I’ve known quite a few libertarians over the years, and I’ve found there is a range of views within that party, from moderate to quite extreme. Back when I was still on active duty and was teaching political science at the Air Force Academy, after an evening lecture that was open to the public, I got into a discussion with one gentleman who was a libertarian.

He asserted not a single government service was actually needed, as the market would fix everything. I suggested air traffic control was a good thing, and he insisted the market could fix that too. He said rival ATC companies would set up in the marketplace and survive by charging fees to airliners that wanted to take off and land. I asked what would happen if rival companies set up at the same airport and, say, one told a flight they could land, while another company told a different flight they too could land on the same runway at the same time? His answer: market forces would work things out. Sure, you might have a crash or two (OK, I added that last part).

Stay up to speed: Sign up for daily opinion in your inbox Monday-Friday

That is admittedly the extreme end of the libertarian spectrum (another libertarian friend from that far end calls himself a “nutjob Libertarian”). In my experience, libertarians tend to be people who oppose government because, frankly, they’ve reached a point where they themselves don’t need any government services anymore. Though there are, of course, counterexamples, I suspect not too many people who are surviving their old age on Medicare would argue that program should be shut down. I can’t think of too many market forces that would create services for the elderly poor. And I’m quite glad we haven’t privatized the National Park Service and sold our national treasures to private investors. “Taco Bell presents the Grand Canyon?”

Why am I ranting about libertarians again? Well, a recent Colorado Politics story caught my eye, and not because some reasonably noble libertarian was running for office from a principled stance. No, what that CoPo story reports on is the collusion and conspiring of the Colorado libertarians with the Republican party.

Yup, the libertarians — the anti-government party — is plotting with the GOP on how to help GOPers win by not running libertarian candidates against them in certain elections where a libertarian might just pull enough votes away from the GOP candidate for a Democrat to win.

The story reports on GOP CD-3 candidate Ron Hanks having signed a pledge with the Colorado libertarians to, if he wins the primary and then the general election (and it is a GOP leaning district) he will uphold certain libertarian “principles.” I use quote marks because the pledge he signed is troubling, to say the least.

If Hanks wins the primary, the libertarian candidate will withdraw and throw his support to Hanks. I can’t blame Hanks for taking that deal, as his stance as a MAGA extremist makes many of the libertarian pledge points natural for him. But the rest of us might be a tad troubled.

The very first item on the libertarian pledge is to halt funding for Ukraine and then to “push aggressively for peace negotiations with Russia.” I remain stunned the GOP and now apparently the libertarians have become pro-Russia Putin stooges. As an ICBM officer (finger-on-the-button guy) I targeted the country the GOP and libertarians seem to love and admire.

Remember back when former President Ronald Reagan called the then-Soviet Union an “evil empire?” How about when he got in trouble for joking on a mic he didn’t know was recording when he said, “My fellow Americans, I am pleased to tell you today that I’ve signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes.” Hardly pro-Russia from the hero of the GOP.

Reagan was anti-Russia and so was the entire GOP during its last period of relative sanity. But these days, with a serial adulterer-serial liar-serial cheat as the national standard bearer, it is sad but perhaps not entirely surprising GOPers and libertarians have chosen to abandon what they used to stand for in an ongoing obsession with getting and retaining power, no mater what compromises in principles they must endure.

The libertarian pledge also requires candidates to pledge reductions in foreign aid. That one always amuses me. Where do these people think foreign aid dollars are spent? First off, some polls have shown some Americans believe up to 25% of the US budget is sent away in foreign aid. But foreign aid is actually about 1% of spending. And where is it spent? Huge chunks of it are spent right here in the US. If we want to, say, send food aid to starving people, we send grain bought from U.S. farmers.

Oh, and Hanks, by signing the pledge, has promised if he is elected he will support the pardoning of, well, traitors. Sorry, but I’m pretty hard on people who spied on the U.S. and sold secrets. So no, I don’t support pardons for the likes of Julian Assange and Edward Snowden. Maybe it’s my military background, but I don’t abide with people who sold out the U.S. Alas, I digress.

The libertarians also demand candidates promise to reduce the size of government and funding of “all three letter agencies.” Right… though we can certainly have legitimate arguments about the role and size of government, automatic reductions because “government is bad” is silly and short sighted. I rather like NASA (four letters, OK?) and would rather that budget increase. I’m also glad there is an FBI, even though MAGA folks make all kinds of false claims about it.

And Hanks has also pledged he will “recognize the egregious abuses by the U.S. intelligence agencies, and work toward reducing their power with the end goal of abolishing them entirely.” This is just nuts.

In the modern world, we need intelligence agencies, because you know Russia and China won’t shut their agencies down. Oh, I forgot, the libertarians love Putin. Maybe we’ll just ask the Russians for some intel from time to time? As a former consumer of information from intel agencies, I can assure you they are providing a vital service, even if they are, from time to time, out of line. Of course close oversight is needed, but the idea of just eliminating them is both foolhardy and shortsighted. And that is exactly what Hanks has promised to do.

Will the libertarian-GOP merger continue? Hard to say, but if Hanks wins in CD-3, which is very possible, will he stand by his marching orders from the libertarians?

Stay tuned.

Hal Bidlack is a retired professor of political science and a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel who taught more than 17 years at the U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs.