According to an X.com post that we believe to be authentic, Angela McArdle stated:
Last night, I announced I have stepped into the role of Chair of the national Mises Caucus and that we are recruiting a coalition of Bitcoiners and MAHA people to join the LP. In January, I anticipated taking a job very quickly and stepped down from chair of the national party. The hiring process has, unfortunately, taken a very long time so I will make the most of my time until I take on that job.
We are coming into the midterms with optimism in one hand and a bloody tent spike in the other. More updates soon!
We are wandering off topic a bit, all of you have said your piece, so only comment if you have something new and different, not about MAHA.
MAHA is part of your article and I have not said my piece. I did in fact comment elsewhere in this discussion about other aspects of your article, but I’d like to correct the errors which remain published in comments which mentioned me.
I’ve tried to answer the comments from both Mr. Scott and Joseph in shorter form, including reemphasizing the most important point from my initial comment on that matter for those who found it to be too long (that maha people are not all the same) and explaining that that comment contains a variety of other points directly related to his first comment that I unfortunately don’t know how to make any more concisely.
You didn’t publish my response to Mr. Scott, but did publish a concurring opinion from Joseph which
1) answered a variety of claims I never made,
2) framed everything in terms of who or what is or isn’t ideologically libertarian – something I’ve repeatedly said, including in this discussion, is not interesting to me and a question I gave up trying to answer after many years of trying about 15 years ago,
3) erroneously claims we are friends (as far as I know we never even met), and
4) furthermore gets into an issue which I never mentioned in this discussion, is not mentioned in your article , and which you’ve previously said repeatedly can’t be brought up at this site at all outside of a discussion dedicated to it.
Both comments also erroneously claim that my comments are essays, which they are a long way from being.
My response to Joseph wasn’t published either.
Please publish this one, because the one sidedness of what did get published and what didn’t is beyond egregious. I’ll be happy to stop talking about MAHA after that, and hope that others will as well, in accordance with your comment.
“…who or what is or isn’t ideologically libertarian – something I’ve repeatedly said, including in this discussion, is not interesting to me”
but the entire article is about a former chair of the LIBERTARIAN PARTY taking the chair of a caucus of the LIBERTARIAN PARTY. Therefore, what is or isn’t libertarian about the groups the new chair of this caucus claims to want to bring into the LIBERTARIAN PARTY is 1000% germane.
However you define it, some people within any multifaceted movement, no matter what movement it is, are more in line with it than others. I think that’s broadly enough worded to not be addressing a topic we were already asked to move on from, but I did address applicable details already; whether you choose to read it is your business.
I wonder how many Pride events LP groups will be at this month? Any ideas?
Pride events are scattered all over the calendar, BTW. My locality doesn’t do it until October because of the summer heat.
I do believe the national Gay Pride had a protest in Washington D.C. to celebrate the Stonewall blowup on June 28, 1969 this weekend. Many of their events are in June given the history and the ones we’ve always had a booth at were in June. But I am out of the business.
“MAHA people” are NOT libertarian! Look at the acronym. “MAKE America Healthy Again”. My health is none of the government’s business! As RFK Junior has exhibited, he’s only “libertarian” about a couple pet peeves of his, but then he turns right around and demands government intervene in all sorts of other matters.
Well said!
I don’t think you understand “make” in the correct sense here. I doubt anyone, or at least anyone beyond a very small extreme fringe of such a movement, means to force every single person to change their diet and exercise habits (or what, go to prison?). Rather, I take it primarily as a reaction to various particular government actions of the past and present that encourage unhealthy individual choices which then in aggregate result in a lot of government so called health care spending within the present system.
Far be it from me to ever understand what is or isn’t libertarian – I’ve spent considerable effort trying over a number of years and finally gave up about 15 years ago – but whereas you can certainly argue that it’s a curtailment of individual liberty to take away your rights to consume, for instance, cancerous food dyes, the reality is that most of the general public isn’t studying the risks and assessing their personal risk tolerance – they mostly just assume that anything sold legally in stores is already guaranteed to be sufficiently safe by the federal government and no further research on their part is needed. Perhaps what’s really most needed is a “make Americans think for themselves” movement.
Much of what “maha” counteracts is big government actions – immunizing pharmaceuticals from certain levels of legal liability, subsidizing particular agricultural commodities due to organized lobbying efforts, spreading misinformation such as the “food pyramid” influenced by these same lobbies, etc.
While many of the beneficiaries of policies which contributed to negative impacts on average/aggregate public health have been private industries, it’s taxpayers who primarily shoulder the burden of government medical insurance – Medicare, Medicaid, etc – which is a substantial portion of the gargantuan federal taxing and spending leviathan.
I don’t in any way begrudge fellow farmers making a living off , for example, sugar or corn, but shouldn’t they bear the full costs and risks rather than turning to government lobbying for subsidies? Likewise, I’m all for pharmaceutical companies developing and marketing their products, provided they have full liability for all costs and risks that result, rather than passing them off to the public through their government lobbying efforts.
Admittedly, promoting exercise through taxpayers money isn’t something I’d ideally be for. But given that the far larger government medical insurance payment schemes aren’t looking likely to go away anytime soon – I highly doubt within whatever remains of my lifespan – such educational efforts seem like far from the worst government spending to me.
Of course, you’re quite correct that far from everyone involved in “maha” eschews using big government to advance their views in principle, but as with most movements, there’s at least some overlaps for at least some people,so it’s not irrational to explore where such overlaps can be exploited to, for example, grow a political party by trying to bring in the more libertarian portions of the “maha” crowd.
I share your assessment that, at least based on his lifelong public record and public statements on his campaign website when he ran for President, Mr. Kennedy is not someone who rejects government action out of principle or feels shy about using government force towards his ends. But, “maha ” is a diverse group of folks, some of them more small government oriented than others.
I gave up reading your essay about a quarter of the way in as I always do, but the one thing I will say is that in no way do the MAHA people and Junior Kennedy advocate getting the government out of the way – they just want to use the levers of the state to ban things or to advance their own pet theories, like banning a perfectly legal food coloring or decreeing that the government produce a report linking autism with every known debunked theory possible. They’re just as much in favor of government action as the others have been in the past – they’re simply on the other side.
Hey Pat,
I agree, your essays are hard to read.
Too long, my friend.
RFK is not a libertarian.
Trump is not a libertarian.
Advocating for the government to dictate what food you can and cannot eat, is not libertarian.
Advocating for the government to regulate healthcare, including abortion, is not libertarian.
I’ve read elsewhere today that she also wants Elon Musk to take over the libertarian party and allegedly represent a mythical “80% of the country that’s in the middle.”
People there were skeptical that taking over the libertarians would be better than starting a new party, that he would have much success at starting one, or that he’ll do it at all.
As for Mrs. Padgett, sometimes opportunity finds you and sometimes you have to create it. She’s definitely looking for the highest bidder, quite possibly someone associated with “crypto” finance, but the question is whether the libertarians have anything worth much to buy.
I’d love to see the results of the Mises Caucus Chair election…
I doubt there was an election…
In the (paraphrased) words of Michael Heiss when asked if he’d allow an election to determine MC leadership (this was back before his first declared separation from politics) :
“It’s my club, and I’ll do whatever I please with it. No, there won’t be elections.”