Support for Tulsi Gabbard among libertarians has created a fair amount of discord within the movement. The supporter usually starts with a halfhearted endorsement of Tulsi, coupled with all of the usual disclaimers regarding her domestic economic policies and positions on gun control. Then from the opposition comes the standard objection, starting with … a highlighting of her domestic economic policies and positions on gun control.

To say the least, these two libertarians are speaking past each other. Who could have predicted that?

There is likely a deeper distinction within the movement that predicts these positions. I think it can be generally classified as existing between the collapsitarian/accelerationist minded libertarians, and the more pragmatic work-within-the-system libertarians. I would not presume to ascribe these motives to each and every supporter and opponent, but as a trend I believe it holds.

There are libertarians who believe that the inevitable collapse of leviathan presents an opportunity (perhaps the only opportunity), for liberty minded folks to implement their preferred governmental model, or to thrive in the lack thereof. This generally leads them to support the acceleration of this inevitable crash. Those who hold this belief are less likely to compromise on the principles we all share in order to ‘steady the ship’ in the short term, because they see the iceberg just ahead and no amount of rudder can sufficiently alter the course. They in fact wish to throttle up the engine to ensure complete and utter destruction of this rotten ship of tyranny.

On the other hand are the libertarians that believe in patching the holes that need patched, and trying to steer the ship away from immediate impending doom by deconstructing it’s most destructive aspects. Most libertarians agree on what improvements to policies might look like, and hold similar goals regarding the preferred size and shape of the government (or alternative devices) that would replace it. The issue is that some believe none of it will matter until the current iteration of USA Inc. lay cold on the ash heap of history.

Some are simply more optimistic.

This brings us to Tulsi. Tulsi is an attempt to patch a hole. Libertarians for the most part have remained principled, and refused to fall for Trump’s empty promises regarding foreign policy. He has continuously given only lip service to non-intervention, while maintaining or increasing our military presence overseas. Tulsi, on the other hand appears sincere in her desire to rein in our militaristic foreign policy. As expressed by so many libertarians over the years, including Mr. Libertarian Murray Rothbard, the most important policy point for libertarians should be foreign policy, as it directly curtails the freedoms and the right to life of people both abroad and at home.

Additionally, the endless militaristic foreign policy enables and perhaps necessitates an exponential growth in government spending and authority. Libertarians must oppose this by any means necessary. The libertarians who support Tulsi see her as the only vehicle to meet this obligation. That is a difficult point to argue against, seeing as she has been given the full Ron Paul Treatment by the corporate press and the supremely hawkish DNC. Witnessing another politician receive this treatment has likely played no small part in attracting libertarians to her side, and it has become a fairly accurate harbinger of a candidate offering real change to foreign policy.

As a response to the typical libertarian objections to her candidacy, supporters of Tulsi might ask of an opponent “Do you honestly feel more comfortable in your gun rights, or more stable in this economy with Donald Trump in office?”. That would be tough for me to answer in the affirmative. Though an opponent might respond “How should that persuade me to support someone who actively opposes them?”, and although gun control and socialist economics are not front and center of her campaign, you don’t have to look hard to find them. Again, a tough question to answer.

The intention in highlighting this distinction is not to minimize Tulsi’s shortcomings on domestic policy, nor to discount the importance of her commitment to the principle of non-intervention. The point is to highlight the legitimate beliefs that can lead one real libertarian to support her, and another to oppose her. While the strategies are oppositional, they need not be adversarial.

by Adam Alcorn

Find me on Twitter @AdamBlacksburg

E-mail: aalcorn@vt.edu