Posted on 10/29/2009 4:00:56 PM PDT by bamahead
The Gallup poll released Monday shows the public’s conservatism at a high-water mark. Some 40 percent of Americans call themselves conservative, compared with 36 percent who self-describe as moderates and 20 percent as liberals.
Gallup often asks people how they describe themselves. But sometimes they classify people according to the values they express. And when they do that, they find a healthy percentage of libertarians, as well as an unfortunate number of big-government “populists.”
For more than a dozen years now, the Gallup Poll has been using two questions to categorize respondents by ideology:
Combining the responses to those two questions, Gallup found the ideological breakdown of the public shown below. With these two broad questions, Gallup consistently finds about 20 percent of respondents to be libertarian.
The word “libertarian” isn’t well known, so pollsters don’t find many people claiming to be libertarian. And usually they don’t ask. But a large portion of Americans hold generally libertarian views — views that might be described as fiscally conservative and socially liberal, or as Gov. William Weld told the 1992 Republican National Convention, “I want the government out of your pocketbook and out of your bedroom.” They don’t fit the red-blue paradigm, and they have their doubts about both conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats. They’re potentially a swing vote in elections. Background on the libertarian vote here.
And note here: If you tell people that “libertarian” means “fiscally conservative and socially liberal,” 44 percent will accept the label.
"Our research indicates that 15 to 20 percent of American voters hold broadly libertarian views, yet the Libertarian Party has only once broken 1 percent in a presidential race."
From the libertarian's own research.
I know many liberals that would never admit it in a survey or anywhere else for that matter. They see themselves as moderates. ;-)
And supposedly 40% of American’s are considered conservative, but we haven’t seen a conservative President since Reagan.
Your point?
Don't try telling this well accepted fact to the small percentage of knot-heads around this forum who call themselves libertarians. They might get upset and throw a temper tantrum.
>>>>>And note here: If you tell people that “libertarian” means “fiscally conservative and socially liberal,” 44 percent will accept the label.
Call'em libertarians or "liberaltarians", just don't call them conservatives.
why not call yourself Libertarian and still hold onto your views. The label is not set in stone you know. There are lots of people who consider themselves as Conservatives but not everyone agree on the same thing
We're fiscal and social conservatives, but we're starting to lean libertarian, and here's why:
First, there are no fiscal/social conservative politicians to vote for. All we can do is vote against someone else.
Second, the libertarians really don't believe in a liberal society the same way the liberal left does. The libertarians believe people should do as they please like the liberals, but they don't believe everyone else should be responsible for cleaning up the mess left behind by it. In other words, you screw up - don't come crying to us. The liberal left believes we should have social justice and become slaves to these failures for the rest of our lives.
Because it's hard to teach people the consequences of certain actions, they'll have to learn the hard way. Libertarianism will allow them to do just that. In the end, like social conservatism, the libertarians will force them to eventually figure it out - whether they like it or not - that liberalism is a deadly lifestyle. They have no one but themselves to blame, and it's no one elses responsibility to fix their mistakes and their miserable lives for them.
If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.
Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path.
-Ronald Reagan
Make that about 60% here in California—higher if you only include the major cities. Most of my friends and family who vote D do so based on their rejection of the agenda of social conservatives, and not due to any particular affinity for socialism/communism.
Problem is you apply that equally to young children and those mentally retarded. A young child forced into kiddie porn is not a mistake they will learn to live with.
What you're doing is attempting to redefine libertarianism. As far as most folks are concerned, a libertarian will always be socially liberal and fiscally conservative. An ideological hybrid that has more in common with liberals, than they ever will with conservatives. By that I mean, the libertarian approach to foreign policy and international affairs. Straight out of the liberal Democratic Party playbook.
Modern conservatives are the direct descendants of classical liberals like Jefferson and Madison.
Murry Rothbard is the Father of modern libertarianism. You should read what he has to say about Lincoln and Reagan. Rothbard's opinions are not in the mainstream of traditional conservatism. While your at it, read what Ron Paul has to say. Paul is the most popular libertarian of our time and the most influential since Rothbard. Paul garnered 5.8% of the vote in the last GOP primary process. AKA. the anti-war vote!
I'm well aware of the Reason magazine interview from Reagan that he gave in 1975. I was the first to post it on this forum. That was the first time and the last time Reagan ever mentioned libertarianism. Clearly, Reagan was just fishing for votes.
"Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy."
As usual, Reagan was on the right track. Most libertarians are anarchists or minanarchists. Both philosophical belief systems on the extremist fringe having little to do with mainstream traditional conservatism.
I ALSO know that Ron Paul is pro-life (who some consider the quintessential libertarian)!
“Most of my friends and family who vote D do so based on their rejection of the agenda of social conservatives, and not due to any particular affinity for socialism/communism.”
Yep. Take a square and put it on it’s side.
Econ + social conservatives = Conservatives
Econ + social liberals = Liberals
Econ lib/social conservative = Granola folks
Econ con/social liberal = Libertarian.
True moderates are in the middle. Social liberalism is just as much a feature of Libertarianism as it is fiscal conservativism.
IMO, Conservatives are best off arguing why people should be both, and that social conservativism is no less important than fiscal conservativism. Granola folks do vote, and are left out.
No, not at all. That's where parental rights comes in. Without welfare, people will have to work, so more families will have to work out their differences and keep their marriage intact. The family unit will strengthen. Sure, some parents aren't good parents, but they're aren't good parents now. Without the nanny state, they'll have to learn how to raise, and once again learn how to love, their own kids. Would that be so bad?
JSDude, you are a conservative. Welcome to the party.
No offense to Paul supporters, but he was a weird looking dude. He wasn't very good at speaking, either. He was unelectable from the start. The libertarians always pick the old guys. Why is that?
Glen Beck is a self proclaimed libertarian. A man like him could actually win something.
No offense to Paul supporters, but he was a weird looking dude. He wasn't very good at speaking, either. He was unelectable from the start. The libertarians always pick the old guys. Why is that?
Glen Beck is a self proclaimed libertarian. A man like him could actually win something.
If you are a candidate for elective office and you can't bring yourself to defend the most defenseless in our American society --- the unborn --- you'll never get my vote.
Interesting poll. Thank you.
That’s the result of a tendency (I forgot what it is called in psychology - maybe someone else on here remembers) of not wanting your vote to be “wasted”.
Some famous economist once proposed that America should switch to a weighted voting system, so you could vote on your top 3 picks, in order, without worrying about wasting a vote. The result would be people could actually support candidates they believed in instead of big party candidates, but not worry about giving the election to the other guy because of the weighting mechanism.
Even if someone fit 100% of my political beliefs, I wouldn’t vote for them if I thought they had no chance to win. I’d go into damage control mode and try to vote against whomever I thought could do the greatest damage to the country.
I consider myself somewhat libertarian, yet the anarchism, focus on legalizing all drugs, open-borders mentality, and reluctance to use force to defend our country of the Libertarian party is a turn off for me.
Moreover, I took some sort of political philosophy test (I know, make of it what you will) where the results were plotted on a graph. The x-axis was liberal-conservative and the y-axis was authoritarian-libertarian. I was firmly in the conservative category as I expected, but I was surprised to be put in the authoritarian quadrant.
So now I mostly just call myself a "small government, leave me alone type conservative."
And yes, I agree Reagan was on the right track.
Save yourself and don’t even bother - there are a few people on here that really don’t understand the moment you open the door to letting the government regulate private conduct, even though you’re in the majority today, that same power could be used against you in the future. That’s why the heart of conservatism is telling the government to get *out* of your life.
No matter how hard you try, they just don’t see the connection. I’m not sure if it’s brain damage or the inability to understand cause and effect, but the wisest course of action is to leave this tiny percentage of the group and just let them paint in the corner.
Like your decisions. ;^)
Libertarianism almost always means defending the indefensible.
I also support the decriminalization of most drugs. Some conservatives don't agree but since when is it the government's business what you willingly ingest into your own body?
I am personally pro life but wouldn't force that on others. Like Rush Limbaugh once said, “you don't make new laws. You change the hearts and minds of people(on abortion).”
I guess I'm close to a Ron Paul/Walter Williams type of guy
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.