The usually-sensible Ombudsgod has a story about the Florida Libertarian party, in which he (or she) writes:

In other words, not even the Libertarian Party thinks it can win races, and it is their national strategy to act as spoilers ? a strategy that does indeed ?force the other guys to show up and play.? As for describing the party as rag tag, I think the term is fairly accurate, although "pot heads" might be more precise. And if you don?t agree, consider their national goal -- targeting ?GOP and Democratic incumbents who oppose the decriminalization and legalization of drugs.?

Though I am not a Libertarian, and I don't think that drug decriminalization should be the focus of political activity, I do favor it, and I deeply resent statements like this.

To see why, let's turn it around. I'll assume that the Ombudsgod doesn't favor affirmative action, at least in its quota, goals, timetables sense (if that assumption is off, the example may have less sting, but it's still illustrative).

"As for describing the the Ombudsgod as reactionary, I think the term is fairly accurate, although "racist" might be more precise. And if you don?t agree, consider his goal -- targeting 'GOP and Democratic incumbents who oppose the ending of affirmative action.'"

Now assuming that the Ombudsgod is not a racist (another assumption that I do make), such a statement should be infuriating, and even slanderous. But it differs in no significant way from the Ombudsgod's statement.

I don't smoke pot. I don't partake of any other illegal drug. I have no desire to do so, and wouldn't even if it were fully legal. But I believe that the War On (Some) Drugs is a major policy error, a violation of human liberty, and that it is desecrating the Bill of Rights. That is, I oppose it on principle.

There are no doubt many who want to legalize drugs because they want to do drugs legally, but that doesn't justify attacks on the characters of those who oppose the WOSD for other reasons, just as the fact that some who oppose affirmative action because they are racist doesn't mean that all (or even many) who oppose it are.

If conservatives, and others who want to continue to wage war on the American people under the guise of waging war on inanimate substances want to defend that policy, they should do so on its merits, rather than simply demonizing their opponents as addled drug users. That is, if they want us to take them, or their arguments, seriously.

[Friday morning update]

The Ombudsgod responds to my remarks:

If his point is that people can oppose the Drug War without being users, the point is well taken, but I don?t think that?s what I said. To get back to his rather inflammatory analogy to affirmative action -- if the hypothetical OmbudsGod Party has an electoral strategy that consists almost exclusively of targeting politicians who favor affirmative action, then I think it would be reasonable to conclude that the party is racist. The key being not the opposition to affirmative action, but rather the placing of such an extraordinary priority on that one issue.

I don't know why my analogy is more "inflammatory" than the Ombudsgod's original post. But that aside, I still don't agree. Just because someone feels strongly about affirmative action, or the drug war, even strongly enough to make it a single issue, still doesn't imply that they are either a racist or a drug user.

I think that the drug war is a very important issue, for reasons stated above. If I don't make it my only issue, it's probably (among other reasons) because it's currently futile and politically counterproductive. Despite my teetotaling status, I certainly would like to see politicians of all political stripes lose elections over it, but I don't expect it to happen, and if it does, I don't expect the body politic to admit that it happened for that reason.

And I generally agree with Rishawn Biddle's comments at the Ombudsgod's site about the Libertarian Party.

Something not dissimilar came up this week in the story of Christian conservatives working with Islamic nations on social issues. It was suggested in various places, including the NY Times story, that this basically made conservatives the moral equivalent of al Qaeda.

In politics you end up with strange bedfellows. One needn't be a pothead to favor decriminalization of drugs along with the potheads, nor be a suicide bomber just because you agree with the mullahs that abortion should be illegal.

These kinds of comparisons are pretty outrageous.

One of our (libertarians) biggest problems is pigheadedness. There is a decent amount of libertarians who refuse to work with Republicans/Conservatives in any way shape or form. Rather than being pragmatic they go for the so-called "high-ground" and in many cases knee-cap decent right-of-centre types. Any libertarian who helps get a leftie in is an idiot for the most part. (The exception of course is getting rid of RINOs like Sen Susan Collins.)

Conservatives who co-operate with Muslim nations are asking for trouble. It is an extremely foolish moves and one that invites the kind of criticism in the NY Times. Are Christians that obsessed with abortions that they would help a country (say Saudi or Iran) funding terrorism against Americans? Surely no one is that stupid?

If a hypothetical OmbudsGod Party has an electoral strategy that consists almost exclusively of acting as a spolier to target politicians who favor affirmative action, then I think it would be reasonable to conclude that the party is racist. Think about it.

By the way, I don't think affirmative action is anywhere near a cut-and-dry issue. As with the War on Drugs, there are good arguments to be made on both sides.

Ummmm...

OK.

I've thought about it.

I still don't see the logic. It is possible to believe that affirmative action, and drug decriminalization are important enough issues to be single issues, without being either a racist or a drug user.