Posted on 10/12/2006 4:19:25 PM PDT by Aetius
The Libertarian Vote by David Boaz and David Kirby
David Boaz is executive vice president of the Cato Institute. He is the author of Libertarianism: A Primer and editor of The Libertarian Reader, Toward Liberty, and Left, Right & Babyboom: America's New Politics. David Kirby is executive director of America's Future Foundation and a graduate of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The main theme of political commentary in this decade is polarization. Since the battles over the impeachment of President Clinton and the Florida vote in 2000, pundits have been telling us that we're a country split down the middle, red vs. blue, liberal vs. conservative. Political analysts talk about base motivation and the shrinking of the swing vote. But the evidence says they are wrong.
Not all Americans can be classified as liberal or conservative. In particular, polls find that some 10 to 20 percent of voting-age Americans are libertarian, tending to agree with conservatives on economic issues and with liberals on personal freedom. The Gallup Governance Survey consistently finds about 20 percent of respondents giving libertarian answers to a two-question screen.
Our own data analysis is stricter. We find 9 to 13 percent libertarians in the Gallup surveys, 14 percent in the Pew Research Center Typology Survey, and 13 percent in the American National Election Studies, generally regarded as the best source of public opinion data.
For those on the trail of the elusive swing voter, it may be most notable that the libertarian vote shifted sharply in 2004. Libertarians preferred George W. Bush over Al Gore by 72 to 20 percent, but Bush's margin dropped in 2004 to 59-38 over John Kerry. Congressional voting showed a similar swing from 2002 to 2004. Libertarians apparently became disillusioned with Republican overspending, social intolerance, civil liberties infringements, and the floundering war in Iraq. If that trend continues into 2006 and 2008, Republicans will lose elections they would otherwise win.
The libertarian vote is in play. At some 13 percent of the electorate, it is sizable enough to swing elections. Pollsters, political strategists, candidates, and the media should take note of it.
Agreed.
But some leading libertarians are not so willing to leave it to the states. Pat Buchanan wrote an article not too long ago calling for a truce in the Culture War, in which he basically called for a states rights approach to social issues, including marriage. But "Reason" magazine's Nick Gillespie took issue with that by taking the thorougly leftist, thorougly absurd, position that such a truce is not acceptable because the Constitution demands abortion and gay marriage rights, and as such, the unenlightened masses of backward states must bow to a wiser rule of federal judges.
I disagree with Gillespe. Abortion and gay marriage are no more a federal issue than legalized gambling, and both issues should be left to the states. The only exceptions that I could see to that would be issues of racisim or religious descrimination which are urgent enough to require federal intervention/mediation.
Obviously, Gillespie does not speak for all libertarians, but he is one of the most visible mouthpieces for libertarianism on television. Still, I may be giving him too much credit for influence among libertarians, but it would be nice to hear more libertarians take your stated position.
Speaking for Libertarians is sort of like speaking for a herd of cats: You might be making the most noise, but we're pretty much going to do our own thing regardless.
The modern Libertarian position really formed itself around the later career of Barry Goldwater, who's committment to small government and individual rights was an excellent example of the Libertarian ideal.
I don't think that libertarians are particularly believers in pure democracy, which is as likely as any other form of government to foster totalitarianism.
If the current Republicans actually practiced more of what they have preached, I'd vote for them. I've voted absentee and it was split three ways. Perhaps I'm just less dogmatic in my "old" age.
Lesser of two evils is hardly a winning strategy folks.
If this group of "conservatives" bore some kinship to the class of '94 I'd be interested, but it doesn't.
Like relatives who've overstayed, this Republican congress has started to smell for my tastes.
And yes, I'm now a registered Libertarian.
Of course it is. Never in my life has there been a party that reperesented exactly what I want. I imagine that's the same for 90% of people. Government itself is a necessary evil, so at election time it's ALWAYS the lesser of two evils.
Wow, so much for principal anymore.
The LP itself is a joke - and I consider myself a small L Libertarian.
They like that because it relieves them of the actual responsibility and accountability of governing. They would much rather whine and cry on the sidelines about how everybody else does it wrong.
Anti-gay marriage, pro-life, GOP-voting libertarian here, checking in.
Where are the Libertarian stunning victories?
Holding a town water committee or school board position doesn't count.
There used to be a very strong pro-business Libertarian wing, but it's been steadily shrinking since the Reagan years.
The LP itself is a joke - and I consider myself a small L Libertarian.
True dat. One of my Libertarian friends said that the biggest obstacle to getting more rational people into the LP is the fact that right now it's a haven for cranks, stoners, and outright nuts.
I'd claim Jesse Ventura, but then I would become depressed and ashamed.
I don't think I disagree with anything you say. As a nation, we have elevated protections based on race and religion to the Constitutional level, so one can make a case for federal intervention (leaving aside the whole debate about the Incorporation Clause of the 14th Amendment). At no point, however, have the people consciously given consent to the idea that issues at the center of the Culture War (abortion, marriage, etc) rate as inalienable rights beyond democratic/popular control. And its certainly not the role of judges to arbitrarily say otherwise.
Yes, that's right--wanting to prevent the democrats from taking over and destroying my country means I have no principles.
You misread the article.
Article:
"The libertarian vote is in play."
That's libertarian, not Libertarian. Please do not confuse the two.
Sadly no.
ping
If this group of "conservatives" bore some kinship to the class of '94 I'd be interested, but it doesn't.
Like relatives who've overstayed, this Republican congress has started to smell for my tastes.
Worth reposting. Ditto for me.
I've always been fairly libertarian in my outlook (more just a strict adherance to the Constitution really), but have figured the 'pubs were better for us than the 'rats. I'm not sure at all that this is the case any more. I was always a fan of split government. Perhaps we'd be safer with that, than what we have now.
If the "libertarian" vote is in play given the war and all they are confused children. Unlike Libertarian confused Children.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.