Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
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.
Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
The overriding issue for me (I can't speak for others on this) is limited government and federalism. If the Repubs abandon that, they've abandoned their core principles, and their ad-nauseum refrain of "YOU MUST VOTE FOR US, JUST LOOK AT HOW MUCH WORSE THE DEMS ARE!" won't work forever. Bush has done a good job in the WOT and he's given us two dynamite SCOTUS justices. Beyond that, he leaves much to be desired.
Remind me again...just how are they conserative?
You must realize that a.)President Bush is not conservative, so his numbers are not indicitive of conservative views b.)There are a lot of idiots such as Bill Mahar who clkaim to be libertarian but are anything but and c.)President Reagan called libertarianism the "heart and soul of conservatism".
This article cites up to 20% of Americans considering themselves to be small-l libertarian.
I would venture to guess that at least 90% of libertarian freepers think we are doing the right thing with regards to the War on Terror. You continue to intentionally refuse to note the difference between small-government advocates and big-L Libertarians.
I cannot for the life of me figure out how you can be so good and knowledgable on threads relating to Russia and the military yet be so dopey on others.
I know a number of libertarians who voted for Kerry with the hopes of having gridlock between a Republican Congress and a Democratic President. I seriously considered it myself, but couldn't bring myself to pull the D lever. Never have, doubt I ever will. If I can't bring myself to vote for the R, I vote for a third party or a write-in.
I notice that you are from Jersey. May I ask who you voted for Governor in 1997? Was it pro-abortion Democrat Jim McGreevy, pro-abortion Republican Christie Whitman, or pro-life Libertarian Murray Sabrin?
I voted for Bush (against Kerry actually) in the last election and I'm a libertarian. If the GOP idiots run McCain, Romney, Guilliani, or some other lib-tard RINO, my vote will go back to whoever the LP is running.
LP or GOP are my ONLY two choices. If the GOP ever goes back to being the Party of Smaller, more Constitutional government, the LP will lose my vote altogether. Lucky for them, the GOP is showing no such signs.
Well I happily voted for Sabrin over the pro-death candidates. My point is that there are pro-life Christians such as myself whoare advocated for small government and firearm rights. We're not whackos like many well-known large-L Libertarians. Please see Libertarians For Life.
LOL! And LP'ers, big or little are? See, it's that kind of thinking that insures the LP/lp will never be an option to the other 99% of the world that considers itself conservative.
"President Reagan called libertarianism the heart and soul of conservatism".
Which would explain why he fought the war on drugs far more vigorously then any other President.
Well, the Republicans also can't win w/o conservative Christians, be they evangelicals or Catholics. So should all of them just shut up and bow down to the Left's judicial assault on tradition and court-imposed cultural revolution?
In the long run it probably won't matter anyway, as rapidly-changing demographics will likely doom the GOP.
As to 'federal intrusion' into our lives; I can almost see where you're coming from with regards to abortion, though technically, overturning Roe would return the matter to the states where it belongs, and it would be unlikely that any sweeping federal legislation could pass. But that whole sentiment does not apply to marriage. How is the deliberate choice of society to grant public recogntion to traditional marriage, but not to gay unions, an intrusion into the bedroom? Its a legitimate, constitutionally-sound expression of values. Gay couples can still do as they please, and the lack of state recogntion of their relationships does not constitute an intrusion. Come on! Similarly, to say that homosexuals are not 'free' because society does not deem their lifestyle to be worthy of the same recogntion as marriage is false. To say that a woman is not 'free' if she cannot have an abortion for any reason up to nearly the point ot delivery is false. To say that a person is not 'free' if they are subjected to the horror of a nativity scene outside the local city hall is absurd.
And yes, it is 'insulting' to take issues that clearly belong in the political arena, and arbitrarily decide that they are beyond the control of us common folk. Its insulting because it is to push a prepostorous view of the Constitution. Its insulting because it is to rob the people of power that is rightfully theirs. It is insulting because it is to accuse proponents of a restrained judiciary as being all sorts of liberty-depriving bigots. It is insulting because it is nothing but a convenient way for the Left to justify their end run around the people to impose on them an unwanted agenda.
If libertarians would leave the GOP simply because the base insists on judges who will simply refrain from imposing the Left's agenda, then such libertarians are liberals first, and libertarians second, or third, or somewhere else down the line. Are you really so opposed to a Sup Court that would simply rule that abortion and marriage are for the states to decide, and that the Constitution demands no particular policy outcome? Would you really leave the GOP because it tries to appoint judges who would refrain from discovering/creating new rights heretofore unknown? Would you really leave the GOP because it wants the people to define marriage for themselves?
Well, then you favor the absurd 'living Constitution' method of constitutional interpretation, which gives judges almost unlimited power to reshape society according to their will. I favor the Original Meaning approach, whereby the Constitution means now what it was understood to mean when ratified and given consent to by the people. The 14th was primarily passed to deal with former slaves and racial concerns; to say it now somehow contains a right to abortion, or right to have a homosexual relationship recognized by the state, or whatever other fantasy rights you can think of is ludicrous. To say that judges should be able to substitute their idea of what 'liberty' means for that of society is to give judges more power than was ever intended. I don't know what quoting Justice Harlan is supposed to prove, unless your intent was to pick a 'conservative' justice who favored an expansive interpretation of the 14th Amendment. So what? He got that wrong. Even superior justices like Scalia don't get it right all the times. And besides, Harlan also said;
---"These decisions give support to a current mistaken view of the Constitution and the constitutional function of this court. This view, in a nutshell, is that every major social ill in this country can find its cure in some constitutional principle and that this court should take the lead in promoting reform when other branches of government fail to act. The Constitution is not a panacea for every blot upon the public welfare nor should this court, ordained as a judicial body, be thought of as a general haven of reform movements.---"
Who knows how he would have ruled on Roe had he made it longer, or marriage today, with such views which seem contradictory.
Not one provision of the Constitution, including the 14th's Due Process, was ever conceived of, ratified with, or given consent to with the idea that it in any way applies to things like abortion or gay marriage. So who says that 'liberty' demands a right to abortion? Who says that 'liberty' demands the state give to homosexual couples the same status and recognition it gives to traditional marriage? Who says these are inalienable rights? As Scalia would say, there is no support for such ridiculous claims either in the actual text of the Constitution, or the tradition of our nation and its laws. So where do you get that its for the Sup Court to say otherwise. In doing so, they are substituting their will for sound judgement. The inability of past generations to predict how judges would twist their words and intent beyond all recogntion does not in any way stand as an endorsement for such outrageous behavior from the Court.
Saying that your preferred policies are somehow enshrined in the Constitution in your absurdly open-ended (and judicially-defined) view of 'liberty' is nothing more than a way to justify an unjustified Court imposition of what can't be properly won through the legitimate democratic channels. It is such an elitist, arrogant mindset that has led to the Culture War. If those holding such elitist leftwing views were content to have their utopia in the few areas where they actually enjoy public support, then the national public discourse would be a lot less contentious. But you can't do that, can you? No, you have to go and impose your values on all of us who are not so enlightened, and you rationalize it by telling yourself that you are doing the Constitution's bidding. I'm sure the Left gets a tremendous amount of smug satisfaction out of sticking it to red states in such a manner, but it still lacks any Constitutional merit or justification.
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.