While many libertarians decry the use of "litmus tests" to determine people's libertarian credentials, many have to ask: How libertarian can former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson be if he won't even mention the word "libertarian" on his website?
Independent Political Report (IPR) announced that, "Johnson has launched a new campaign organization to promote libertarian policy issues and back libertarian candidates for public office."
But without once mentioning the word "libertarian?"
IPR mentions the ongoing speculation that "he may run an anti-establishment Republican presidential campaign with significant support from libertarians in 2012, a la Ron Paul."
But without once mentioning the word "libertarian?"
A person can go to Johnson's new website, Our America, punch up every one of his web pages and perform a search on the word "libertarian" and never get a hit. Maybe, if a person wanted to watch and listen to every video on the website, the word might pop up in conversation at some point. Or maybe not..jpg)
Unfortunately, the same can be said for the website of Congressman Ron Paul, 14th District, Texas. Pop open every page and the "L" word never appears in the text.
Paul's son is no different. Rand's campaign website, Rand Paul U.S. Senate 2010, is large, full of text and videos, and covers a lot of political ground. He wants folks to donate money and time and effort, but he never explicitly admits to being even a little bit "libertarian" in the written prose anywhere on his site.
Wikipedia says, "Jeff Flake is known as one of the more libertarian House Republicans."
But that's Wikipedia. What does the man's own website, Congressman Jeff Flake, have to say? As with the others, the libertarian word is a no-show.
However, under the "Buzz" header there's a link to a Reason blog article that begins with the sentence, "In the Washington Examiner, John LaBeaume writes up a kerfuffle between two of the rootin-tootinest libertarian members of Congress, Reps. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.)." But the teaser text on Flake's website begins at the end of that sentence with "Reps. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.)." Suspicious, slighted, and/or paranoid Libertarians need to ask: Was it purposely done that way to prevent the "libertarian" word from showing up on Flake's website?
Typically, there are three reasons why a mainstream "Libertarian-Republican" politician won't mention libertarians. Either they're embarrassed to be associated with libertarians, afraid any mention of libertarians might scare away conservative Republican votes, or they're just not all that 
libertarian.
There's really little doubt that these particular politicos are by far more libertarian than any other mainstream politicians in America, so apparently they're just so embarrassed by their hick Bubba libertarian half cousins that they want to keep them in the closet like a redheaded bastard stepchild.
But don't forget: they still want libertarian's money, time, and effort.
Libertarian contributors wanted! Have article ideas? Photos? News tips? News releases?
Join the team here!
Comments
If they promote libertarian policies, I don't really care if they promote the word "libertarian".
we live in a two party system.
Why do winning politicians not refer to themselves as libertarian? Maybe because their goal was was winning?
Eric, even if we *did* live in a "two-party system", why would the two parties have to be "Democrats" and "Republicans" (as if there is any difference)?
The term has been tainted to some extent with "AntiWar." Too many media and pundits believe "Libertarian" means weak on Foreign Policy or Isolationist.
We must all strive to change that view, and let them know a Libertarian can be Pro-Defense and even staunchly Pro-War on Islamo-Fascism.
Thanks to concerted effort by government with the help of mainstream media, the word Libertarian has become a pejorative word. Their focus has always been on the Libertarian support of legalized drugs, prostitution and other devisive issues so the word has come to mean "crackpot" in general use. So no wonder serious contenders avoid the designation.
Similarly, left wingers who are stone socialists never use that word either - at least in public. Most Americans equate socialism with repressive regimes like the USSR, Cuba and Venezuela. So, they avoid the stigma of the word and call themselves "Progressives." After all, both libertarians and socialists can't move their agendas forward if they aren't elected.
Both factions are what they are, but politics is a war of words and the words matter.
Why don't Fascist-Democrats and Fascist-Republicans ever mention the F word?
"libertarian" Republicans don't refer to themselves as libertarians because there is a separate political party called "The Libertarian Party." They are afraid of being accused of loyalty to another party if they call themselves libertarian Republicans.
In Ron Paul's case, he takes many very radical libertarian stands, but uses constitutionalist rhetoric to back them up, because he represents a very conservative district in Texas.
Jeff Flake and Gary Johnson could probably get away with being called liberrtarian. As good as he is, I am not sure Jeff Flake merits the term completely, but a libertarian Republican in Arizona should have an easier time than one in Texas.
Eric Dondero,
I think you have confused the label "Libertarian" with "Pro-war Fascist Ron-Paul-Hating Neocons Masquerading as Libertarians." You just aren't clever enough to infiltrate the Libertarian party with your pro-War on Terror BS.
FAIL
I don't need to "infiltrate" the Libertarian Party. I am a 25+ year member of the organization. Also, a former member of the Libertarian National Committee, and have served in numerous other capacities in the organization, including as the LP's #1 petitioner for Bob Barr for President in 2008, having worked to get Bob and Wayne on the ballot in 8 different states.
The LP has had a long tradition of Strong on Defense. It's called the Libertarian Defense Caucus. In fact, Dr. John Hospers, the LP's very first Presidential candidate in 1972, is a founding member of the group, and even backed Bush over Badnarik in 2004, cause he supported the War on Islamo-Fascism, and believed Badnarik to be a weenie on foreign policy.
Looks like you need to get your facts AND Libertarian History straight before you start mouthing off.
I know that for myself there are two reasons I don't often use the 'l' word, although if I am discussing my positions generally, I will say I 'lean' libertarian.
1. There is a class of person who calls themselves libertarian who wants to be the determiner of what I have to believe if I use that word. As in 'if you are libertarian you have to believe...', and no, I don't, either.
2. I looked into the Libertarian PARTY once in a while along the way. I now understand they were getting candidates 'out there' etc, not seriously planning to win in a bunch of races, but saw web pages exclusively about drug legalization. While part of the overall philosophy, that is not my hot button and led me to peg them as 'unserious' when it was the major issue I identified with their candidates. I never gave the party 'fair look', mind you, I just looked at a candidate here and there. I realize there are different candidates, and Mary Ruwert (SP?) I really like the sound of. Barr not so much
"Either they're embarrassed to be associated with libertarians, afraid any mention of libertarians might scare away conservative Republican votes, or they're just not all that libertarian."
I think they are afraid any mention of libertarians might scare away conservative Republican votes. Remember, a lot of people, specially young people tend to lean libertarian. Problem is, they have never been introduced to the libertarian ideas properly. All they heard are negative things such as: libertarians are for drugs, prostitution, anarchy and so on.
Kent - the parties don't have to be D's and R's - but in a single election cycle, it is pretty much guaranteed that the top vote getter will be, and politicians certainly know this.
Donderoo - You become a useful pawn for the establishment by carrying their water for them. "isolationist"? - stop being a tool just once.
I'm not afraid to mention the "L" word! Google Scott Pigeon.
It's obvious. The word "Libertarian" has negative connotations. I used to be a precinct leader for the Libertarian Party 20 years ago, and found myself in the company of hippies and homosexuals frequently. While we may agree 99% on philosophy, nevertheless, hippies and homosexuals are not people you typically want to be associated with if you're running for election. It makes you look "extreme" and you may not get the votes of the brain dead conservative vote.
So Libertarians out there, don't worry. Folks like Rand Paul are true Libertarians, or as he calls it, "constitutional conservatives". Give your money to them, support them, but don't be so short-sighted as to condemn them for not using a certain appellation.
I understand why they don't use the "L-word." Rand and Ron Paul both hold Christian Beliefs, and true Libertarianism is by nature atheistic.
When I say that, the typical libertarian response is 'no, you don't have to be atheist- I just happen to be one and so do all my libertarian friends, and none of us like to hear people talking about God.'
That's an over-simplification that I can't say much more about in the space provided, but that's it in a nutshell.
I'm not sure what "true libertarianism" means, but I imagine I would disagree strongly with your definition of it.
I don’t think political parties by nature tie in with religion at all, but if any pair up with my understanding of Christianity, it would have to be libertarianism. What is the point of being granted free will if other men are granted the power to prevent you from exercising it? What is the point of decrying theft, if you allow government to steal in your name?
Eric:
I'm really talking about libertarianism as a world view, rather than a system of government. And I'm talking about the inescapable perception of said world view.
Libertarianism believes that man can be perfected through capitalism and innovation in science, more or less. My idea of true libertarianism is contained in the book "Radicals for Capitalism," which is considered as the definitive history of the libertarian movement. In the intro to the book, it says "innovations in science and medicine have elevated man to an almost God-like status."
They see man as perfectible, which is just not a Christian idea. And for the most part recognize no authority higher than man.
Reason Magazine (libertarian bible) last year sponsored an event called "A very Secular Christmas!" What's the point of that, other than an expression of hostility toward religion?
Because they are Republicans, Libertarian is more than a word. I don't even know where or who a Congressman website would use it. Or Gary Johnson's, he is talking about issues and such, not parties.
Eric:
Oh yes, and back to that Libertarian Christmas event I mentioned previously. It was called a "very secular Christmas," and one of the keynote speakers was none other than Christopher Hitchens, one of the leading voices of atheism and author of the book "God is not Good!"
I don't believe in taking away peoples' freedom of choice, and as a governing philosophy I agree with libertarianism, but not as a life philosophy.
Imagine you live in Detroit...you like most of the players on the Detroit football team...but would you ever really tell anyone that you're a Detroit Lions fan?
While someone who's trying to discredit you would keep bringing up football...you try your darndest to turn the conversation over to hockey.
Chad -
The only life philosophy libertarianism defines is the construct of relationships between sovereign individuals, not in choices they make for themselves.
What you describe as libertarianism, is more like hedonism. And this negative connotation of the label certainly emphasizes why politicians would shy away from using the term themselves.
"including as the LP's #1 petitioner for Bob Barr for President in 2008, having worked to get Bob and Wayne on the ballot in 8 different states."
You forgot to also add: "Endorsed John McCain for president in 2008"
good point Will.
You can only hide your true allegiance for so long Dondero. The game is over.
I guess what I'm saying is that, probably unfairly, people identify libertarianism with atheism and an attitude of permissiveness.
My attitude toward things like drugs and prostitution is an attitude of tolerance.
While I TOLERATE it, many libertarians seem to REVEL in it. It's a subtle difference and may not seem to matter all that much, and maybe it shouldn't matter.
Probably unfairly, libertarianism is often perceived as hedonistic and atheistic.
I don't know, I prefer Rand Paul's label of "constitutional conservative."
I used to describe myself as 'libertarian,' but then it became kind of a fad (which may be another reason why Rand doesn't use the label.)
Oh yes- and a true libertarian doesn't like to be identified as being part of 'the herd.' He likes to think of himself as an individual, and therefore may be uncomfortable being labeled and lumped in to a group.
These are just one man's opinions.
To put it another way, there are some people who describe themselves as 'pro-life libertarians.' Lew Rockwell comes to mind as do some friends of mine. They also support restricting immigration.
Many libertarians would argue that these views are not really libertarianism at all, and I'd have a difficult time proving them wrong.
Of course I endorsed John McCain for President and PROUDLY!!! voted for him in the election.
To thank him for picking a LIBERTARIAN REPUBLICAN Sarah Palin, whom I knew from my activism in Alaska for the Libertarian Party there. In fact, all my friends in the Alaska LP also backed Palin. (Well, except for one - initials S.K.)
Shocked! That's how I felt when McCain picked her. Who would have ever thunk it? First Libertarian EVER!! on a major party ticket in history. How could one not vote for McCain/Palin after that, even as diehard Bob Barr as I was. Hell, I'm the guy who recruited my friend Wayne Root to run.
Barr/Root would have gotten 2 to 3 million votes, if McCain hadn't picked a Libertarian VP. They were polling 5% in late August nationwide. Than Palin was picked, and that dropped down to less than 1%.
I think the general consensus is that "libertarian" sounds too similar to "liberal" and even "libertine" that it could scare some conservatives off. By the way, I've met lots of libertarians, and I don't think they are any more hedonistic than conservatives. Take drugs, for example: Most libertarians don't take drugs, some do, but pro-prohibition neo-cons like Rush Limbaugh have had big drug problmes, even though he is very pro-prohibition. Bill Bennett owes millions of dollars in gambling debts! At least the libertarian drugs users and gamblers aren't hypocrites.
Let me add that I think people are avoiding the word "libertarian" because it has been a kind of a catch - The 1st libertarians were libertarian socialists, who were libertarian in the sense that they wanted pople to voluntarily enter into socialism and not be forced by a government. But when Eric Dondero calls Sarah Palin, a very mainstream republican a libertarian you know that the word no longer has any meaning! lol
I meant to say "Libertarian has been a king of catch all" lol
Dondero...your Langley ties are palpable.
Why dont we just call ourselves liberals? liberals all over the rest of the world are similar to libertarian/republicans in America. The word was hijacked but lets take it back! todays liberals are collectivists which to me is an oxymoron.
I'm not sure that some of those folks would consider themselves Libertarians, for example Ron Paul and Jeff Flake. I identify strongly with them as a paleoconservative (altho' I tend to Traditionalist conservatism because I am not an isolationist as many of them are -- such things are seldom cut and dried). While I agree with many libertarian views (that's why I come to these sites), its not always WHAT I believe but how I get to it. Another reason might be because there is such a thing as the Libertarian Party -- identifying as a Libertarian may cause some to be confused (there is also a conservative party, but it's not the first thing one thinks of when one hears the word).
Thanks for a good discussion. Certainly educational!
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!