So I keep reading from people with various political points of view to spin that I don’t exist. I think there are a lot of libertarians who identify with the tea party movement.

Having said that, I realize there are lots of conservatives, some of whom are economic or fiscal conservatives and some of whom are social conservatives, within the tea party movement. In fact, it’s pretty clear that they are a majority WITHIN THE TEA PARTY. I don’t have a problem with that. In majoritarian democracy politics, we can obtain movement in the direction of smaller government if we get 50% +1 of the folks in the polity to want less spending and taxes. If others also want socially conservative personal decisions to be legislated and then enforced by the coercive state, they would likewise need 50% + 1 on those policy decisions.

I suspect it will be easier in our US polity today to get a majority on the first than it will be on the last.

Kind of like Ron Paul is a libertarian with a social conservative streak.

I’m not sure we want Christine to be a full-blooded libertarian. There’s lots and lots of Catholics in Delaware, especially around Wilmington. Having a pro-lifer with a libertarian streak is about the most we could ask for in Delaware. Let’s celebrate having her as our standard-bearer, and stop denigrating her, and questioning her, and saying that she’s “not perfect.”

As far as her ideas about birth control, abstinence, and masturbation are concerned, I’m not sure if she still holds these views or if her views have since matured. I’m also not clear if these are “just” her personal views or if she wants to somehow codify these views into law (ex: waste more tax dollars on abstinence only sex education, ban certain forms of birth control, etc.).

The most disturbing thing I have read about her so far is her stance on abortion. I fully realize that libertarians have very different views on this issue. Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Andrew Napolitano, and Bob Barr are all pro-life (which is fine) while many others are staunchly pro-choice. Christine O’Donnell takes a view that is far more extreme than most who call themselves pro-life though. She doesn’t even believe there should be an exception for rape or incest; the only exception she would allow is if the mother’s life is at stake in which case, the woman’s family would make the choice of “which life to save.”

This is just one pill I cannot swallow. Why should it be up to the woman’s family rather than the woman? This sounds like a sort of policy that the Taliban would have and certainly not by any stretch of the imagination one that is in line with libertarian ideals.

It’s like in 2008. Sarah Palin had attended numerous meetings of the Libertarian Party of Alaska. She was buddies with the leaders of the ALP. They endorsed her in her Governor’s race in 2006. Yet, you didn’t hear a single Libertarian Party person talking about that in 2008 when she ran as VP. And you hardly hear anything about it today.

Some of you people are truly pathetic. If something doesn’t fit your template – “Sarah Palin cannot possibly be a libertarian” – you ignore it. And you wonder why some libertarians are hopeless when it comes to real world politics.

When I travel to Mexico, I have to go through extensive background checks from the Mexican government. Why the double-standard?

It’s a populist movement, and I wouldn’t expect to see “intellectual libertarianism.” That isn’t their role in the political landscape.

The key thing, from my perspective, is that the two or three key issues this very broad coalition movement seems to agree and focus upon are not anti-libertarian positions. And I’ve advised Tea Party people (on this blog, even) not to stray to far from those common goals.

Trust me. Having known Rand for over 25 years, he’s about as libertarian as they come.

They are certain that they don’t like what Obama has been doing, but “not that way” leaves lots of other directions to travel, beyond the exact opposite. Some do and some don’t like the direction of the Bush Presidency and most don’t like the Republican inclination to compromise or simply mitigate the programs of the “progressives”. Being a “Party of No” to their opponent’s agenda is sufficient motivation.

If reaction is the sole coherent motive, then one can find many “vectors” in the opposite direction, from libertarian to social conservative to simple anti-establishment sentiments. Once the “progress” of their opponents has been stopped, the blend of preferred vectors will be in dispute.

So, one can hope that this is an opportunity for libertarian logic and political ethics to become the primar vector in future American politics, but there’s no guarantee. Whichever vector dominates, it will certainly be better (on most issues) than the current “track” we’re on.