Robert Wenzel is highlighting an interesting Twitter exchange in which Justin Raimondo is taken to task by several other writers for his positive view of Donald Trump, and in particular his belief that Trump is better on war than the usual presidential candidate (it’s hard to imagine anybody being worse on war than Hillary Clinton, but that’s neither here nor there). Raimondo’s response is fairly typical: he accuses his interlocutors of exhibiting "sectarian blindness" and claims that it’s therefore useless to argue with them.
I’ll not be found second to anyone in my admiration for Justin Raimondo, but this all-too-common response of his is unhelpful at best. To begin our analysis, let’s define our terms; according to Merriam-Webster, "sectarian" means:
1: of, relating to, or characteristic of a sect or sectarian
2: limited in character or scope : parochial
It seems most likely that the second definition is the one Raimondo has in mind; his use of the term "sectarian" to describe his opponents among the set of libertarians is generally meant to draw attention to the fact that those libertarians, in his view, improperly eschew politics as a vehicle for liberty, and thus artificially "limit in character or scope" the libertarian program. Indeed, Raimondo makes this rather clear in a piece he wrote last March, in which he states the following:
The sectarian insists on "standing on a street corner" and handing out leaflets that state the maximalist position: that is, sectarians insist on the immediate implementation of the libertarian program in full. This, says Rothbard, is "noble but ineffective."
On the other hand, our libertarian opportunists in effect abandon "the true principles in the name of gradualist advance, ‘realism,’ ‘practical life,’" etc., and wind up jettisoning the ultimate goal. These people, Rothbard contended, are "ignoble," and, "if they are at all effective," wind up pushing both the movement and society in general in the wrong direction.
The proper "centrist" position, as outlined by Rothbard, is as follows:
"The effective centrist avoids the pitfalls of ‘opportunism’ by keeping the objective firmly in view, and, in particular, by never acting in a manner, or speaking in a manner, inconsistent with the full libertarian position." [Emphasis in original] ["Emphasis in original" in original]
It’s important to understand that, when Raimondo refers to his opponents here as "sectarians," it’s not just a derogatory-sounding name he’s pulled out of a hat; it is a term of art with a very specific meaning, and he uses it to describe people who are too focused on "pure libertarianism" and are thus unwilling to take the practical baby steps needed to get there. Set aside for the moment the fact that it’s extremely odd to describe the Koch-funded Shikha Dalmia as being too focused on pure libertarianism and just consider the criteria provided by Rothbard that Raimondo himself cites as the proper position: never acting in a manner, or speaking in a manner, inconsistent with the full libertarian position. The question then becomes: how "political" can a libertarian be without violating those tenets?
Surely there is a cutoff; we all agree (I hope) that voting for a bill that would mandate the sacrifice of every first-born son, but which contains a rider demunicipalizing the garbage collectors, would not be a libertarian thing to do. But how much evil could the bill do and still be acceptable? According to Rothbard’s rules, none whatsoever. What a libertarian who somehow found himself in congress could do is propose and support amendments that would mitigate the evil of the proposed bills, or perhaps add libertarian things to them as well, but then still vote against the final bill. Before anybody laughs at me for suggesting such an absurd idea, the one libertarian in the history of the United States congress was known for doing exactly that.
It’s not out of feeble sectarianism that I decry national politics; much to the contrary, it is a strategic decision. It is my belief that libertarians and libertarian-sympathetics pour a tremendous amount of time and money into national politics and have very little, if anything, to show for it, and I would much prefer to see that time and money used in ways that will better advance the libertarian program — most notably, education. The only use I can see for national politics is that it generates a lot of media exposure. Consider the Ron Paul 2012 presidential campaign. I did not eschew the campaign, nor did I refuse to acknowledge the good things that came out of it — I merely maintained an entirely realistic (and, as it turns out, correct) view of the chances that Ron Paul would actually be elected president. I consider the fact that Dr. Paul got the word out about liberty and peace and Austrian economics incredibly valuable, but that’s education again; Dr. Paul used politics as the catalyst for distributing his message, but that doesn’t establish that politics is a necessary element, and, in many cases, it was horribly wasteful. It’s not unreasonably sectarian to suggest spreading the libertarian philosophy without simultaneously slushing millions of dollars into the pockets of the Jesse Bentons and John Tates of the world.
Donald Trump, of course, is no Ron Paul. There’s no sensible reason to expect that Trump will use his platform to spread the message of liberty. What about the messages Trump is spreading? On the occasional question, Trump is sound — many libertarians, myself included, applauded Trump for his statement that Ukraine is not America’s problem, his assertion that war with Russia would be bad, and his round condemnation of political correctness. The burgeoning problem with Trump is his inconsistency; it’s hard to believe that Trump really would exit (or even materially defund) NATO, given the speed with which he walked back his anti-NATO rhetoric. The problem is not that we’re pie-in-the-sky sectarians who refuse to dirty our precious porcelain hands with practical work, it’s that we aren’t convinced that Trump would actually do any of the things his boosters believe. If president Trump actually does get the United States out of NATO, I will be onhand to sing his praises; I wasn’t shy about praising John Kerry — John Kerry, for God’s sake — for his diplomatic efforts in Iran, and I wouldn’t hesitate to point out that president Trump has done a good thing should it occur. I do not believe it will, however, any more than I believed that Ron Paul would actually be elected president in 2012.
I appreciate that Donald Trump has deeply irritated the Republican establishment, and I admire some of the things he’s said, but I don’t believe for a minute that he’ll follow through — he’s all over the place, and contradicts himself constantly. Not believing that Trump will truly "make America great again" is not a sign of the dreaded sectarianism, but is merely common sense. Sectarianism is a definite threat to the liberty movement; we need to be on guard to avoid making the perfect the enemy of the good. We need to keep a wary eye, however, and be sure that the evil remains the enemy.