Despite this admission, however, the article tellingly mislabeled libertarians as conservatives. Of course libertarians will appear conservative -- to someone on the left! They will likewise appear liberal from the perspective of someone on the right. By calling libertarians conservatives, the magazine showed its own colors.

In reality, libertarian is neither left nor right. It is anti-authoritarian -- in favor of individual liberty as opposed to government power. (For a graphic depiction of this difference, see the political map at http://www.self-gov.org

Individual liberty is favored in some areas by both the right (lower taxes, right to keep and bear arms, fewer restrictions on job creation, etc.) and the left (limits on police power, sexual freedom, substance use, etc.).

But unfortunately, more government control is also frequently advocated by both left (higher taxes, gun control, more job-killing regulations, etc.), and right (expanded police powers, restrictions on sexual behavior, the "war on drugs," etc.)

Because libertarianism proposes to replace government control with individual liberty and personal responsibility across the board, it is a distinct philosophy that cannot be lumped in with either the left or the right. It would be more accurately called the radical center.

Time should be embarrassed for making such a dumb mistake. They should also be embarrased for only writing about the lack of "intellectual diversity" as it applies to universities when that elephant is sitting right in their own living room.

The libertarian persuasion flourishes on the internet for much the same reasons. In a virtual world, who really needs anyone?

"oft-mumbled leftist mantra"

Some of us on the left have a more sophisiticated view. In my view at least, Bush, and those who surround him, are rather quickly attempting to transform our country into what is, in essence, an authoritarian democracy, closer actually to Israel than to any authoritarian state of the past. A state where there is considerable licence, particularly to do profitable business, and broad political participation, but minimal liberty and privacy.

What is required for this is a permanent, open-ended, state of war against an enemy amorphous enough and weak enough that any attack against them can be celebrated as a "victory", but no strike against them ever reduces the potential danger that they represent.

If this seems extreme, try to define for yourself under what conceivable circumstances we could say that we have totally defeated "terrorism".

This trend alone may someday bend our political spectrum of left and right into an endless circle.

Attributing the trend to Reagan seems unlikely, since the ideological legacy of any president after eight years of compromise is mixed at best.

The students you mention likely see Mr. Bush a step backwards in that regard.

But it strikes me that such a position calls into serious question the oft-mumbled leftist mantra about how Bush is the reincarnation of Hitler.