First a disclaimer: Reason Magazine produces some top notch journalism. I say that as a long time reader and a fan of several of their writers. In the past I have also called for reconciliation between warring libertarian factions including the folks at Reason. The reasons for this are sensible and should be obvious for a political movement that already has enough trouble even getting a seat at the table.
More than a few folks over at Reason are not content with that though, hence a decision earlier today to publish a bizarre hatchet job on one of the exceedingly few libertarian-leaning voices in the entire U.S. government. And a softer backhanded insult to accompany it. The implication of this decision is regrettable but also unavoidable: there is something severely amiss over at Reason. And it's time to put it out in the open and name names.
One need not look very far to find them. In fact, Reason took care of that itself last election. I therefore submit the following as prime evidence of why Reason Magazine does not, and should not, represent the future of libertarianism in the United States of America, or anywhere else for that matter:
Reason Magazine, Presidential Poll 2008
Question 1. Who are you voting for in November?
"If the polls in my home state are close: Obama" - Peter Bagge, contributing editor
"Obama. The Republicans must be punished and punished hard." - Ronald Bailey, science correspondent
"I plan to vote for Obama mainly because he is not a Republican and not John McCain, who is temperamentally unfit to be president." - Bruce Bartlett, columnist
"For not a single "liberal" reason, I am voting not only for Obama, but for the GOP to be utterly spanked and sent into exile" - David Brin, columnist
"Barack Obama. All my life I've been waiting for a black president; Obama's not monumentally unqualified, and his solid-if-boring book at least had some unkind words for teachers unions. Also my kids like him." - Tim Cavanaugh, contributing editor
"Barack Obama, for two main reasons: The Republican Party, which has jettisoned its best inclinations and indulged its worst for the last eight years, richly deserves exile from the White House, and 2) because he shows an intelligence and temperament that suggest he will govern more pragmatically than ideologically—the best that can be hoped for from a Democratic president." - Steve Chapman, columnist
"Ralph Nader, because I never got the chance to vote for Gene Debs or Norman Thomas." - Bill Kauffman, columnist
"Barack Obama, since he's a genuine leader, with a good program for cleaning up Washington, and will be very good for business." - Craig Newmark, contributor
"Barack Obama, because he most exemplifies Reason and Free Minds" - Steven Pinker, contributor
"I really just want the Republicans to lose." - Damon W. Root, associate editor
"I am voting for Barack Obama, because I believe in hope and change and unicorns. Also, John McCain is dangerously mentally unfit to be president and has decided, with his choice of Sarah Palin, to complete the transformation of the GOP into a southern-centered party based on social division and cultural resentment." - Ryan Sager, columnist
"Living in the District of Columbia, I see little reason to mar my as- yet unblemished record of nonvoting. But if I lived in Virigina or Florida, I'd be ticking the box for Obama" - Julian Sanchez, contributing editor
"I'll be voting for Obama, because I think as a nation we're about to descend into a pile of hurt, and I want someone who is smart, pragmatic, and not prone to temper tantrums working to get us out of it as quickly as possible." - John Scalzi, contributor
"Barack Obama. I could give 100 reasons, but I'll just say civil liberties. He's not perfect, and yes, he sold out on warrantless wiretapping, but on the whole, he's been better in this area than any presidential candidate in my voting lifetime." - RU Sirius, nom-de-plume contributor
"I will vote for Obama on behalf of everyone watching in the world, because he’s the coolest to watch on television." - Doug Stanhope, contributor
"I’m voting for Barack Obama, the only remaining candidate whom I trust not to run the country (further) into the ground with stupid and erratic decisions, and who (miraculously for a Democrat) has run a less brain-dead, faux-populist campaign than the Republican." - David Weigel, associate editor
"I think an Obama victory would be the lesser of two evils overall, but I will probably vote for Bob Barr" - Cathy Young, contributing editor
Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch, to their credit, broke with the Obamunistic trend of things over at Reason. It should be painfully obvious though just how far out of touch a large part of their editorial staff is with the libertarian movement - so far out of touch, in fact, that they embraced a closeted Marxist. It is also not difficult to speculate that the majority of the people on this same list would never consider a vote for Ron Paul. In fact, more than a few of them openly attacked him in his bid for the Republican nomination.
So to Gillespie and Welch, I offer the following in the spirit of Sarah Palin: How's that hopey-changey thing working out for ya? While you figure that out, get to work. You've got a house of your own to clean before you cast stones at Ron Paul.
1 comments:
This is a really good one, these guys are unbelivable!
International Libertarian
Post a Comment