Another good article, Ed.

McConnell is the kind of Republican that Rand loved to hate.  Me-Too Progressive-lite.  It is hard to understand how the establishment Republicans can hope to win by joining the idea of giving things to voters in exchange for votes (redistribution) but just not doing as much as the Democrats.  Here is their war cry,"I'll give you stuff too, just not so much!)

That he sees the Tea Party as his opponents is very telling in two ways:  That they are a growing force that starts from better political principles. He wouldn't be attacking them if they weren't growing to significant portions.  And it tells us that he has nothing to offer to those who value liberty, otherwise he would be joining the Tea Party and not attacking.  Joining the Tea Party on their principles has always been the obvious choice for him, and for any Republican - that he doesn't do so is very revealing.  Anyone can stay independent of Tea Party while still endorsing their basic principles, but no one in the establishment GOP does.  They attack the Tea Party, but not the Social Conservatives - that too is telling us about their character.

Pete,

Your statement implied that others (the masses) are either ignorant or stupid, but that you and I aren't. And that good principles will not win out over "popular ideas" as you called them, but which are really just a product of different principles.

I disagree with both of those views. It is true that we see an enormous number of people who are ignorant of libertarian political principles, and a sizable portion of the populace votes in ways that deserve to be called 'stupid' but most people vote the way they do because they believe in a set of principles... even though they are the wrong principles.  People can learn. The Progressives have been far more effective in educating people on the wrong principles for many generations, and in itself, that is proof that educating people is not just possible but effective.

As to calling for pandering to the wrong principles as a way to smuggle in some good legislation... I think that is the road to loosing altogether. It concedes the only argument that, in the long term, must be one used - the argument for the right principles.

McConnell might win more battles in the short term than someone like Senator Rand Paul, but McConnell isn't even fighting the right war. He is battling for minor pro-business compromises and minor reductions in statist trends, while the real war is between Libertarianism's principles and statist principles. McConnel concedes those, while Rand doesn't.

It is a mistake to choose a minor win that means not fighting the underlying principles over a temporary loss where the battle is being fought over the proper principles.

If you cater to religious view, and go along with wars that we should not have been in to win minor compromises then you end up solidifying the very principles of legislating religious views and going to war when we aren't under attack.

McConnell is wrong because he isn't fighting FOR liberty or AGAINST statism - not when he is pandering.

(As a side note, I'm not sure what you mean by "market libertarianism" or by the inclusion of "guns" in that last sentence.)

#1 seems to misunderstand market libertarianism in its assumption that it's the same as pro-business policies, a long-discredited myth

Well put, Peter.  I didn't address that, but it made me uncomfortable when I read it.