Morally Sanctimonious Losers and 'Spoilers'

“Pete, you’re just upset because your favorite statist lost, and WE were responsible!” Please, you didn’t do anything except make some posts on social media. But let’s take this statement in another direction.   

Libertarians, the people who are celebrating spoiling elections this week, pride themselves on being the most moral people on the planet. “We’re the anti-war party! Taxation is theft! Yay us!!!” However, being a spoiler means you always lose. Sure, there are some that win small elections or run in unopposed races. I have no issue with that as “all politics is local.” I proudly represent the Mises Mayor’s PAC which ran Buck Johnson for City Council in Lockhart, Texas. Buck unfortunately lost his race this past Tuesday. Looking back I believe there was more I could have done to help him win. People donated their hard-earned money, and we didn’t deliver. It bothers me. I feel like a failure.  

In most cases local elections are winnable, and with only a small amount of funding. The same cannot be said for state and national races. When was the last time a Libertarian Party candidate won one of those races? If you can supply only one name, you’re proving my point. So, what is the purpose of the Libertarian Party running state and national candidates when they will only receive a fraction of the vote? What is the purpose of running candidates you damn well know are going to lose? What is the point of taking people’s hard-earned money to run a campaign on behalf of this failure? How is it moral to ask people for money knowing you’re going to lose?

The common answer is, “We’re a party about educating people on the ideas of liberty!” How’s that working out? The Libertarian party came into existence 51 years ago. Has the Culture become more inclined to the ideas of liberty? If not, what’s the point in continuing a strategy that isn’t working? It is inevitable that the name of Ron Paul will be invoked. People love reminding me that it was Ron Paul who brought me into politics and libertarianism. When I mention that Ron Paul did that running as a Republican, I’ve been asked to stop saying that. I guess I touched a nerve.   

So, with all this in mind, what is the point of the Libertarian Party even existing? To spoil elections? But notice, they only ever try to do that for right-wingers. They never run someone from the Left to EXPLICITLY oppose a democrat. The Left always seems to benefit from “Libertarian spoilers.” With that knowledge I would say the message from the Libertarian Party is clear. And if you must point out that one instance in which a Libertarian Party leader endorsed a Republican, you’re just proving my point. The outlier doesn’t get to dictate the norm.  

I’ve also been confronted with the argument that not enough people have heard the “Libertarian message,” and if they only heard the message from the right messenger they would flock to libertarianism. My argument to that is most people have heard the message and rejected it. And then I wait for the inevitable comment that those people didn’t hear about “real Libertarianism.” This is a circle in which we are repeatedly forced back to arguing for the “perfect messenger.” Recently an anarchist told me that people are more open to the message of statelessness now more than ever before. I guess that person slept through the trials and tribulations of 2020, but I used to be an ideologue as well so I understand living in a bubble.  

Since election day, I’ve seen a few people post that their association with the libertarian party is over. Whether it be an aversion to party politics in general, or watching people make statements like this is anyone’s guess.

In the past, I have been told by the person who Tweeted this that comments from random Libertarians on Twitter should not be considered true Libertarian messaging. That only messaging from those in leadership should matter. I swear on my mortal soul that this was Tweeted by someone not only considered a Libertarian leader, but one deeply involved in the Libertarian Party. It is remarkable to read in one Tweet, “I wish we could take the credit for denying them their red wave,” and then the admission that they know that would cause people “who want your guns, to transition your son, to print more money, to pour weapons into Ukraine” to be in widespread power. I don’t consider this to be sloppy Tweeting. This person obviously hates both sides but would rather have the people who want to chop your daughter’s breasts, and your son’s penis off, in charge because of the politics of a Party of losers who have never, and can never, bring about change. Scratch that. They can certainly change the culture even further for the worse by making sure those “who want your guns, to transition your son, to print more money, to pour weapons into Ukraine” ascend to the highest offices in the land.