The Disadvantage of Being a Libertarian in Today's Politics

 There isn't anyone who's turned on a television or checked out a news site in the last ten years who doesn't know today's America is strongly divided along party lines-party lines which are based on important philosophical differences. Many of these likely can never be resolved-gun freedom, abortion, forced language-as the opposing views don't simply differ, but diametrically oppose each other.

This presents problems and opportunities for folks with strong beliefs; political maneuvering, media content bias and other 'weapons' in this war of ideas are brought to bear with the intent of having your views carry the day. And more and more, it's become a dirty war, with no Geneva convention to put limitations on the actions of either side.

As disappointing as that is, it has another side effect; the further the national discourse strays from one of debate and rational discussion, and the closer it gets to outright lies, government coercion and misinformation, the more it favors the side who WANTS to control everyone else. The folks with a strong tendency to dictate how you should think, speak and act have a built-in advantage here over the folks who simply want government to leave them alone; the first is essentially playing 'offense', and the second is permanently playing defense. 

As John Steinbeck put it:

"This is the law. The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defense. The sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplementary.“

A libertarian, if they're genuinely committed to the philosophy, has essentially NO desire to direct the actions of others. Not only do they want the government, the corporate conglomerates and society to leave them alone, they feel just as strongly they have no right to use any of those levers of power to control others. It is the closest political philosophy to 'live and let live' in America at this time, and that may well be their downfall; while the political left is constantly on the offense, pushing restrictions, changing norms and dictating which beliefs are acceptable and which are not, libertarians are restricted to simply resisting these attacks. They push back, and as Steinbeck taught us, pushing back is not a scheme for victory.

Those committed to freedom are unlikely to weaponize the government to crush their enemies, unlikely to burn a city to get their way; their predisposition to 'live and let live' seems like it could, ironically, lead to their destruction. 

We Missed Our Chance

 It's looking more and more like our opportunity to have an amicable separation between the two opposing viewpoints in the country has passed, and we're doomed for something like a bitter, lawyer-strewn court battle with the kids in the middle. How did we get here?

Well, for one thing, we've managed to mainstream hyperbole into political discourse; if your opponents are 'literally Hitler', there isn't much you can't justify doing about them, or to them. Constant screaming about an existential crisis to 'our democracy' (or, less commonly, the more accurate 'our Republic') creates the urgency, the sense of imminent doom, that focuses folks more on the end than the means; and focusing on the end, rather than the means, is almost the perfect OPPOSITE of what a Republic is supposed to be.

One of the means that's become more popular (although it's certainly not new) is using the apparatus of government against your political rivals; rivals who, conveniently, you consider a 'threat to democracy' and thus worthy of any efforts, legal or not, to bring them to a non-threat. 

When you're living in the most prosperous, most free nation that's ever existed and yet loathe the very principles and philosophies that made that country possible, I'm not sure if there's any other rational outcome; you can't try to reach higher by cutting off your legs.

I suppose the most realistic hope now is that this messy, furious divorce happens in a courtroom, though finding a fair venue, jury and judge seems impossible; alternatives will be far, far worse. 

So that's what we're reduced to; pining hopefully that this will 'only' be a devastating, extraordinarily expensive and overtly hostile divorce. Not optimal.