Here is a recent article from The Economist on Libertarians in America:

http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11455827

There are some pretty good barbs, including my favorite:

"The party is also badly divided between what might be called its Ruby Ridge wing and its Reefer Madness wing. The Ruby Ridge wing...believes that freedom comes from the barrel of a gun. The Reefer Madness wing is more interested in keeping the government's hands off its spliffs."

The article takes a pragmatic/political approach: who are the Libertarians, and what will their probable effect on the American presidential election be? The article makes a fair assessment, especially about specific Bush-related policies about which many Libertarians are angry. However, I think that continued reporting on Libertarianism in America might do well to explore, in a serious tone, why apparent fervor for de-centralization has not translated into more votes for Libertarian-leaning politicians.

Typically, many Libertarians are more idealogues than pragmatists, so it will be interesting to see how people react to this article. Clearly both idealogy and pragmatism are needed to be effective - no use having a staunch doctrine of personal freedom if one can't translate it into actual political action.

Perhaps this post will attract commentators, so I might as well add the disclaimer that the views of The Economist and its correspondents are in no way to be confused wholly with my personal views.

-dommy
http://dinodinodino.wordpress.com