Narrow-Minded Histrionics?

I would like to respond to John A. deLaubenfels's recent letter to
the editor, railing against Carl Milsted, Jr.'s article about drug
policy.

It is one thing if Mr. deLaubenfels wishes to respectfully disagree
with Dr. Milsted. But deLaubenfels's exclamation that "do-gooders
like Mr. Milsted are the enemy" is both absurd and clearly
self-defeating. In a democracy, one does not advance one's agenda by
rabidly attacking those closest to one's own position, for not being
quite close enough. Sadly, precisely that behavior has long been
endemic to Libertarian partisans, with the entirely predictable
result of helping to keep the Libertarian Party completely
marginalized. I am not going to suggest that Mr. deLaubenfels does
not really "value liberty" as much as he says he does, but his
attitude is clearly not conducive to winning any allies, or achieving
any positive results. Rather than railing against irrational
legislators, I would suggest critically examining the role of
irrational ideologues who impede the formation of any even slightly
libertarian consensus, by habitually indulging in such narrow-minded
histrionics.

Sincerely,
Kevin D. Keck