General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: LadyhawkAZ laid out why libertarians have little overlap with Dems or progressives. [View all]DirkGently
(12,151 posts)That is a specious proposal, like blackballing playwrights for being Commie sympathizers.
"Look out! That person's dogma is unclean!"
Bullshit.
No one is an ideological robot with secret programming you can uncover. And no ideology is 100% clear or consistent across the board.
So the whole game of shooting something down because a Paul family member agrees with it, on the theory that the Paul family has a lot of stupid ideas, or the mangled vision of Libertarianism some people claim to embrace is terrible, is a disingenuous premise from the beginning.
There are Republicans that are occasionally right about something across ideological lines. There are Democrats who are wrong.
No one's magically correct or incorrect because of the supposed point of view they may or may not fully embrace, which people may or may not even agree upon in the first place.
This has been applied in a particularly putrid way with the Snowden / NSA battles here on DU, and I notice the cross-posted material goes out of its way to bring that up.
The only thing that makes sense is to discuss the viability of ideas and policy on their own. No one is the Keeper of the True Faith. No one is an apostate or heretic.
No one is wrong about one thing because they're wrong about something else.
Sorry, Rand and Ron can be racists, and free-market morons, and crypto-anti-reproductive rights-ians, and still be right that the NSA overstepped its bounds or that the U.S. should stay of out needless wars in the Middle East. No one has to embrace the rest of their bullshit to clock them or anyone else being right about something.
If you don't acknowledge that, you're just asking people to engage in mindless partisan head-butting until the the end of time. We'd be stuck agreeing with every Democrat who's wrong and fighting everyone else, no matter what.