I know the answer, which is that libertarians value their party sovereignty, as it were, and believe that the GOP presents such a flawed vision that they must ultimately be swept aside anyway.

Nobody wants to be a pawn, or be called a pawn. Or reminded that they’re currently no better than a pawn for all intents and purposes. But the game is what it is. I agree that its outrageously impolitic for the GOP to make such an appeal. Libertarians aspire to be more than pawns. They aspire to fundamentally change the game. But in 2008, they’re cast in the role of pawns whether they like it or not.

And before folks object, don’t forget that pawns can absolutely affect the outcome of the game. In common parlance, the notion of a pawn is that it implies powerlessness and an inability to affect outcomes. But the correct analogy to chess suggests that pawns are simply less powerful than other actors, limited in their actions, and comparatively expendable in the eyes of the gods or generals moving the pieces. That’s a fairly good description of the libertarian party. Especially when, as we know, a pawn can in fact become a queen or some other powerful piece, even though that very seldom happens.

Intellectually, Hupp cannot get her head around the idea that a Libertarian is a real poltical party. It’s political hubris at its finest and it’s endemic to the party that spawned Bush and his Texas cronies.