Archive for the ‘Libertarian’ Category

Column: Considerations on the California recall effort and its potential consequences – The Herald-Times

Paul Hager| Guest columnist

This guest column was submitted byPaul Hager of Bloomington.

Following the dramatics of the California recall from afar, I found myself terribly conflicted. As some people may know, Im an occasional libertarian politician from Bloomington, but those who know me best are aware that I view many aspects of nations and governments from a systems perspective. This perspective gives rise to my conflict, one that could be called a matter of heart versus mind.

The USA was founded, ultimately, as a federal republic. A republic is a representative democracy, not a democracy like ancient Athens where citizens had direct control of the government. History demonstrates that the Athenian system was unstable, and our founders rejected it. The chief advantage of representatives in a republican system is that they are ideally separated from transient passions and able to render a judgment based upon facts, facts then weighed on the basis of moral, legal, and such other considerations as may affect the commonweal. One of the greatest exponents of this view was a British member of Parliament during the Revolutionary War named Edmund Burke. Burke supported the arguments of the colonists legally and logically, generally presenting their case. This was his job and doing it risked making his constituents quite unhappy, which it in fact did.

I have never spoken to a little-l libertarian over the years who didnt know something about Burke or, lacking that knowledge, couldnt easily explain the qualities of a good representative. Telling unpleasant truths and making people angry is, from time to time, a representatives job. Political philosophy aside, there is a practical consideration: What if, after every decision a representative makes that angers people, there is a legal mechanism allowing the majority to remove this person from office? This sounds a lot like the dangerous sort of democracy that the Founders concluded was a very bad idea. Aside from that, most humans (even politicians) understand rewards and punishments. If representatives are being promiscuously removed after unpopular decisions, the only ones that are elected will be those who cater to their constituents and dont do their job.

Im a libertarian and a Burkean. I therefore must oppose the very idea of a recall. Let me put it to readers at this point, even if you havent thought about these points before given this history, doesnt the idea of a recall seem at least a little un-American?

But heres the thing. Larry Elder is a great guy and, best of all, he is, like me, a little-l libertarian. Initially, even though I knew he wasnt likely to win, I allowed myself to imagine him winning and how much that could benefit California and the country. But, what if, miracle of miracles, he did win? Edmund Burke immediately appeared before my minds eye. This was for me, an agnostic, as close as Im likely to come to committing a mortal sin and having some divine spirit reproach me for it.

I have a great deal of respect for Elder and think he has the makings of a great representative. But not that way. Please, sir. Reread your Burke and run in the next regular election.

View post:
Column: Considerations on the California recall effort and its potential consequences - The Herald-Times

Voter information guide for special election to fill Alcee Hastings’ seat – WPTV.com

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. The first of several deadlines in a special election to fill the congressional seat left vacant by the death of U.S. Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Fla., is soon approaching.

Monday marks the deadline for those Palm Beach County or Broward County residents living in Florida's 20th Congressional District to change their party affiliations before the Nov. 2 primary election.

Hastings, who served in the House since 1993, died of pancreatic cancer in April. He was 84.

Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis set the primary and general election dates for Nov. 2 and Jan. 11, leaving the constituents of this mostly Democratic district without representation in Washington for months.

Am I eligible to vote in the special election?

The short answer is, most likely, yes, provided you meet a few basic requirements and assuming you reside within Florida's 20th Congressional District.

In order to register to vote, you must:

What do I need when I go to vote?

Polls are open from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. during the special and general elections. Any voters waiting in line at 7 p.m. will have the opportunity to cast a ballot.

In order to vote, you must provide a Florida driver's license, identification card, U.S. passport or some other form of photo identification with signature.

Where is Florida's 20th Congressional District?

The district includes portions of Palm Beach and Broward counties. That includes parts of Loxahatchee, Royal Palm Beach, West Palm Beach and Lake Park in Palm Beach County and parts of Fort Lauderdale, Miramar and Pompano Beach in Broward County.

Who are the candidates?

A total 11 Democrats and two Republicans -- plus one Libertarian and three independents, one of whom is a write-in candidate -- are seeking to occupy the seat.

Here are the candidates, in alphabetical order by party:

DemocratsSheila Cherfilus-McCormick: CEO of Trinity Health Care ServicesElvin Dowling: West Palm Beach native, former aide and longtime mentee of HastingsBobby DuBose: minority leader in Florida House, representing portions of Broward CountyOmari Hardy: Florida House District 88, former Lake Worth Beach commissionerDale Holness: Broward County commissioner, former mayor once endorsed by HastingsPhil Jackson: retired U.S. Navy chief petty officerEmmanuel Morel: former president of Democratic Progressive Caucus of Palm Beach CountyBarbara Sharief: Broward County commissioner, previously served as first Black mayorImran Siddiqui: doctor of internal medicine in Broward CountyPriscilla Taylor: former state legislator, Palm Beach County commissioner and mayorPerry Thurston: Florida Senate District 33, representing portions of Broward County

RepublicansJason Mariner: former drug addict and convict, CEO of AdSkinzGreg Musselwhite: welding inspector who lost to Hastings in 2020 general election

LibertarianMike ter Maat: Hallandale Beach police officer since 2010

IndependentsJim FlynnLeonard SerratoreShelley Fain (write-in)

What is the difference between a primary and general election?

Florida is a closed-primary state, which means that only voters registered within a political party may vote in that party's primary election, unless a universal primary contest occurs. A universal primary contest is when all candidates for an office have the same party affiliation and the winner will have no opposition in the general election.

That is not the case in this special election, so voters won't be able to cast their ballots for a candidate in another party. For example, a Republican voter can't vote for a Democratic candidate during the primary election and vice versa.

Important Dates

WPTV

Monday, Oct. 4: Deadline to register for primary election or change party affiliationMonday, Dec. 13: Deadline to register for general electionSaturday, Oct. 23: 5 p.m. deadline to request vote-by-mail ballotTuesday, Nov. 2: 7 p.m. deadline to return vote-by-mail ballotTuesday, Nov. 2: District 20 primary electionTuesday, Jan. 11: District 20 general election

Early Voting Dates

Saturday, Oct. 23-Sunday, Oct. 31: 10 a.m. to 7 p.m. (primary election)Saturday, Jan. 1-Sunday, Jan. 9: 10 a.m. to 7 p.m. (general election)

Early Voting Locations

WPTV

Palm Beach County Library, Belle Glade Branch725 NW Fourth St.Belle Glade 33430

Palm Beach County Library, Main Library3650 Summit Blvd.West Palm Beach 33406

Palm Beach County Supervisor of Elections, West County Branch Office2976 State Road 15, Second FloorBelle Glade 33430

Palm Beach State College, Loxahatchee Groves Campus15845 Southern Blvd.Loxahatchee Groves 33470

Wells Recreation & Community Center2409 Ave. H W.Riviera Beach 33404

Palm Beach County Supervisor of Elections

Read more here:
Voter information guide for special election to fill Alcee Hastings' seat - WPTV.com

‘School choice’ developed as a way to protect segregation – Newsday

The year 2021 has proved a landmark for the "school choice" cause a movement committed to the idea of providing public money for parents to use to pay for private schooling.

Republican control of a majority of state legislatures, combined with pandemic learning disruptions, set the stage for multiple victories. Seven states have created new school choice programs, and 11 others have expanded current programs through laws that offer taxpayer-funded vouchers for private schooling and authorize tax credits and educational savings accounts that incentivize parents moving their children out of public schools.

On its face, this new legislation may sound like a win for families seeking more school options. But the roots of the school choice movement are more sinister.

white Southerners first fought for "freedom of choice" in the mid-1950s as a means of defying the U.S. Supreme Court's 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision, which mandated the desegregation of public schools. Their goal was to create pathways for white families to remove their children from classrooms facing integration.

Prominent libertarians then took advantage of this idea, seeing it not only as a means of providing private options, but also as a tool in their crusade to dismantle public schools altogether. This history reveals that rather than giving families more school options, school choice became a tool intended to give most families far fewer in the end.

School choice had its roots in a crucial detail of the Brown decision: The ruling only applied to public schools. white Southerners viewed this as a loophole for evading desegregated schools.

In 1955 and 1956, conservative white leaders in Virginia devised a regionwide strategy of "massive resistance" to the high court's desegregation mandate that hinged on state-funded school vouchers. The State Board of Education provided vouchers, then called tuition grants, of $250 ($2,514 in 2021 dollars) to parents who wanted to keep their children from attending integrated schools. The resistance leaders understood that most Southern white families could not afford private school tuition and many who could afford it lacked the ideological commitment to segregation to justify the cost. The vouchers, combined with private donations to the new schools in counties facing desegregation mandates, would enable all but a handful of the poorest Whites to evade compliance.

Go inside New York politics.

By clicking Sign up, you agree to our privacy policy.

Other Southern states soon adopted voucher programs like the one in Virginia to facilitate the creation of private schools called "segregation academies," despite opposition from Black families and civil rights leaders. Oliver Hill, an NAACP attorney key to the Virginia case against "separate but equal" education that was folded into Brown, explained their position this way: "No one in a democratic society has a right to have his private prejudices financed at public expense."

Despite such objections, key conservative and libertarian thinkers and foundations, including economists Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek, Human Events editor Felix Morley and publisher Henry Regnery, backed the white Southern cause. They recognized that white Southerners' push for "freedom of choice" presented an opportunity to advance their goal of privatizing government services and resources, starting with primary and secondary education. They barely, if ever, addressed racism and segregation; instead, they spoke of freedom (implicitly, white freedom).

Friedman began promoting "educational freedom" in 1955, just as Southern states prepared to resist Brown. And he praised the Virginia voucher plan in his 1962 book, "Capitalism and Freedom," holding it up as a model for school choice everywhere. "Whether the school is integrated or not," he wrote, should have no bearing on eligibility for the vouchers. In other words, he knew the program was designed to fund segregation academies and saw it as no barrier to receiving state financing.

Friedman was far from alone. His fellow libertarians, including those on the staff of the William Volker Fund, a leading funder on the right, saw no problem with state governments providing tax subsidies to white families who chose segregation academies, even as these states disenfranchised Black voters, blocking them from having a say in these policies.

Libertarians understood that while abolishing the social safety net and other policies constructed during the Progressive era and the New Deal was wildly unpopular, even among white Southerners, school choice could win converts.

These conservative and libertarian thinkers offered up ostensibly race-neutral arguments in favor of the tax subsidies for private schooling sought by white supremacists. In doing so, they taught defenders of segregation a crucial new tactic abandon overtly racist rationales and instead tout liberty, competition and market choice while embracing an anti-government stance. These race-neutral rationales for private school subsidies gave segregationists a justification that could survive court review and did, for more than a decade before the Supreme Court ruled them unconstitutional.

When challenged, Friedman and his allies denied that they were motivated by racial bigotry. Yet, they had enough in common ideologically with the segregationists for the partnership to work. Both groups placed a premium on the liberty of those who had long profited from white-supremacist policies and sought to shield their freedom of action from the courts, liberal government policies and civil rights activists.

Crucially, freedom wasn't the ultimate goal for either group of voucher supporters. White Southerners wielded colorblind language about freedom of choice to help preserve racial segregation and to keep Black children from schools with more resources.

Friedman, too, was interested in far more than school choice. He and his libertarian allies saw vouchers as a temporary first step on the path to school privatization. He didn't intend for governments to subsidize private education forever. Rather, once the public schools were gone, Friedman envisioned parents eventually shouldering the full cost of private schooling without support from taxpayers. Only in some "charity" cases might governments still provide funding for tuition.

Friedman first articulated this outlook in his 1955 manifesto, but he clung to it for half a century, explaining in 2004, "In my ideal world, government would not be responsible for providing education any more than it is for providing food and clothing." Four months before his death in 2006, when he spoke to a meeting of the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), he was especially frank. Addressing how to give parents control of their children's education, Friedman said, "The ideal way would be to abolish the public school system and eliminate all the taxes that pay for it."

Today, the ultrawealthy backers of school choice are cagey about this long-term goal, knowing that care is required to win the support of parents who want the best for their children. Indeed, in a sad irony, decades after helping to impede Brown's implementation, school choice advocates on the right targeted families of color for what one libertarian legal strategist called "forging nontraditional alliances." They won over some parents of color, who came to see vouchers and charter schools as a way to escape the racial and class inequalities that stemmed from white flight out of urban centers and the Supreme Court's willingness to allow white Americans to avoid integrating schools.

But the history behind vouchers reveals that the rhetoric of "choice" and "freedom" stands in stark contrast to the real goals sought by conservative and libertarian advocates. The system they dream of would produce staggering inequalities, far more severe than the disparities that already exist today. Wealthy and upper-middle-class families would have their pick of schools, while those with far fewer resources disproportionately families of color might struggle to pay to educate their children, leaving them with far fewer options or dependent on private charity. Instead of offering an improvement over underfunded schools, school choice might lead to something far worse.

As Maya Angelou wisely counseled in another context, "When people show you who they are, believe them the first time." If we fail to recognize the right's true end game for public education, it could soon be too late to reverse course.

Nancy MacLean is William H. Chafe distinguished professor of history and public policy at Duke University and author of "Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right's Stealth Plan for America."

Read more:
'School choice' developed as a way to protect segregation - Newsday

Democrats attack GOP candidates far from Texas over abortion rights – Yahoo News

Democrats are trying to attack Republican political candidates over abortion rights far from Texas including libertarian states like New Hampshire and Nevada.

Why it matters: The strategy highlights the national resonance of the new Texas law banning abortions past six weeks. The Democratic Party sees an opening in next year's midterm elections to capitalize on voters opposition to it.

Get market news worthy of your time with Axios Markets. Subscribe for free.

Both Nevada and "Live-Free-or-Die" New Hampshire also have female senators up for re-election in 2022.

The Democrats' ad campaigns have the potential to drive up turnout by women.

What were watching: Democrats are already releasing ads hitting Republicans for their record on choice in the hope of making an early impression on voters.

The New Hampshire Democratic Party has a digital ad, released Monday, that attempts to blame the states Republican governor, Chris Sununu, for the New Hampshire Executive Councils decision to defund Planned Parenthood.

In the ad, titled "Laughing," the first text to appear on the screen references the Texas law.

In Nevada, Democrats are hitting Adam Laxalt, a Republican Senate primary candidate, by tying him to Dean Heller, who's running for governor, through their abortion rights comments.

The backdrop: Both states have a history of supporting abortion rights measures that Democrats intend to highlight.

In Nevada in 1990, over 60% of voters approved a ballot measure that reaffirmed allowing abortion up to 24 weeks. The law can only be changed by a direct vote by the people, meaning the legislature cannot amend it.

65% of voters in the state consider themselves "pro-choice," according to a poll conducted over the summer by OH Insights.

The issue was a deciding factor in the 1990s in New Hampshire. Many credit the successful gubernatorial campaign of now-Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.)with her highlighting her support for abortion rights against an anti-abortion Republican opponent.

What theyre saying: I think that protecting womens reproductive rights is fundamental to the Granite State, Ray Buckley, chair of the New Hampshire Democratic Party, told Axios.

Story continues

He added, We are either No. 1 or close to it in support of abortion, support of a womans choice, and that is part of our DNA that government should not be involved in that question.

Andy Orellana, a spokesperson for Nevada Democratic Victory, the coordinated campaign for Democrats in 2022, said, "With Nevada Republicans calling for extreme abortion bans like the one in Texas, Laxalts anti-choice record has only become more alienating to voters."

Go deeper: "Swing voters oppose Texas abortion law"

More from Axios: Sign up to get the latest market trends with Axios Markets. Subscribe for free

Read the original post:
Democrats attack GOP candidates far from Texas over abortion rights - Yahoo News

Australia’s Right-Wing Libertarians Are Trying to Capitalize on Anti-Lockdown Sentiment – Jacobin magazine

The most irrelevant lobby in the country today are the libertarians arguing there is no case for lockdowns anywhere of any scale, declared Paul Kelly, the doyen of Australian conservative political commentary, in July.

However, anti-government anger is growing as Australians confront the realities of a dismally slow vaccination rollout and ongoing lockdowns. The right-wing libertarians of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) hope to convert that sentiment into the votes they need to win seats in state and federal parliaments.

Just a few days prior to Kellys declaration, his colleague at Rupert Murdochs conservative broadsheet theAustralian, Janet Albrechtsen, set the hares running. She argued that widespread disaffection with the Liberal Partys pandemic response, both federally and in New South Wales, has led to the rejuvenation of the LDP, the little start-up that never took off. If, Albrectsen argued, they mobilize serious intellectual firepower and keep out the weirdos and gun nuts, the LDP can force the Liberals to remain true to the values they claim to uphold.

Australias low coronavirus case numbers have been the envy of much of the world. These numbers were kept down partly by the strict and lengthy lockdowns that Australians have endured, including a fresh round that are ongoing in NSW, Victoria, and the Australian Capital Territory. Yet lockdown skepticism is on the rise, as are criticisms of the often heavy-handed means with which they are implemented. It remains to be seen whether the LDP can capitalize on this sentiment.

Libertarianism is very much a niche movement in Australian politics. The Liberal Democratic Party was founded in Canberra in 2001 by twenty-two-year-old economics graduate John Humphreys. Then a junior policy analyst in the Commonwealth Treasury, Humphreys despaired that there was no political party that aligned with his libertarian views. Ironically, given the partys anti-statist bent, in its early years it drew support primarily from Canberra public servants.

LDP members and supporters use the terms classical liberal and libertarian interchangeably. Chris Berg, formerly of the free market think tank the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) and author of a book on libertarianism, believes the distinction is insignificant. Both philosophies believe that public policy should be designed to maximise free markets and civil liberties, he wrote in 2018. That is, governments should get out of both the wallet and the bedroom.

However, the differing terms do point to genuine fault lines within the LDP. On one side are the Hayekian classical liberals, who are principally concerned with free markets, low taxation, and property rights. Many of this persuasion find a comfortable home in the Liberal Party for example, Bergs former IPA colleagues James Paterson and Tim Wilson.

On the other side are the social and cultural libertarians, who are more intensely focused on the freedom of the individual to do what he or she pleases, as long as it harms no one else. They strongly support liberalizing drug laws, for example, putting them at odds with the more conservatively inclined wing. Internal divisions like these are common to all political parties, however, and the LDPs factions have had enough in common to keep the party going for twenty years.

In this time, the LDP has only notched up minor electoral successes. Its high watermark came in 2013, when David Leyonhjelm was elected to the federal Senate with 9.5 percent of the vote in NSW. Even so, LDP partisans acknowledge that Leyonhjelm benefited from being placed first on the ballot paper. Additionally, some voters likely confused the LDP with the similarly named Liberal Party. Generally, the LDP tends to win between 1 and 3 percent of the vote.

At the state level, the party achieved successes in 2017 and 2018, with one candidate elected in Western Australia (WA) and two in Victoria. In 2019, however, Leyonhjelm resigned from the Senate to contest a seat in the NSW parliament. He failed. In the federal election that followed shortly after, Leyonhjelms Senate replacement was unable to reclaim his seat.

Just this year, the LDP lost its seat in WA, leaving the two Victorians, David Limbrick and Tim Quilty, as the only LDP members in any Australian parliament. This raises the question: Where can the LDP go from here?

Having stepped down as president of the LDP in 2004, Humphreys reassumed the position in May 2021. For much of the past twenty years, he has played a leading role building Australias libertarian movement, through think tanks and advocacy groups such as the Centre for Independent Studies and the Australian Libertarian Society.

Following Humphreyss return, along with what Albrechtsen described as some serious financial backing, the LDP coordinated a rapid series of announcements that the right-wing media have taken up with relish.

First, the Australian edition of the Spectator broke the not-exactly-bombshell news that the little-known Liberal Party activist John Ruddick had quit the party to run as an LDP candidate. Former Liberal senator (and leader of the failed minor party the Australian Conservatives) Cory Bernardi then used his platform on Sky News to advocate for the LDP. Embracing his inner Lenin, Bernardi argued that Australia needs a vanguard to stick up for the liberty loving citizens who are actually sceptical about an all-powerful government.

The Spectator soon endorsed Bernardi and Albrechtsens argument in an editorial. This was followed by a gushing interview on Sky News Outsiders, hosted by Rowan Dean, who is also the Australian editor of the Spectator.

Next, former Queensland premier Campbell Newman entered the fray. He dropped the news to the Australian that he had quit the Liberal National Party (LNP) and was considering running for the federal Senate as an LDP candidate. As he put it, he wants to apply a blowtorch to people who seek to restrict our liberties and freedoms.

Newman is the son of two former Liberal federal ministers and was a popular mayor of Brisbane before becoming premier of Queensland in a landslide election victory in 2012, in which the LNP won seventy-eight out of eighty-nine seats. However, he managed to squander this enormous advantage in the space of just one three-year term, losing power to the Labor Party in 2015.

Shortly after Newmans tease, former Liberal MP Ross Cameron also announced his defection to the LDP. This may have been bigger news had Cameron not been voted out of parliament in disgrace in 2004 following revelations about multiple extramarital affairs. He has spent much of his post-parliamentary career parading himself on Sky News as a racist, a homophobe, and a moon enthusiast. The serious intellectual firepower that Albrechtsen called for is clearly yet to materialize.

At this point, the conservative old guard at theAustralian felt the need to step in to settle things down. In a typically bombastic editorial, the broadsheet cautioned that Ruddick, Newman, and Camerons treachery would only serve to deliver a disastrous outcome, namely, a Labor-Greens government.

Since then, Newman confirmed his candidacy with the backing of Tim Andrews, an Australian Grover Norquist who spends his days fighting tax increases. The founder of the Australian Taxpayers Alliance, Andrews is the key figure behind the annual Friedman Conference, alongside Humphreys. The Friedman Conference has been instrumental in connecting libertarians across the country. On the day of Newmans statement, Andrews announced that he would be joining the LDP to his more than four thousand Facebook followers, urging them to do the same.

These developments demonstrate that libertarians are agreed about the need to pressure the Liberals. However, it is not entirely clear what strategy the LDP will adopt to win the support of disaffected voters. Those still wedded to neoliberal-era economics Janet Albrechtsen and Campbell Newman, for example want to add opposition to pandemic restrictions to the usual orthodoxies about reining in government spending.

The more radically inclined have taken their cues from recent right-wing populist successes. They want a clearer, simpler message. We will be running an anti-lockdown message like Nigel Farages single-message campaign on Brexit, says Cameron. Ruddick agrees, stating that ending COVID-mania will be the main campaign theme. As he told Sky News,

Come the first of December, once everyones had an opportunity to get vaxxed if they want to get vaxxed we go back to complete normality. No more QR codes, no restrictions in any way.

Vaccination might be the most delicate of all issues for the LDP. Authorities have fined both Ruddick and Limbrick for attending anti-lockdown protests, which are usually populated by high numbers of anti-vaccination conspiracy theorists. The Liberal Democrats have used careful messaging to try to balance an awareness that mass vaccination is our best way out of lockdowns with their desire to appeal to anti-vaxxers. Ruddick told the Guardian that the LDP is neutral on vaccination. Limbrick is on record opposing the possible imposition of travel or other restrictions on unvaccinated people.

Although the LDP is a marginal force, the partys strategy will have major implications for the Liberal-National Coalition. The Coalition performs best when it manages to isolate fringe forces to its right and incorporate their supporters, as former Prime Minister John Howard did with Pauline Hansons far-right insurgency in the late 1990s. Ever since, the Coalition has generally preferred to court hard-right candidates and voters, preferring to keep them inside the tent rather than throwing bombs from outside.

This strategy is not without risks. Liberal MP Craig Kelly quit the party in February after Prime Minister Scott Morrison criticized his quack views on vaccination and alternative therapies. This might have been a relief for Morrison if it werent for the Coalitions razor-thin parliamentary majority. More recently, both sides of parliament united to condemn another government member, George Christensen, for his idiotic comments on masks, lockdowns, and vaccine passports.

It remains to be seen whether the Coalition can continue to appease libertarian and hard-right elements, while maintaining its commitment to managing capitalism and the health crisis, including by authoritarian means. Whether the Coalition can manage this tension will go some way to determining its electoral fortunes in the forthcoming federal election.

Humphreys and his allies once seemed satisfied with the LDPs meager electoral returns and libertarianisms niche status in Australia. Now, however, they have announced a plan to take the Liberal Democrats from a 2 per cent party to a 10 per cent party over coming elections. Can they do it?

Chris Berg believes that increasing anger about some of the most dramatic suppression of civil liberties in living memory presents an enormous opportunity. He believes the LDP can succeed if it can steer clear of anti-vaxxers and the hard-right elements that populate libertarian circles, and instead rely on relatively mainstream figures to sell the partys message.

In 2018, left-wing journalist Guy Rundle wrote that David Leyonhjelms strange neuroses served only to discredit libertarianism as a real political philosophy. Its possible, as Rundle argued, that the crackpot element in the Australian libertarian movement will continue to alienate mainstream voters.

However, this is not certain. To quote twentieth-century Australian intellectual Donald Horne, when times are cracked, the crackpot can become king. The next federal election could be the LDPs chance to make its presence felt in Australian politics.

See the article here:
Australia's Right-Wing Libertarians Are Trying to Capitalize on Anti-Lockdown Sentiment - Jacobin magazine