Thoughts on What Has Become the Family’s “Celebrity Gossip” (Or, Time to Fold Up the Big Tent Idea)

It seems to me that the kerfuffle over who wrote the questionable content in the RP newsletters has acquired a tabloid patina: individuals are scurrying from place to place, trying to find a definitive answer to the “Who dunnit?” question; at one of the sites with several contributors who are under suspicion, they’re adding to the heat with retorts of “Smear!” in response to every item that touches on the issue; and other family institutions are covering every supposed development, even when it may not be a development, but rather a repackaging of an old development. And I’ll admit, I got sucked into that for a while myself. When I realized that my interest in it surpassed the mystery and veered into something of an appetite for gossip, I started backing away. But as I do, I have some parting observations—not all of which come from my head.

I still do think it best for the individual or individuals responsible for writing the material to step forward. Taking responsibility for one’s actions is fundamental to the freedom philosophy. I feel both disappointment and empathy regarding RP’s refusal to name names; but focusing on that misses the larger issue, which is that he shouldn’t have been put in that difficult position. First, paying more attention to the content going out under his name would (presumably) have made the situation a one-off, and thereby much easier to dismiss; second, when allegations first began to swirl around the content and RP was accused of being the author, the responsible individual(s) should have stepped forward. Yes, that can be difficult—few individuals embrace unpleasantness. But mature individuals accept it when it is a consequence of their actions. Also, ending the mystery would allow those of us who don’t want to be associated with racists to clearly separate ourselves from individuals and/or institutions promulgating such ideas.

Some in the family are wondering who they can trust now. Is the Cato Institute the standard-bearer of freedom? Or is Reason a better choice? Or does one still put one’s faith (maybe holding one’s nose a little) and go to the Ludwig von Mises Institute and Lew Rockwell? Skip Oliva offers an excellent answer to those questions—and the larger one implicit in them—in Libertarian Wars:

Libertarianism has no leadership or central authority. In its pure, abstract form, libertarianism is simply a recognition of the individual as the fundamental unit of society—in contrast to the multiple forms of collectivism that elevate other “floating abstractions” (to borrow a Randian phrase) over the individual.

The energy spent on trying to claim libertarian supremacy—“We are the only true libertarians!”— distracts many good people from standing up against the truly bad people. I choose to focus my energies on those who oppress and harm the individual, not on people arguing among themselves over who is more virtuous. ....

Alliances are temporary by nature. Going forward, I’m looking for new colleagues and fellow travelers. It’s best not to chain yourself to old battles, especially when you weren’t responsible for starting such feuds.

If there’s one thing I learned from talking with Jerry Tuccille and reading his book, It Usually Begins with Ayn Rand, it’s that Skip is right: many of these family squabbles are old battles that began when a few eminent individuals tried to win control over the nascent liberty movement. Ironic, yes ... but no more so than freedom-loving individuals looking up to institutions like Cato, Reason, and LvMI. Is it really that much different from a starry-eyed teenage girl idolizing Paris Hilton? Well, okay, they may provide sound materials and ideas, but idolizing any pro-freedom institution is begging to be disappointed. Besides, none of them, as far as I know, publishes concrete information that can help a person or family live freer in the USSA right now. Theoretical ideas are great, and very important on their own, but for those of us who want to actually live a freer life, it’s the practical that counts most.

I really liked the idea of Free-Market.Net, particularly its inclusive stance. But as I assumed more responsibilities there, I came to see that the big-tent perspective is mostly wishful thinking, or disingenuous rhetoric. I say that because it was a very useful tactic in getting mostly conservative money shunted to pro-freedom causes. And that appears to be the case still: there aren’t a lot of libertarians; and few libertarians have a lot of money and/or financially support efforts to advance the freedom philosophy. At FMN, I think the bulk of the donations received were from conservatives rather than thoroughgoing libertarians.

So I think it’s past time to put the big-tent idea to bed. It’s similarly unproductive to engage in pro-freedom institution-worship. Rather than trying to find a pro-freedom institution worth putting on a pedestal, look inward to your own values and goals. Put those on your pedestal, and work toward accomplishing them. If you find others along your path with whom you can work productively, enjoy it while it lasts, and celebrate the happy memories after it’s over. You could do much worse with your life ...