Bob Murphy Weighs in the On the McCardle-Malice Controversy
In Episode 327 of the Bob Murphy Show, which was posted on June 15, Mises Institute scholar Bob Murphy weighed in on the negative comments that Libertarian Party chairperson Angela McCardle made about me in her recent appearance on the Michael Malice Show. I myself addressed McCardle’s comments in my June 15 article “There Angela Goes Again — on the Michael Malice Show.”
In his 45-minute presentation, Murphy comes to my defense with an excellent analysis on both the Covid controversy and school vouchers, for which I am very honored and appreciative. Given that anyone who challenges or opposes the positions of the national-party hierarchy or the Mises Caucus hierarchy (or comes to my defense) could be subjected to all sorts of calumny and nasty personal attacks, I am especially grateful that he has the intellectual and moral courage to take that risk.
I suppose I should also express my gratitude that Murphy, unlike McCardle, believes that my adherence to genuine libertarian principles does not warrant my being sent to an insane asylum or to an institution that treats autism. (For the record, I agree with Murphy’s sentiment that it is highly inappropriate for McCardle to use autism as a way to make sarcastic jabs at people’s political positions.)
Murphy’s analysis is spot on, and I would invite people to listen to the entire show. What is especially gratifying for me is that he “gets it.” He clearly understands that freedom — genuine freedom — necessarily entails the removal, not the reform, of infringements on freedom. This is what all too many libertarians just don’t get. They honestly believe that if they just make the case for reforming or reducing welfare-state programs or regulatory programs, they are making the case for freedom. Nothing could be further from the truth. They might be making the case for an improved, warmed-over serfdom but they are not making the case for freedom.
There is a another important point about McCardle’s comments that I believe deserves attention, one that Murphy did not bring up. While McCardle is obviously being caustic when she calls me crazy, insane, or autistic, I have no doubts that that is precisely how she feels about the libertarian principles to which I adhere. Like many other members of the Libertarian Party, she honestly believes my libertarian principles are crazy or insane.
Consider, for example, Social Security. In her interview with Malice, McCardle stated, “Hornberger’s big thing is abolishing Social Security immediately. I don’t really understand what’s going on there.”
I am absolutely convinced that she is being genuine when she says that. McCardle really does not understand why I would make the case for immediately dismantling what is the crown jewel of American socialism. For her, that’s just crazy and insane. She just “really can’t get what’s going on there.”
McCardle is about 40 years old. I don’t know when she discovered libertarianism, but I would guess it was sometime during the past 20 years. It was during that period of time when the message of Republican-lite and welfare-state reform became the dominant mindset in the Libertarian Party and, for all practical purposes, inundated and drowned out the brand of principled libertarianism on which the party was founded and to which I adhere.
In 2018, I was traveling to various state conventions, where I was giving talks. As I was giving the principled case for liberty to audiences, I noticed stunned looks on people’s faces. At first, I couldn’t understand why. And then I figured it out — those L.P. members had never heard the principled case for liberty. All they had ever heard was the case for Republican-lite and welfare-state reform. I could tell that many of them were totally befuddled on hearing what I was saying. They believed in Republican-lite, reform-oriented “libertarianism” and yet here was was a speaker who was challenging their worldview by setting forth what genuine libertarianism is actually all about.
It’s the same with school vouchers and public schooling. It is clear that McCardle is shocked — shocked! — over my position that there is only one libertarian position on education — the separation of school and state. For her, the true libertarian position on education is (1) school vouchers, as a way to improve the public school system through “choice” and “competition” and (2) running Libertarians for school board as a way to improve the public-school system.
Thus, it shouldn’t surprise anyone that the Libertarian Party hierarchy, under McCardle’s leadership, sends out fundraising letters and holds fundraising events asking people to donate to the party’s efforts to promote school vouchers and running Libertarians for school board. This is the mindset that has been inculcated within her ever since she joined the Libertarian party. Thus, it is not surprising at all that she would consider the idea of abolishing public schooling and rejecting school vouchers to be “crazy” and “insane” and why she feels that anyone who would advocate such positions belongs in an insane asylum.
The same principle with respect to school vouchers holds true for immigration controls. No doubt that McCardle hews to the standard Republican position favoring America’s system of immigration controls and the immigration police state that comes with it. For the past 20 years, that has been the dominant position of the Libertarian Party and its presidential campaigns, including the 2024 campaign, where all but one (me!) of the presidential candidates, including the party’s new presidential nominee Chase Oliver as well as the Mises Caucus-endorsed candidate Michael Rectenwald, favored the concept of government-controlled borders. Thus, it’s not surprising that immigration controls and an immigration police state would be, in McCardle’s mind, “libertarianism.” Then, along comes a presidential candidate (me) who opposes the concept of immigration controls and makes the case for open borders, which is the genuine libertarian position on immigration. Undoubtedly, her response was, “My gosh, that’s crazy. Jacob belongs in an insane asylum. We can’t just open the borders to the free movements of people. I don’t really understand what’s going on there.”
As I pointed out throughout my 2024 presidential campaign, the political problem is that there is no voting constituency for this Republican-lite, reform-oriented message that has come to define the Libertarian Party and to which McCardle and so many other Libertarians adhere. That’s why out presidential candidates garner only one percent of the vote, no matter how much “publicity” the L.P. might generate by inviting Donald Trump, Vivek Ramaswamy, and other Republicans to address Libertarian Party conventions. After all, why should any right-winger who favors such statist measures as school vouchers, Social Security, Medicare, and immigration controls waste his vote on a Republican-lite Libertarian Party candidate when he can vote for a real Republican? More fundamentally, why is there any need for a Republican-lite political party when there is already a Republican Party? Most important, where are people who adhere to genuine libertarian principles supposed to go in the political arena?