Last night I watched Red Eye and Ann Coulter was on -- she continued her attack on libertarians by saying Rand Paul's 13 hour rejection of drones was ridiculous and that he should have focused on something more important. Coulter made it clear that she loves drones.
The problem is that Paul wasn't rejecting drones. Paul made it clear that he was clarifying the limits on the President's power to order killings of Americans who are deemed to be associated with terrorists if the American is not an imminent threat and is on US soil. To further clarify, Rand was asking if there are any limits at all on executive power. Coulter is either stupid or she's purposefully misconstruing Paul's intent regarding the filibuster. I'm don't think that Paul, Cruz and Lee are comprehensively libertarian, and Conservatives like Coulter can't even accept their level of promotion for limited government.
Anyone paying attention already knows how John McCain and Lindsey Graham reacted. Many Republicans, both Centrists and Conservatives, have rejected libertarian ideas and made it clear that libertarianism shouldn't be a major influence in the party. There are very few Republicans who full-throatedly promote libertarian ideas. This is because Republicans, for the most part, don't really want limited government -- they only want limits on power of which they approve.
I'm tired of explaining liberty in broad terms to snarky Republicans, how libertarians are not libertines focused on smoking pot, free love and pornography. I'm tired of urging Republicans to broaden their understanding of liberty. It's not rocket science, and if someone like Coulter can listen to Rand Paul's speech during the filibuster then reduce it to Paul rejecting drones, it's hopeless. Republicans who accept the ideas of liberty promoted by libertarians will have to stand up and support libertarians when libertarians offer support to the party -- otherwise, statists in the party, which far out-number the limited government faction, will control the party and block libertarian participation.
Part of the GOP's resistence to libertarians is motivated by religious concerns, because libertarians are not usually religious types, although I'm sure many are spiritually healthy, and that not many, if any, are anti-religious. Another part of the GOP rejection of libertarians has to do with military interventionism. Neo-cons are especially critical of libertarians because they believe that the US should be the Global Police and that any intervention deemed necessary by the Commander in Chief must be legitimate since the President has the intelligence info. Neo-Cons only criticize the President when they think he's not intervening enough in the mideast. This is probably the biggest conflict between the two groups. Libertarians are mostly non-interventionists, although they promote a strong defense, peace through strength. I don't know how to resolve the religious and interventionist conflicts.
The Libertarian Party is not really a valid option. I'm convinced that another party is needed -- one based on current concerns regarding the battle between statists and anti-statists, interventionists and non-interventionists. It's the only way to clarify the differences in a meaningful way.