Before I say anything else, let me say that ka1igu1a's recent blog on the Paul endorsement of Baldwin is spot on. Go read it and come back.

His summary, "2008 as the year of the libertarian has degenerated into a sorry joke from a political perspective," is sadly correct. Even so, there's no need to despair. Libertarians in general - and libertarian Democrats in particular - now have a perfect opportunity to regroup and redefine who we are. We just need to set a few guidelines for ourselves.

I hate to say I told you so, but Ron Paul's endorsement of Chuck Baldwin is just another step toward that movement's steady metamorphosis into yet another lame retread of the Buchanan Brigades. If that's what the die-hard Paul apologists want, so be it. I'm perfectly fine with letting them go down that road to ruin. I for one refuse to.

Given the fact Paul is becoming increasingly irrelevant, and that he's utter anathema to most Democrats anyway, our legacy as libertarian Democrats lies elsewhere. It should go without saying that Democrats aren't going to be terribly receptive to people in their party singing the praises of folks like Paul and Bob Barr. There's a very good reason why. Building coalitions with others is critical to our overall success, and it needs to start somewhere. Instead we should be invoking names like Proxmire, Schweitzer, Feingold and Richardson. That's a "revolution" we as libertarian Democrats can embrace and other Democrats can accept.

Stop confusing strict interpretation of the Constitution with libertarianism. While one can naturally lead to the other, they're not synonymous concepts. Crying for freedom and liberty at the federal level - but at the same time taking the attitude that the states are free to moralize and tyrannize at will - may be Constitutionally correct (well, maybe), but it's exceedingly dishonest from a libertarian standpoint.

Let's be crystal clear on this point: there's nothing wrong with being a strict constructionist, but if you're not also advocating both civil and fiscal liberties on ALL levels of government, you're not doing anyone any favors.

The Libertarian Party will probably survive the Barr campaign in some form, but it'll never be relevant in the grand scheme of things. The culture of incompetence, infighting and self-defeatism in the national LP has become so pervasive that nothing short of starting over with new leaders and new candidates will rescue it from its inconsequential fate. At this point I think it would actually be easier to start a new party from scratch. It would be easier still to organize a faction in the major parties; one doesn't have to worry about issues like ballot access doing that.

Should we do it with the Republicans? The same party responsible first for not paying attention to public trust issues government can play a role in, and then reacted by effectively nationalizing three financial services companies in the space of 10 days, with perhaps many more to follow? I don't think so. Sure, there are obstacles within the Democratic Party as well, but nothing like that.

Enough theory. Let's win some elections. Our underlying political philosophy should be quite simple. The German Free Democrats say, "as much government as necessary, as little government as possible." That pretty much sums it up for me.

Instead, many libertarians are prone to bombard us with topics like Hayek, Rockwell, Rothbard, anarcho-capitalism, Objectivism, paleolibertarianism, etc. ad infinitum. Scholarly political and economic theory is absolutely necessary to the long-term health of the political process, but at a certain point immersing oneself in theory becomes tantamount to pointless and counterproductive wheel-spinning. Many, many libertarians crossed this crucial threshold a LONG time ago.

Some libertarians spout this stuff with a zeal that would make the most ardent Cultural Revolution-era Red Guard blush. Except that they don't have a little book (red or otherwise). They have a whole freakin' library. Do they have any idea how annoying, ineffective and - yes - pathetic they are? Many, many people are sympathetic to libertarian ideals, but couldn't care less about the Mises Institute and frankly never will. The consistent single-digit election performances of the LP, as well as the general lack of direction of libertarian factions among both Democrats and Republicans, should have clued folks into this by now. Enough already.

This is not to say the philosophies of the Austrian economists and others are useless in the political process. They have their place, and they do make a positive contribution overall. We just need to operate in the real world around here.

Indeed, that's perhaps our greatest challenge: reconciling libertarianism with Realpolitik. Surely we libertarian Democrats can do that better than what we've seen recently. I think it would be difficult not to.