one thing to point out is that neither extreme american leftism nor extreme american rightism is a coherent position, and both break down on the rhetoric of freedom. this is also true of mainstream american leftism and rightism: they are chimeras: monsters that combine two bizarrely different creatures. but the herbert piece connects the libertarian impulse with white suprematism or neo-nazism, or as i quoted an msnbc anchor, "these neo-nazi and anti-government groups." so the notion that people have the right to bear arms is connected to anti-semitism or white suprematism: or, ron paul is a nazi. but obviously, you can't be a nazi and a libertarian! the danger that lurks in these identifications is that if you perform them, then attacking white suprematism entails attacking freedom, which i must say is exactly what herbert does in his piece. or in other words, in characterizing your opponents incoherently you not only eliminate what in their position you could endorse on your own principles, you introduce a mirror-image incoherence into your own position. you're a huge advocate of, you know, civil rights or freedom of the press, etc. but you are basically expressing your opposition to liberty as an extreme right-wing fascist plot.

you can't tell me that sarah palin has a coherent position: minimal government, and state supervision of your bedroom. and you can't tell me that obama can double the size and power of the state in twenty minutes and be a consistent advocate of human rights. the left-right way of understanding the political spectrum makes the whole thing a conflict of incoherences. american conservatism and american progressivism are silly or pathetic intellectually, even if they seem to monopolize the practical possibilities. they demand that you stop trying to understand, and just nod along with a blank look in your eyes. you must stop thinking. and you have.

you can't be a nazi and a libertarian if you can think these things through, can you be? well you also can't endorse massive pervasion of state power and be in favor of equal rights - or any rights - i would think. in a way, the function of liberty is primarily rhetorical for both most of the left and most of the right: they nod in that direction as a kind of tribute to the american vocabulary, but neither of them approach the actual liberty of actual persons with any enthusiasm. both want to free you, where freeing you means imposing their values on you by force, made possible by an unlimited power to tax and borrow, exclusive access to weaponry, etc.

perhaps coherence is overrated, and let's say ron paul's coherence might just amount to a rigid ideology that would have disastrous results on the ground. on the other hand, you might want, in the still of the night, to become aware of the fact that your actual position is senseless or the merest paradox. there's one drawback to an incoherent position: it simply cannot be true.