Take it from this libertarian: Boebert isn’t one

In a column, Michael Makenzo recently challenged the conservatism of Lauren Boebert.

“She doesn’t even understand she’s at best a Libertarian,” wrote Makenzo.

Once upon a time, I agreed with Makenzo — until I hosted her at a Libertarian meeting.

Rewind to January 2020. Boebert’s campaign manager contacted me to inquire about the possibility of the Libertarian Party of Delta County (LPDCO) hosting the then-candidate at its monthly meeting. (At the time, I was LPDCO’s chair.)

Without hesitation, I said, “Sure!” Boebert wasn’t a registered Libertarian, but I knew that she had carved out a name for herself by championing some libertarian causes — the most notable being her strong defense of gun rights.

Libertarians are, at best, a small political wedge, and we need all the help that we can get. Considering a potential congressional representative was courting our tiny voting bloc was, of course, exhilarating. So we set a date for the event.

The event was informal but well attended. After brief introductions by myself and her campaign manager, Boebert launched into her stump speech. She offered the usual talking points common to Trump-era Republicans, mostly railing against the “Radical Left.”

I wasn’t impressed with the bumper sticker MAGAism that she was regurgitating. There are significant ideological differences between Libertarians and Republicans that Boebert wasn’t addressing, so I sought to hash those out during the Q&A session.

I first questioned her stance on the trade war with China, specifically President Donald Trump’s tariffs. She didn’t have an answer. At the time, I gave her the benefit of the doubt: I tend to be a wonk who is lost in the weeds of public policy minutiae.

I reframed my question: “Skip the specifics; what principles guide you on the issue of global trade?” Again, no substantive answer.

Say what you want about Libertarians, but we are a principled bunch of ne’er do wells. At the core of our political philosophy is a strict moral code that resolutely opposes coercion and force, especially via political means — and that includes tariffs.

A tariff, by any other name, is a tax generated by the government that distorts markets and passes down unnecessary financial burdens on an already cash-strapped citizenry. In addition, trade wars can be precursors to actual wars — something which libertarians also adamantly oppose.

Boebert’s next red flag: immigration. Grandiose plans for a border wall and deporting 11 million undocumented immigrants — all talking points, again, offered by the longshot, pistol-packing candidate — are political red meat in Trump Country. (Or, I guess, meat that is well done and covered in ketchup.)

But, for Libertarians, these talking points are shallow at best, laughable at worst. The ridiculous public costs of erecting a 2,000-mile-long wall and deporting a population equivalent in size to the entire state of Ohio are staggering just by themselves. More unconscionable, though, is the moral depravity of separating families at the border — a scar on the conscience of our country that we will never be able to fully conceal.

The nail in the coffin in the case against Boebert’s libertarianism: She doesn’t even consider herself to be one. I asked her if she would consider running as a Libertarian if she lost the primary. The Libertarian Party (LP) is the only third party with nationwide ballot access, so we offer a platform that can reach voters where only Republicans and Democrats typically have access. She didn’t seem slightly interested in the LP.

“I’m very conservative,” she retorted.

Libertarians are often branded as “anti-government” — an ill-defined cohort that lumps together disparate groups on the fringes of the political universe. As a result, pundits like Makenzo reduce libertarianism to a caricature and use it as a bludgeon against political dissidents, like me and Boebert.

But that’s not the whole story about libertarianism. Justin Amash, the former representative from Michigan and the only Libertarian to hold office in Congress, recently shared a great definition of the ideology: “Libertarianism is about protecting rights, not opposing government,” he tweeted. Anybody who advocates for an increased role of the federal government to infringe upon the rights of free people is not libertarian.

While I found Boebert to be wholeheartedly warm, personable, and passionately committed to her cause, I don’t consider her to be libertarian. She may be “Libertarian-leaning,” but even that modifier can be applied to those who seek to end the drug war, demilitarize the police, abolish the death penalty, and institute criminal justice reform — all positions that Boebert doesn’t share with libertarians.

In his column, Makenzo quoted Ronald Reagan, but neglected this famous quote by the Gipper: “I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.”

Perhaps libertarian isn’t exactly the pejorative that Makenzo intended it to be.