Can Libertarians Effectively Oppose Government Waste?
Over in the 5th district of Oklahoma, incumbent Republican Congressman Tom Cole is facing a primary election challenge from Hector Diaz.
Why would one Republican challenge another? Diaz is a particular sort of Republican, with libertarian tendencies. He believes that Representative Cole hasn’t been sufficiently opposed to big government spending. Diaz suggests that, unlike Cole, he would be a strong voice in support to any effort to reduce the size and cost of government. Diaz makes a clear promise, saying, “Currently my plan is simple, vote NO to any bill that increases the size of the government, vote YES to any bill that reduces government reach and cost.”
That promise is one that even Diaz can’t keep. Just a couple of paragraphs later, Diaz states, “A bill might come that seeks to reduce funding for the US Military, and while this bill might save billions it would not be in the interest of the national security to do so, so I would have to vote no.”
Note the categorical decision that if a bill seeks reduction of military funding, it be bad for reduce national security. The underlying presumption is that the government is wasteful in its spending, except for the military, which somehow avoids all such problems.
The inconsistent opposition to government waste exhibited by Hector Diaz is just one example of a core weakness among libertarian organizations, politicians and activists: A selective focus on non-military waste. Libertarians, and their allies in the Tea Party movement, seem to have a certain special fondness for big military spending projects, even those that have been found to be especially corrupt and inefficient.