on gays and civil liberties?

OK, starting to get some good responses to my posts here and here.

I’m going to start posting some of the responses I’ve received from the comments section, via e-mail and on other blogs.

I’ll give some short comments in response, also. I’m not necessarily trying to draw anyone into protracted debate, but it’s worth getting some of these arguments out in the open.

And, to my many friends in the libertarian movement (in its various institutional forms) this is of course all undertaken in the spirit of talking about the future of the movement, not attacking any of its various members.

Given this and this column today, and this column last week, it’s clear I’m sure that I’m thinking a lot about the future of libertarianism these days. These columns give the broad outlines of my thinking — I think.

Basically, libertarians have long been a small group, but one with an outsized amount of influence due to financial resources and proximity to Republican power. But if we’re taken for granted, and if we don’t think more creatively about how to achieve our political goals (i.e. whom our allies are), we risk utter irrelevancy in a post-9/11 world with a tendency toward increasing state power.

The columns linked above deal pretty much exclusively with domestic issues, though.

The main problem with libertarians right now, frankly, is their inability to have anything serious to say regarding foreign policy. Pacifism combined with isolationism, as preached more or less by many at Cato and Reason is neither the popular nor the correct answer to the threat of global terrorism. And hunting Osama bin Laden, as was the Kerry solution, is, frankly, just an idiotic personalization of a phenomenon that ultimately, make no mistake about it, amounts to a historic clash of civilizations.

The West has to win this conflict, but it also has to realize that it can lose, too.

Part of winning, I firmly believe, is fighting the encroachments of government upon our civil liberties and upon the economic strength we need to prevail.

Until mainstream libertarians get this, and find something substantive to say about it — as opposed to bitching endlessly about Iraq and sounding more and more like Michael Moore — they will, quite deservedly, lose more and more influence in national politics.

I am, to be direct, looking at you, Cato and Reason.

In the past, I’ve mistakenly been willing to give John Ashcroft the benefit of the doubt as to his respect for the Constitution and the rule of law. The caricature of him on the left, I thought, was simply a bit hysterical.

I take it all back.

Yesterday, speaking to the Federalist Society, Ashcroft, according to The Washington Post:

told a meeting of conservative lawyers … that court decisions limiting President Bush’s powers are part of “a profoundly disturbing trend” in which the judicial branch is injecting itself into matters that should be up to the executive branch.

…

“The danger I see here is that intrusive judicial oversight and second-guessing of presidential determinations in these critical areas can put at risk the very security of our nation in a time of war,” Ashcroft said … He added later: “Our nation and our liberty will be all the more in jeopardy as the tendency for judicial encroachment and ideological micromanagement are applied to the sensitive domain of national defense.”

…

Ashcroft’s speech focused primarily on the argument that the Constitution and its authors intended for the president to exercise broad authority in implementing federal laws and policies, including a “primary role in the making of all treaties and other international agreements for the United States.” Ashcroft said the president’s interpretations of those agreements “are owed deference by the courts.”

Not to be cute, but what Constitution, exactly, is the attorney general talking about?

The New York Sun reports that politicians in Holland are going underground, as the Theo van Gogh murder reverberates:

A week after van Gogh’s execution style murder, many residents of Amsterdam are still jumping at shadows. A roster of public officials has been moved into safe houses.

…

[There is] worry that his death has opened Pandora’s box and Holland’s target list will continue to grow, moving from critics of Islam to Amsterdam’s gay community to the nation’s Jewish leaders.

According to authorities, that has already happened. Dutch police arrested two men in their 20s Saturday for allegedly distributing a video on the Internet that promised “paradise” to anyone who beheaded Geert Wilders, a popular right-wing Dutch politician who has long warned his countrymen of the dangers of radical Islam.

Yesterday, the third-largest newspaper in Holland, De Volkskrant, ran a cover story about a local Web site that proclaimed homosexuality was an illness and called on the faithful to follow the teaching of the Koran and throw homosexuals from the tops of buildings.

And Mayor Cohen has rarely been seen in public since his name appeared on the van Gogh death list.

Some politicians go into hiding. Some call for appeasement. Some silence the defenders of the West.

This is a war. While so far we here in America have seen ourselves as (and to some extent been) the primary targets, it’s Europe which is most in danger. And that’s why, in the long term, I’m somewhat optimistic about the continent joining our side more decisively.

Of course, that could be quite naïve of me.

By the way, here’s Theo van Gogh’s movie, for which he died: Submission.