There are apparently immigration reactionaries of all stripes and sizes regardless of creed. They can even be found in places where one might not expect. For instance, I found a NIMBY posting of sorts on Cato as I was perusing the site a few days ago, and it struck me as somewhat inconsistent with a strict interpretation of libertarianism.
The post, Don’t Dilute Libertarianism Just to Beat Donald Trump, by Aron Ross Powell, states:
Now that Donald Trump has all but wrapped up the Republican nomination — and, with it, foreclosed any lingering claims that the GOP is the party of limited-government conservatism — a small cohort of notable Republicans have signaled that they are shifting their affiliation to the Libertarian Party. The Washington Examiner’s Tim Carney, already leaning that way, tweeted that he’s making the switch and longtime Republican strategist Mary Matalin recently explained that she would “never vote for Hillary and never Trump means always liberty. Hence, Libertarian.”
If all that these converts see is a safe house where they can ride out the storm, they’re missing the point: The libertarian ideal and the Libertarian Party stand as reminders that neither of the two major parties is committed to the principle that individuals are superior to the state. And in this election year, if fear of a President Trump results in libertarianism morphing into Republicanism-lite, it would cease to serve that purpose. While I’m not active in Libertarian Party politics, as a small-“L” libertarian, I want no part of diluting this core principle just to boost electoral success.
In other words, if one is a disaffected Republican, the welcome mat has been pulled away and replaced with one stating, “Stay off my cloud.”
It’s amazing that in resistance to change, opportunities to further such an important cause are completely missed. I don’t see a wave of disaffected Republicans piling into the LP as bad thing at all. Many of them will be exposed to a message that they, having existed in a cozy Republican messaging bubble for most, if not all, of their political lives, have never before heard, and perhaps, many of them will understand the contradiction between positions on issues they have supported in the past and the idea of individual liberty. If one wants to end the immigrant scapegoating and government sponsored gay bashing, then, there can only be a huge upside in allowing disaffected Republicans into the LP circle.
If it doesn’t end up working out that way, the only chance of the LP becoming a mini-Republican Party is for the original members to start singing the Republican tune and/or through attrition. Mr. Powell states that he isn’t necessarily involved with the LP, but doesn’t want it to be diluted. But guess what. Preservation of the concept of individual liberty vs. the state and individual freedoms takes resolve and vigilance, otherwise they will simply evaporate. And everyone wants clean streets, but there are very few who actually pick up the brooms.
In short, please don’t just sit by on the periphery complaining about what is happening – DO SOMETHING constructive that will leave everyone else better off. If not me, who? If not now, when?
PS: I am not a member of the LP. While I identify with many of its main tenants, each time I have explored the option, it appeared to me to lack a certain amount of practicality, like adopting the immediate resumption of a gold standard as part of its platform, forgetting that a gold standard must be imposed by government and that it would cause more harm than good. I, therefore, did not choose it. Also, I do not agree with pacifism at all costs. Even a neutral nation needs a military strong enough to defend its neutrality, or it shall not remain neutral for long.