Can a Christian be a candidate in the Libertarian Party?
That question is being asked in Missouri and throughout the "blogosphere."
There has been some conflict over this issue since I began running for Congress as a Christian Libertarian. The focal point is the issue of homosexuality.
- As a Christian, I believe homosexuality is prohibited in the Bible; a "sin."
- As a libertarian I do not believe the use of force or threats of violence are justified against homosexuals.
I stated these convictions on my website.
This resulted in some discussion among libertarians, which you can read here.
But the discussion erupted recently, as a homosexual blogger and his friends mounted a vigorous challenge to my views (as well as a few views that are not mine).
I have for some time been keeping tabs on a blog by someone who has been affiliated with the CATO Institute, Jason Kuznicki (Ph.D., history, Johns Hopkins). His blog is called
"Positive Liberty." He posted criticisms of President Bush's nominee for Surgeon General. I agreed with Kuznicki's criticisms of
the office, but not the man. Kuznicki, following many other homosexual advocates, disagreed with the nominee's views against homosexuality; I
agreed with them.
I pointed out that every single person who signed the Declaration of Independence and Constitution believed that homosexuality violated "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." I noted that even the great libertarian Thomas
Jefferson thought homosexuals should be castrated. As a Christian Libertarian, of course, I disagreed with Jefferson's proposed punishment, even though it was a more libertarian proposal than the one then-current: execution. (I am opposed to
capital punishment, even for murderers.)
Kuznicki responded to my blog post with a response entitled, "Kevin Craig’s Strange Libertarianism," in which he incorrectly inferred that I supported Jefferson's
amendment to the penal code. This set off a furor of comments on Kuznicki's blog and those of his friends, Ed Brayton, Steven Horwitz on the History
News Network, and others.
I responded: Response to Jason.
In that post I attempted to establish my libertarian credentials. That shouldn't be necessary, because my position is clearly spelled out for any who want to know what I believe. I point out clearly that I am against all forms of criminal punishments, including fines,
prison, and executions. I openly admit to being an anarchist, and I seek to abolish all civil government. But in my zeal to prove my libertarian bona
fides, I said not only am I against all criminal sanctions against homosexuals, I'm even for legalizing child molestation. Can't get more radically libertarian that that!
That was a stupid thing to say. I admit I'm not a very good politician.
Kuznicki went to town with that remark in "The Latest Looniness."
The National Headquarters of the Libertarian Party immediately called the HQ of the Missouri LP to alert them to a loose cannon on their ship. I got a phone call from the Chairman of the MO LP.
I agreed to remove the line about legalizing child molestation.
I responded to Kuznicki with "The Latest Laziness."
The next day I got another call. The Chair was "disappointed" with that post. He said there would be an organized effort to keep me off the ballot as an LP candidate, similar to the exclusion
of a nazi white supremacist in 2006.
Tibor Machan, an esteemed author among libertarian circles, called me a "bigot." He along with many others claimed I was no libertarian. So I responded with a post entitled, "I
am a Bigot." That is to say, a bigot against atheistic socialism and pagan sexual morality.
Eventually, Kuznicki admitted he had incorrectly represented my position as calling for the castration of homosexuals: "I’m Sorry, Mr. Craig." I responded, "Apology
accepted, Dr. Kuznicki." But as I pointed out, the damage may have already been done.
But perhaps "damage" is not the right word. It may be a good thing to discover that the Libertarian Party is so committed to libertarian morality and not just libertarian government, that it will exclude Christians who have a different morality.
Or even atheists whose personal morality mirrors "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." Perhaps we need a new
political party which embraces Christian morality and a Christian (libertarian) theory of government.
All previous blogs and webpages that discuss sexual morality are here.
Both the left libertarians and the devotees of technology find fault with Ron Paul. He is not cosmopolitan enough for them: he is so benighted as to defend the traditional family. Almost as bad, he
is a genuine American patriot, who opposes NAFTA and similar agreements as inimical to American national interests. To me, these are virtues, not defects; but let us for the sake of argument assume that the values of the left libertarians and the technologists – those
Rothbard termed "space cadets" – are correct.
Does not the question then arise, should libertarianism be subordinated to these values? For Rothbard, liberty is the highest political values. For some of Ron Paul’s critics, it isn’t:
only libertarians who pass their cultural litmus test merit support. The vast majority of libertarians have the good sense to reject such nonsense.