Oh, it’s not like they vacation with each other.
Rather, it is the position of these libertarian-esq Republicans, if I understand them correctly, that they prefer the political company of those who believe in some god-given liberties over the jack-booted thugs of utilitarianism (Hitch phrase, couldn’t resist.)
Hold the phone. This is grossly hypocritical.
I submit that a libertarian sells her/his soul in this little romance. Most libertarians I know believe in certain moral imperatives, such as natural rights. If you ask a libertarian, “Can we violate someone’s natural rights in order to serve a higher good,” the libertarian would respond, “there is no higher good than to respect someone’s natural rights.”
In other words, we cannot commit an immoral act, even to prevent an immoral outcome. To do so would be an evil act.
If we apply this same argument to whom we support at the polls, why is it any different? If we support a candidate who is “almost good enough”, solely as a means to win elections, isn’t it the same thing?
Why not the third way?
If we’re going to be moral libertarians, we must vote with our moral imperatives and let the chips fall where they may. The latest Reason-Rupe poll said that Ron Paul would pull something like 17% in the general election as a third-party candidate. But if not Paul, why not Gary Johnson?
Because he might lose?
Wrong moral answer. And, besides, who knows…maybe after enough losses due to the “fringe” third party, the Republican party might exorcise the religious right from the GOP – and into their own dwindling fringe in which they belong. How’s that for cause and effect?