Dan, while I appreciate your nuance here, I’m with Justin on this one. What is revealing about Reason‘s “ecumenism” is where it extends, and where it doesn’t. You can favor the stupidest war in U.S. history, waged by thoroughly evil people, and that’s a point of view they’ll happily entertain in their pages. But try being Pat Buchanan and see the reception you get there.
Yes, yes, Pat isn’t a libertarian. But practically speaking, he’s one of the most anti-government conservatives out there — in my book, you get extra points when targeting the warfare state in particular. He’ll go places — like antidiscrimination law, for instance — that make Beltway libertarians squeamish. Heck, there’s no need on this blog, of all places, to explain Pat’s views. My point is that people who are far less sound overall on the state are warmly received in Reason.
Let’s see what if anything Reason says about Pat’s book on World War II next month. Whatever your views, this conflict is the federal government’s prize possession, and a central component of its legitimacy, so you’d think it would at least be of interest to libertarians. I’m not holding my breath, though — in her hit piece on me in Reason several years ago, someone named Cathy Young actually lectured me for not favoring enough U.S. wars.
The neocons are ecumenical on some things, too, as Paul Gottfried observes in his most recent book (which I reviewed for TAC). Some are pro-abortion, some are anti-abortion. Some favor gay marriage, some oppose it. But if you question the idea of an American mission in the Middle East, well, no matter how reliably conservative you are on everything else, you will be shown the door.
Racial insensitivity is not as bad as mass murder. I guess that’s what I’m saying. Yet the latter is considered a “point of view,” and the former is unforgivable and grounds for character assassination and smears. The moral universe I inhabit ranks these offenses differently.