For whatever reason (perhaps because of an infuriating association with Glenn "Republican" Reynolds), Ann Althouse and Dr. Helen are both under seige for their libertarianism, and their opponents think that the best way to get under their skin is by hurling the word "Republican" as an insult. This does not bother Dr. Helen, who explains why she has placed a red "R" on her forehead:

Many times, people mistakenly call me a Republican although I am a right-leaning libertarian. Apparently, labeling one as a Republican gives ammunition to call one sexist, evil, mean spirited or just plain scum. How many times do you hear someone apologizing for having right leaning views -- "Oh, no, I am not really a Republican, I have other views etc." My question is, what if one is a Republican or right leaning. So what? Is that a crime? Are those who are Republicans afraid to speak their views at universities, in academic settings, in the media etc. for fear of being labled something vile? Maybe speaking up and not slinking around in shame would be a better strategy. Maybe taking a strong stand in the media, in universities and with the American people about their views would help people to understand and see them as more normal, not as an aberration--the "conservative" view. Maybe it would just be a view like everyone elses.

It seems like those with views other than liberal must wear the Scarlet R. Well, I will not hide any longer. If people want to call me a Republican, I will wear the label with pride with the R proudly displayed on my forehead whether it really fits or not, just to show my solidarity with those who are oppressed by such labels. Maybe you should too.

Having "Republican" hurled at me as an insult does not especially sting me, because I'm a registered Republican. Nor does it hurt me to be told that I am to be held accountable for the thoughts and actions of other Republicans. A crass example was during the California Civil Rights Initiative (against affirmative action) when it was "revealed" that David Duke was a supporter of the initiative, and a Republican! Viola. That was about the same time I had the revelation that John Wayne Gacy was a Democrat -- who'd even been photographed with Rosalyn Carter!

How dare I even think to bring up Gacy! Isn't that a shocking lack of moral equivalency? I mean, David Duke might be a Holocaust-denying Nazi, but he didn't murder boys and bury them under his house, did he?

I guess I really ought to stop with the Gacy business. No more Gacy Democrats. I knew it wasn't logical at the time, and I don't believe in guilt by association, and I was only engaged in satire because I didn't think the other side was being logical to link all Republicans to David Duke! Honest!

I'm really and truly sorry.

Next time an unfair Republican guilt-by-association link is made, I should invoke Fred Phelps, longtime Democrat.

No, I really shouldn't do that either. Merely poking fun at the idea of Glenn Reynolds as a fascist enabler got me accused of "conservative buffoonery" by the blogosphere's leading anti-fascist crusader.

My conservatively buffoonish feelings were deeply hurt by this, because some conservatives would call me a liberal, and too much of this leads to a feeling of paralysis -- as if you've been painted into a corner by labels. Nonetheless, I tried to defend myself against the allegation:

For starters, are bloggers such as I (or Glenn Reynolds) supposed to be conservatives based on David Neiwert's say-so? Is the word "conservative" now supposed to be a smear, accomplished by means of long essays linking conservatives to "pseudo-fascism"? Conservatives call me a liberal, and liberals call me a conservative, so I am a bit puzzled as to how these labels are to supposed to make me feel. Perhaps Mr. Neiwert intends to induce some form of shame. In my case, these labels have lost their sting. (What would be the value in my calling him a "liberal" or a "pseudo-socialist?" Is that helpful in any way?)

Belittling the intelligence and questioning the honesty of one's critics is of course another way of inducing shame. As readers can see, Mr. Neiwert considers me a mere dishonest buffoon. (Little does he know how true that is, especially when I write satire!)

Saying I'm a Republican is not insulting, because it describes my voter registration. However, in all honesty, I don't know whether I'm a conservative, because I don't know how to define the word. If someone wants to call me that as an insult, fine, because it's evidence that I'm dealing with a leftist ideologue. Demurring to the insults of ideologues saves time, because such people are not interested in serious dialogue. The problem is, I'd also worry about those who might call me a conservative as a compliment, because if I wasn't conservative enough for them, they might call me a "liberal." And then I'd have to expend more time not taking "liberal" as an insult.

After awhile, I might find the whole process a tad insulting.

But isn't that what they want?

UPDATE: Via Glenn Reynolds, I see that Tom DeLay does not think self described libertarians are conservatives:

Instapundit is a self described Libertarian and would likely be at odds with many Conservatives on certain issues.

The real issue here is what does Tom DeLay have against Classical Values?

Is it because "Classical Values fiddled, while Tom DeLay crashed and burned"?

UPDATE (12/16/06): It's official. Bob Barr is a "card carrying" Libertarian.

(I don't know why, but I just thought that should go here.)

UPDATE: As Dan Riehl points out in the comment below, I seem to have attributed his words ("Instapundit is a self described Libertarian and would likely be at odds with many Conservatives on certain issues") to Tom DeLay, who was quoting Riehl. My apologies.

But it's just as unclear to me why conservatives and libertarians can't focus on the common ground. I get called a "conservative" in derision even though I don't know what the word "conservative" means. It's all I can do to ascertain what I think on given issues, and I don't find these labels especially helpful.

(The reason I call myself a libertarian is that every time I take the political litmus test it says I am one.)

Both sides would do well to remember what Ronald Reagan said:

....I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals-if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

Now, I can't say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don't each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path.