Is the Term "Libertarian" Still Useful?

I first noticed the Ron Paul big tent---sometimes called "the liberty movement" rather than "libertarian" strictly speaking---being divided when Jeffrey Tucker wrote his "brutalist" article, filled with insinuation and innuendo that our tent had within it very unsavory characters, crypto-Nazis, crypto-racists, crypto-sexists, crypto-homophobes and such. It seemed to me a fairly transparent attempt to make the young people in our movement go, "Eww, creepy!" Tucker wrote later that his article had changed the movement forever. :) Perhaps a little grandiose self congratulation, but be that as it may, it is now clear the distinction between "thick" and "thin" libertarians, between "left libertarian" and "right libertarian" is a done deal. The convivial big tent is no more. The prospects of a grand coalition dead.

Then I heard Paul Gottfried recount that this is a replica of the process by which the old conservative movement had been wedged apart and then sundered altogether. The objective being to establish monopoly control of the discourse, by demonizing and purging the old incumbents and their philosophical antecedents. To whit, Jonah Goldberg wrote in the National Review that "neo conservative" is an anti-Semitic slur, and there exists no other kind of conservative---neo conservative is a redundant synonym of conservative. It is not that you old timers are wrong, you are morally terrible people who should not even be admitted into the room. Done deal.

The Libertarian Party then attempted a monopolizing move as the Trump movement gathered momentum: it put out a declaration that libertarians are anti-fascist, and then demanded of all libertarians that they have their credentials certified by signing this online statement. It was laughable, and so absurd it looked rather like a scene out of a satirical comedy. It was also suggested that the Mises Institute had fundamentally misunderstood Mises, the cosmopolitan! :) I am happy to say thankfully, the right libertarians for the most part refused to participate in this ridiculous, progressive virtue signaling nonsense. The monopoly is not a done deal. Not yet, anyway.

This is how the Progressive movement controls both sides of the political duopoly. As soon as the liberty movement gained size and influence they swung into action to capture it. (Jeffrey Tucker is a useful idiot, nothing more.) This is made possible only because they have already achieved the monopoly on discourse in academy and media. Once you have wrenched control of the levers of culture---Hollywood and TV mainly---and public opinion formation, it is only natural that the political discourse will toe the line. As risible as it may sound we have today the phenomenon of the free market progressive---sincere, intelligent, often credentialed people, but clueless completely of the praxeology of culture.