Saturday, November 9, 2013

Beware Of Liberals In Libertarian Drag

By Ilana Mercer

As analysts of the exit polls in the Virginia gubernatorial race have it, Robert Sarvis, the libertarian lite, third-party candidate is not to blame for "siphoning off" votes from conservative Ken Cuccinelli and spoiling an election in what was once a reliably red state.

"In a straight two-way matchup," contended one such analyst at, "voters preferred McAuliffe to Cuccinelli by two points. That’s almost identical to the [race's] final outcome."

This is unconvincing. Is it not possible that without Sarvis, those energized "independents and moderates," whose support Sarvis garnered might have turned out for Cuccinelli? There are those who are convinced that Sarvis cut into Cuccinelli’s support. The tea party's Steve King, R-Iowa, for example.

Indeed, a jubilant CNN reporter—the nitwork could not conceal its collective glee over the victory, in Virginia, of Democratic fundraiser Terry McAuliffe—conceded that "self-described independents broke for Republican nominee Ken Cuccinelli." Clearly, there was overlap between the Cuccinelli and Sarvis constituencies.

We all recall another Libertarian Party clown's perennial struggle to get on the ballot as the party's presidential nominee. Unlike wacky Gary Johnson, whose "ballot access" was impeded by "Republican operatives," somebody greased the skids for Sarvis, helping place him on the Virginia ballot.

Good old-fashioned (and near-obsolete) shoe-leather journalism, conducted by The Blaze, revealed that Sarvis had help from "a major Democratic Party benefactor and Obama campaign bundler." A software billionaire named Joe Liemandt, who acted as one of Barack Obama's super fundraisers in 2012, galvanized on behalf of Sarvis.

Incriminating as this may appear, evidence of a dark, Democratic scheme it is not. In fairness to Sarvis' sponsor—who hobnobs with Obama acolytes like Warren Buffet, Vogue editor Anna Wintour and Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein—he was in the habit of splitting "political giving between libertarian third-party efforts and liberal Democrats."

That a political contributor would have no compunction about supporting both the Democratic National Committee and the Libertarian Action Super PAC is not surprising. Politicking in America precludes staking out principled positions.

Besides, the gulf between establishment libertarians and left-liberals is not that wide. The Libertarian Party is a party of "isms," not individualism. When it comes to playing manipulative politics with hot-button social issues—matters of “racism,” “sexism” (blah, blah)—there’s no daylight between left-libertarians and leftists.

True to type, Sarvis' same-sex marriage sanctimony is not only pious, but specious. By Wikipedia’s telling, he “supports same sex marriage and says it is a personal issue for him because his own marriage, which is biracial, was illegal in Virginia 50 years ago.” (By the same token, why not support affirmative action, on the ground that it, too, wasn’t the law “in Virginia 50 years ago”?)

True libertarians toil to keep the state out of marriage altogether. In furtherance of liberty, Uncle Sam's purview must be curtailed, not expanded. On this score, let our gay friends and family members lead the way. Let them solemnize their commitment in contract and through church, synagogue and mosque (that will be the day!). Once interesting and iconoclastic, gays have become colossal bores who crave nothing more than the state's seal of approval. Go back to the days of the Stonewall Riots, when the police's violations of privacy and private property were the object of gay anger and activism.

Invariably deployed to encroach on private property and police subversives, the political construct that is "discrimination" ("sexism, racism, blah, blah") ought to be opposed by the party of individualism. So long as the individual keeps his paws to himself, let him think, speak, associate and dissociate at will.

Unsurprisingly, the Libertarian-Party candidate is for open borders, framing the matter with yet more illogical, liberal argumentation. (Here: I know immigrants, therefore immigration should proceed unfettered.)

The immigration vexation has pitted governors like Arizona's and attorneys general such as Cuccinelli against the Feds in a heroic fight for the right of state representatives to protect their statesmen from trespass. On immigration, left-libertarians come down foursquare on the side of the federales. (Rest assured that the latest, statist amnesty Bill is Sarvis' dream come true.)

"Insane" is how Mr. libertarian himself, Ron Paul, characterized a vote for a candidate (Robert Sarvis) who was willing to consider a mileage tax on Virginians, complete with government-accessible, GPS surveillance in vehicles.

"Insane" is also an apt description of running a gubernatorial candidate against one of the most libertarian attorneys general a state has had. Ken Cuccinelli's attempts to nullify federal health insurance mandates in Virginia go back to 2010, when he launched a legal challenge to “shield Virginians from paying any penalties for not purchasing federally-approved health care.”

Cuccinelli, attests Timothy Carney of The Examiner, "wants to cut the state income tax rate by 15 percent for individuals and 33 percent for corporations," "has an A rating from the National Rifle Association—earned while representing Fairfax County in the state Senate," contested "smoking bans as a senator," is known to "choose government restraint over 'law and order'"; has opposed expanding the death penalty, has criticized the drug war and crusaded to exonerate the wrongly convicted.

Also on target was Cuccinelli’s campaign against Northern Virginia's consummate carpetbaggers and their land-development schemes. I'd hazard that because he vowed to stop taxpayer subsidies to these crony capitalists, Attorney General Cuccinelli lost the GOP's financial backing and was, consequently, outspent by his rival.

Lamentably, Beltway libertarian Ed Crane and his Purple PAC backed the insignificant Sarvis partly because this lot is every bit as committed to superfluous social cause célèbres as the "theo-conservatives" they abhor.

Prosperity and penury do not turn on gyno-centric and gay matters. But leftist statists and libertarians of the left place these wedge issues at the forefront of the fight for freedom.

Every bit as bad as liberals, "libertarian" political operators are prepared to shed political blood over any imagined sign of bigotry.

ILANA Mercer is a classical liberal writer, based in the United States. She pens WND's longest-standing paleolibertarian column.  ILANA is a fellow at the Jerusalem Institute for Market Studies. She is the author of "Into the Cannibal's Pot: Lessons For America From Post-Apartheid South Africa."  ILANA's website is . She blogs at

Copyright 2013 Ilana Mercer


  1. Screw Sarvis and the LP. Screw Glenn Beck and his TheBlaze.
    And screw the Koch Brothers who fund both Neocons and LP'ers.

    This is what you get for getting in bed with CATO, Rand Paul.
    The Koch Brothers own CATO, LP and Reason. And they just screwed your ass.

    And screw the Zionists, who also backed Sarvis and McAuliffe.
    And screw Glenn Beck for being a Zionist too. Everybody's playing a double-game!

    1. In other words (less profanely), withhold your consent--while you're still able to.

    2. Why not say "Screw Rand too", since Rand wants to cut foreign aid EXCEPT to Israel?

      Seriously, this is what he gets when he gets in bed with CATO? Ever occurred to you that Rand and CATO are a good match to begin with?

  2. You really can't pin the blame on libertarians for the Democratic victory. Any close race is going to go there way, and the margin for the point sway is expanding. This is true because of a alliance between La Raza and similar groups with the various bureaucracies, municipality, state and federal, to control the polls in the favor of the party that represents government interests above all else. Until there is an investigation the size of the one where the FBI went after Italian crime families in the 70s and government employee unions are outlawed, they will control the process to the extent they can get away with it, and they can get a way with a lot as it now stands.

  3. Not surprising since there are plenty of conservatives who try to pass themselves a libertarians; Eric Dondero, Neal Boortz, Glenn Beck and others, so liberals thought it would be fun to join the game too.

    However it also seems that Mercer is a bit hypocritical herself in her "immigration" views. Seems that she favors central planning in the name of "immigration control".

    Jacob Hornberger has debated that conservative view on immigration is just a conservative version of socialist central planning

    Hornberger isn't the only one, Lew Rockwell has posted articles in the past criticizing conservative socialist immigration planner's hero government thug Joe Arpaio

    1. The problem with Illana Mercer is that she herself holds a paleoconservative view of libertarianism, as if libertarianism has anything to do with either the left OR the right. It's not the first time she showed conservative leanings.
      So her being one step short of endorsing Ken Cuccinelli does not surprise me in the least. Cuccinelli is bad on liberty issues that she might consider to be too leftist to begin with, so it's easy for her to dismiss them as irrelevant, or at least less important than the ones he happens to be good at.

      As a libertarian, it should not matter a damn whether the conservative or the liberal won, because there are innocent people getting screwed regardless, even if you may not agree with their lifestyles.

    2. I agree. My attack on La Raza isn't due to their liberal immigration policy beliefs, which I share, but because they are a front for corruption and their identity politics orientation is a useful shield to keep substantial criticism of their tactics out of the mainstream media. I'm in fact Hispanic and I see right through them. First step in immigration reform that needs to be taken is to end the penalties on businesses that hire immigrants who don't possess the proper paper work. That not only helps immigrants in terms of free association but ends a nefarious tool of the police state that forces us all to succumb to being tagged sheep.

  4. When I read things like this, it confirms that I made the right decision to withdraw consent and not participate in politics one iota. I wish I would have done it earlier, but better late than never.

    What a jumbled mess; aside from the implicit endorsement of violence/theft when you participate.

  5. "spoiling an election"

    First of all, you can not SPOIL an election, because people have the right to vote however they damn well see fit, for as long as voting yourself the power to impose your views on other will continue to exist.

    Having said that, Robert Sarvis proves why principles are important, something many alleged libertarians (politicians and voters alike) will continue to dismiss for political expediency. Sarvis proves you have NO REASON to trust any alleged libertarian who does not have the stones to propagate pure libertarianism.

    In the case of Sarvis, he may have been in bed with liberals which explains his deviations. Of course when it comes to Rand there is a different standard and he could not possibly be in bed with neocons according to the wishful thinkers.

    And as far as the LP... Well, they thought they could fool libertarians with Bob Barr (or did he really fool the dullards at LP?) and now with Sarvis. The LP is as libertarians as Chris Christie is conservative.