Are libertarians Being Co-Opted Like the Tea Party Was?

In light of last night's announcement from Pres. Obama proclaiming that they had struck a deal with Iran to curb their nuclear enrichment program, supposedly in the interest of preventing Iran from attaining a nuclear weapon despite their repeated claims that they don't want one, I've seen some surprising reactions from those who run in libertarian circles.

Libertarians are supposed to be non-interventionists. Libertarians are supposed to believe in the Constitutionally granted power of a strong national defense, which they have traditionally interpreted to mean maintaining a strong defense at home by securing our borders but also by rejecting the notion of nation-building and entangling interventions abroad. I commonly use a quote by America's 6th president, John Quincy Adams,

"America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."

Libertarians rallied around Ron Paul's message of non-intervention and his criticism of the United States' counterproductive foreign policy in the 2008 and 2012 elections. I was immediately drawn to this message myself. As I admitted in my last blog, I was fooled by the empty promises of Obama when he was campaigning. I believed his anti-war rhetoric and thought we would reverse the damage done during the Bush years. When I realized fairly quickly that Obama had no intention of reversing course and, in fact, doubled down on many of Bush's policies, I went searching for new answers and found Ron Paul.

In his debates during the 2012 primary, Ron Paul was asked many times how he would handle a nuclear Iran. In characteristic departure from the heavy intervention and tactics favored by the rest of the field, Dr. Paul had this to say,

"To declare war on 1.2 billion Muslims and say all Muslims are the same, this is dangerous talk. Yeah, there are some radicals. But they don't come here to kill us because we're free and prosperous. Do they go to Switzerland and Sweden? I mean, that's absurd. If you think that is the reason, we have no chance of winning this. They come here and they explicitly explain it to us. The CIA has explained it to us. They said they come here and want to do us harm because we're bombing them."

When pressed about it further on some of the talk show circuits, Paul expounded on his philosophy of non-intervention and said we might try a different approach with Iran, perhaps offering friendship and diplomacy instead of sanctions and war. "Didn't we talk to the Soviets? Didn't we talk to the Chinese? They had thousands of these weapons." He also warned that all this war talk with Iran sounded an awful like the same propaganda used in the lead up to the disastrous war with Iraq.

That's why I'm surprised to see so many bellicose comments towards Iran and Obama's handling of the situation coming from joiners in some libertarian circles. Prominent liberty movement figure Libertarian Girl posted the Politico release about the new deal with Iran. The comments that ensued were eye-opening to say the least.

  
The above comments are comments that I would expect to see on someone following Sean Hannity's feed or Lindsey Graham's. But these were taken from Libertarian Girl's own feed. I don't believe these were trolls, either. I believe these were people who either consider themselves libertarian or who believe they have enough common cause with libertarians and with what Libertarian Girl has to say to follow her page.

This phenomenon wasn't just unique to Libertarian Girl, either. Another prominent libertarian advocate is Julie Borowski. She often tries to engage dialogue on her page by asking questions to encourage thoughtful commentary and civil discussions amongst libertarians and curious bystanders. In response to the news of the Iran deal, she asked her followers if they would be willing to send their own children off to fight in a war with Iran. Here are some of the responses she got:

Hmmm, this is a far cry from the calls for friendship and diplomacy that Ron Paul was advocating for during the Republican primaries. What's happened? Have so-called libertarians found a special exception to the Non-Aggression Principle in its treatment of Iran? We managed to see through the war propaganda that was thrown at us with Iraq, Libya, and Syria, but now all of a sudden our leaders are trustworthy when it comes to Iran? Why wouldn't we be applauding diplomacy measures with Iran?

Granted, there are certain details in this recent agreement that give me pause, like the fact that we have to bribe them with $4.2 billion dollars for their adherence to this agreement. Some have tried to portray this move as a nefarious play by our Muslim-loving Muslim president to undermine American interests by actually paying Iran with our own money to finish building a bomb.

While I certainly have no love for Obama, nor do I trust him or his administration, I don't see this deal as some backdoor green-light for Iran to build a nuclear bomb during this time frame financed by America's own money. Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which Iran is a signatory and Israel is not, countries are allowed to pursue peaceful uses of nuclear energy under the vigilance of the IAEA and have promised to further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament. The deal struck between the P5+1 would partially lift sanctions and allow Iran to continue enriching uranium at levels deemed allowable in pursuance of the NPT.

But this post isn't meant to be a piece-by-piece analysis of what the new deal does and doesn't do and what it all means. I was inspired to write this piece based on the aggressive reactions I've seen from those who either claim to be libertarians or who run in libertarian circles. Reactions that, to me, would be more typical of a neoconservative, Allen West-worshipping Republican than proteges of a movement inspired by Ron Paul.

In the Twitterverse where things are much more anonymous than they are on Facebook, people tend to group themselves based on interests. Given that I am on Twitter as my blog and not as myself (although really there wouldn't be much difference), my Twitter list is dominated by libertarians, libertarian groups, and various other news agencies, journalists, and political figures.

Every Friday on Twitter is #FollowFriday where people recommend other Twitter users that one should "follow" based on their interests. In the libertarian circles, John Yowan has a long-standing #FollowTrain that he tweets out every Friday encouraging fellow libertarians to band together, retweet, and follow other fellow libertarians. Many of my followers and those who I'm following have come from those follow trains.
 
 

This is a libertarian follow train. If you're a #libertarian retweet this and follow the other libertarians that retweet this. Lets network!
— John Yowan (@Yowan) November 22, 2013

While I've known that there are certain people who participate in the libertarian follow train who aren't purely libertarians (I've seen some identify themselves as "conservatarians"), I didn't realize the extent to which it's been co-opted until news of this Iranian nuclear deal was announced. All of a sudden, my Twitter feed is blowing up with Tweets like this:

Netanyahu Slams Obama Push For Second Jewish Holocaust: More Iran Sanctions, Not Fewer http://t.co/lDpIMRZ4Bq via @patdollard
— Jan Pleasants (@Jantxnc) November 24, 2013

And this: 

Yes, yes #Iran will follow rules, because we all know they have done that before...NOT!
— Karen Austin (@CowgirlKarenTX) November 24, 2013

Does this mean libertarian ranks are being infiltrated? I'm not sure. A more probable explanation is that conservatives who have identified common cause with many libertarian views have felt comfortable running in the same circles so long as the focus is held on the ineptitude of Obama and his administration. Rather than embracing the ideology of libertarianism, which is rooted in its advocacy and adherence to the Non-Aggression Principle, some conservatives are just joining ranks with other anti-Obama like-minded people.

While coalition building is generally positive, libertarians must beware of what happened to the Tea Party when mainstream Republicans took it over. Originally founded as a result of the government bailouts after the housing crisis, the Tea Party was founded on the basis of fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government, and free markets. However, it didn't take long for the original intent of the Tea Party, due to its initial popularity, to be overrun by stock-standard, run-of-the-mill Republicans who wanted to jump aboard the popular movement without truly understanding the principles behind it. Soon after, Tea Partiers were showing up at rallies with "Donald Trump 2012" rally signs, hardly the icon of Constitutional governance or fiscal responsibility!

The problem with libertarian ranks being co-opted by the Tea Partiers who, in turn, were co-opted by mainstream Republicans, is that our message gets diluted and lumped together with all the other right wing talking points that the leftists want to bash. They then make no distinction between the corporatism that mainstream Republicans favor and the free-market that libertarians embrace. They think the libertarian cry to end unconstitutional federal programs is to enrich corporations, not because of our objections to the moral issues of force and violence used to steal money to fund these programs.

We also need to continue being the voices of reason on the foreign policy front and not get taken in by the fear-mongering by the same voices who led us to war in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Pakistan, and almost Syria. If we opposed going to war in Syria because we didn't consider them an imminent threat, then we have no business getting involved in Iran just because they want to pursue nuclear energy possibilities for their country as allowed by the NPT. If we are clamoring to bring troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan because we're bankrupt and can't afford it, then we can no more afford to start another prolonged engagement in Iran. 

It's important that our message of non-aggression and non-intervention into people's lives stays separate from mainstream conservatism (unless, of course, they want to embrace it for themselves). Because if there's any hope left for this nation, it's in providing an alternative to the broken 1-party system masquerading as a 2-party system. We can't do that if people can't tell the difference between the libertarian message and the Republican message anymore.

What do you think, are libertarians being co-opted? Is it a positive sign for the rising tide of libertarianism that other conservatives want to join in our ranks or do we need to be wary of such alliances? Let me know in the comments!