The first thing we would like to make clear is we have great sympathy, even affection, for many libertarian ideas. That is more than just a gratuitous statement. Readers know that over the past few years we have published many articles from libertarian-oriented think tanks and publications.

Theoretical ideas and the governing mechanics of politics, are often two different things. We wish we all could live in a libertarian live and let-live world, but unfortunately, we face Progressive Democrats who would not allow such a thing.

They want your income, your schools, and even your pronouns. They want to censure you, restrict the free flow of ideas, and they want to ban you from civilized society if you disagree with their unrealistic and often dystopic views. These tendencies are already morphing into the use of force, such as the abuse of the legal system and the perversion of justice. Have you been following the goings on in the Department of Justice lately or the FBI lately?

Progressives must be opposed and beaten in this election cycle. To do so peacefully, we need to work through the political process as it really exists, and in the history of the United States, that means the two-party system.

Ron Paul is a good example of a realistic libertarian.  He ran as a Republican and served honorably for many years as a Republican in Texas.  Much can be said for his son Rand Paul, who as a politician, has even been more effective than his father.

To continue to substitute a wish for reality should be classified as a sin. The reason is it leads to outcomes exactly opposite of those intended while pretending that it does not. To think the two-party system is not operable and dominant is wishful and foolish thinking.

While we support many libertarian ideas and ideals, we don’t think it is a good idea to ever vote for a libertarian.

In reality, when an isolated libertarian has been elected, they generally are not very effective.  One can think of Justin Amash of Michigan or even the strange one-time governor of Minnesota, Jesse Ventura.

When a person loses political power, such as a second-term President, they are referred to as a lame duck. Libertarians are duck eggs. They are not even developed enough to limp. They have nothing to trade politically speaking because they have so few officeholders, little if any party infrastructure, and hence can’t form coalitions with other politicians.  To form coalitions, you often need something to trade or bargain with, and libertarians rarely hold power, which is the currency of politics.

You don’t have to be a libertarian to be a spoiler of course. Teddy Roosevelt helped elect the tyrannical Woodrow Wilson. Would Taft have been better on civil liberties and kept us out of war? We would say for certain on the first but wonder about the second. Perverse outcomes.

Ross Perot was not a libertarian. But he was a fiscal conservative, about the last of his breed. He made a tremendous effort and elected Bill Clinton. Another perverse outcome.

The arguments for running as a libertarian are pretty weak since they have little chance of being elected. One argument is that the campaign itself is educational and beneficial to the public. Is that so? If it was memorable, name the last libertarian who ran for President and for the Senate in Arizona. No, don’t look it up. If it made such an “educational impression”, you would remember.

Another common argument is that running as a libertarian keeps the Republican Party from drifting to the left. Lose a couple of close elections and that will teach those rascally RINOs from straying from the teachings of Ayn Rand!

We find no evidence that this idea actually works in the real world. We can’t recall any Republican changing a major position because of a libertarian challenge. However, we can remember candidates changing positions due to primary challenges within their own party.

We are not suggesting the Republicans don’t deserve competition or condemnation for losing their principles. Remember it was Richard Nixon who gave us the EPA, took us off the gold standard, negotiated an “honorable peace” in Viet Nam, and gave us Affirmative Action.

Republicans have often betrayed the cause of liberty, but we can’t find much evidence that libertarian party antics have slowed that process. If anything, it is the MAGA populist-oriented Republicans who are not only shaking up the Republican establishment but the Democrats as well.

A recent article in Newsweek suggests that the libertarian challenger to Blake Masters has risen after the debate to 15% in recent polling.  However, the difference between Masters and Kelly has been narrowing to the polling “margin of error”. If the 15% is true, libertarian Marc Victor could well destroy the chances to unseat Mark Kelly. How does electing a man who votes 94% of the time with Biden, and has close ties to Red China, advance the cause of liberty?

The threat is not theoretical. Again, following the past Presidential cycle, Newsweek pointed out that the libertarian candidate Jo Jorgensen could have made a difference in several battleground states:

“Former Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker pointed to his state specifically as a place where Jorgensen’s vote tallies exceeded the margin between Biden and Trump. “If it holds, @LPNational candidate got 38,000 votes in Wisconsin and margin between @JoeBiden and @realDonaldTrump is less than 21,000 votes,” Walker tweeted. The Associated Press called the state for Biden on Wednesday, with a difference of less than 21,000 votes remaining between Biden and Trump by Friday evening. Meanwhile, more than 38,000 voters cast their ballots for Jorgensen, according to the AP’s election results.”

“Votes cast for Jorgensen in Georgia and Pennsylvania also exceeded the margins between Biden and Trump on Friday night, and her vote tally in Arizona was also within striking distance.”

Well, that turned out well didn’t it?  Remember though, vote libertarian because it is educational and keeps the Republicans on the straight and narrow. As mentioned before, there is scant evidence either of these assumptions is true.  The real result was a senile President elected who rides roughshod over the Constitution.

The other more plausible reason Marc Victor is running is not that he can win, but rather he is so full of himself, he simply wants to make a lot of noise for his own purposes.  His view is that both parties are corrupt, so why not make a royal mess of things and feel superior to everyone else?

We have sympathy for that view on corruption. But how does electing Democrats solve the corruption problems in both parties?

And, if you will excuse us, how does satisfying Marc Victor’s ego advance the cause of liberty?

There is one other possible angle. Marc Victor could negotiate with Blake Masters. By swinging his support to Masters, he might be able to get Masters to push something dear to Mark Victor. But this presupposes there is something dearer to Marc Victor than Marc Victor. We hope that is the way it goes but don’t hold your breath.

Insofar as the candidates themselves, Blake Masters is taking quite a bit of heat from Democrats precisely because of his libertarian-oriented positions on things like Social Security. He had the temerity to suggest this grand unfunded Ponzi scheme may best be allowed to operate in the private sector, much like the very successful systems in some other countries.

The following video was produced by libertarian Keith Knight and the questions we think were both intelligent and substantive. We think Masters did quite well in this interview. In short, the only electable candidate with libertarian leanings is not Mark Victor but Blake Masters. If you are a libertarian, remember that.

In the real world, there are no perfect choices but only tradeoffs, as the great Thomas Sowell often opined. In terms of The Prickly Pear, we favor the candidate with the best chance of advancing a liberty-oriented agenda, with the best chance of winning.

Marc Victor, as earnest as he may be, will never be elected. But, he could well elect Mark Kelly. What a perverse outcome for someone who supports the ideals of freedom and limited government.

Our view is simple and the ‘most’ perfect choice for liberty – vote for Blake Masters and don’t let friends vote libertarian.

******

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore