I think all politics makes people stupid, and is likely to make them evil as well. I had long wondered what the fuss over the LP's Mises Caucus was really about, but no one could give me a straight answer when I asked. It wasn't really that important to me, but then I recently saw them called "Republicans" (Ewww!) and got curious again.
So, I went to the source as credible as any other these days-- Wikipedia-- where I read something I could at least get some answers from.
So, the problem seems to stem from June 2021, when the Mises-controlled New Hampshire affiliate Twitter account (so, one person, I guess) made "controversial" tweets calling for "legalizing child labor" (reasonable-- just because you recognize government shouldn't forbid something doesn't mean you think anyone should be forced to do it), repealing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Good. Government shouldn't be involved. All humans already have equal and identical rights and this didn't change that), and re-opening Gitmo "so that Anthony Fauci and every governor that locked their state down can be sent there" (Terrible, statist, anti-liberty idea. But anyone can say stupid and evil things occasionally).
So, I see nothing particularly remarkable in that.
As far as the call to lock up Fauci and the other Covid tyrants, in a theft-funded government prison-- that was probably said in the midst of pain-caused anger over those monstrous policies. Doesn't make it right, but I understand the anger. It's still statist and wrong and is the nearest thing to "Republican" there..
So I read on to see what their underlying political positions are said to be.
"The Libertarian Party Mises Caucus follows the laissez-faire Austrian school of economics. It supports private property rights, and rejects socialism, corporatism, and mainstream monetary policies, such as central banking and state-issued currency. The caucus supports decentralization, including secession and localism, "all the way down to the individual". The caucus strongly rejects identity politics, political correctness, and "wokeism", denouncing it as antithetical to individualism."
That all sounds reasonable and very libertarian to me. I can see why some libertarians who are more dedicated to Left Statism than to libertarianism might not like the last sentence in the above. It's still completely libertarian to refuse to support authoritarian agendas.
"The caucus has stated that their goal is for "real libertarians" to "takeover" the party, and "fix" it by bringing "economic literacy and sound messaging". During the COVID-19 pandemic, the caucus strongly opposed lockdowns, mask mandates, vaccine passports, and vaccine mandates, and criticized the wider party for being silent and "not taking a stand".
Yes, if you're going to have a Libertarian Party, it should advocate strict (real) libertarianism, which would include rejecting all those anti-liberty Covid policies. That's just common sense and principles. If the rest of the party didn't oppose those things how could they claim to be standing for individual liberty? They dropped the ball and someone else picked it up.
So, then I read the criticisms--
"The Mises Caucus has been highly controversial within and outside the Libertarian Party. (Yeah, that's why I'd heard of them, even though I'm no fan of politics.) The caucus has been accused without evidence by many of harboring racists (racism is stupid, but racists are going to be in every group, and this is just the excuse for much authoritarianism.), anti-semites (see the note about "racists"), and transphobes (if they resist the bullying tactics of trans-activists, while not seeking to violate anyone's natural human rights in any way, this is just a silly claim by the bullies who want to be beyond criticism), although the caucus strongly denies this."
So, if I were to be political-- which I think is wrong-- I see nothing wrong with siding with this group against their critics. I see no criticism that holds water, and they seem to me at least as libertarian (while being involved in politics) as any faction of the LP that might oppose them. Maybe more. Now I know where to file the criticisms (beyond those I pointed out) of this group.
-
Thank you to those who have honored me with your support by subscribing or donating.
I really, truly appreciate it!
The purpose of the Mises PAC (it's not a caucus in form, only in name) is to ensure that Libertarian candidates don't cost Republican candidates elections. It's a GOP astroturf operation.
ReplyDeleteIf you see no reason not to side with this group against its critics, you haven't take a very close look (which is obvious from the post in any case. Hint: It doesn't stem from mid-2021, it stems from 2017.
I favor whatever faction was responsible for the party fielding an actual libertarian in 2020 after rolling out Republicans as the Libertarian candidates for the previous three presidential cycles.
ReplyDeleteBoth "factions" supported an actual libertarian. The Mises PAC, for some reason, supported Jacob Hornberger (as did I). The "party establishment" supported Jo Jorgensen.
ReplyDeleteWhat tells the tale is what's happening in the states.
In New Hampshire, the Mises PAC took over and nominated a gubernatorial candidate who claims that Jews "chose" to die in the Holocaust and that Hitler went to heaven, so as to ensure that Republican incumbent Chris Sununu won't lose any votes to the Libertarian ballot line.
In Pennsylvania, the Mises PAC took over and nominated a convicted child molester whose claim to fame is that he appeared at a pro-Trump press conference with Rudy Giuliani, and who is also running for Congress as a Republican. When that guy turned out to be ineligible, instead of going for the actual libertarian who had been campaigning for more than a year, they nominated None of the Above. The Republicans don't have a nominee yet, but when they get one he or she will be safe from competition.
In Minnesota, the Mises PAC took over and declined to run a candidate for governor so as not to compete with whoever the Republicans nominated.
The Mises PAC has a clear, unambiguous, and undeniable purpose in its actions.
As for the accusations of racism, etc., there's definitely that element present among the PAC's useful idiots (it is not a "caucus" and therefore doesn't have "members"). It's hard to tell whether their official messaging is meant to cater to that element, or just to make sure the word "libertarian" drives voters away to benefit Republicans, or some mix of the two.