Posted on 02/27/2005 2:55:24 PM PST by 82Marine89
"Three Big Disagreements With Libertarians"
by Chuck Muth
February 27, 2005
Having recently addressed the campaign nuts-and-bolts of getting limited-government candidates elected as members of the Libertarian Party, let's now take a look at three big issues which I believe currently stop many more conservatives from joining the them: Abortion, foreign policy and immigration. These are NOT minor issues.
Two things to recognize here:
One, it's not necessary (or shouldn't be) for people to agree with 100% of a party's platform in order to be a member in good standing of that party. A party which requires 100% thought compliance isn't a party; it's a cult. Indeed, one should bear in mind Ronald Reagan's wisdom that a person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is an ally, not an enemy.
Second, a principled limited-government voter's disagreement with a party platform position shouldn't be based on a "feeling," but on a reasoned argument derived from the principles of freedom and liberty as envisioned by our Founding Fathers and as enshrined in our Constitution. With that in mind, it is indeed possible to be a member in good standing of the Libertarian Party (or any party) if you can reasonably articulate and defend your disagreement with a particular plank in their platform.
In fact, platforms DO change over the years as opinion and leaders change. Heck, it wasn't all that long ago that the GOP platform called for the elimination of the Department of Education. Whatever happened to that? But I digress.
For many voters, abortion IS a litmus test issue. And for the record, there ARE pro-life Libertarians, as well as pro-choice Libertarians...just as there are pro-life and pro-choice Republicans. That is a fact of life, so to speak, regardless of what the LP platform may or may not say in that regard. But let's take a look at the actual wording of the LP platform position on this hot potato:
"Recognizing that abortion is a very sensitive issue and that people, including libertarians, can hold good-faith views on both sides, we believe the government should be kept out of the question. We condemn state-funded and state-mandated abortions. It is particularly harsh to force someone who believes that abortion is murder to pay for another's abortion."
First, the party recognizes and states unequivocally that people "can hold good-faith views" on BOTH sides of this issue, while remaining consistent in its philosophy that the least government is the best government. More importantly, the LP has taken a position on funding abortions with taxpayer dollars which is even stronger than that of many Republicans. The bottom line: If you are pro-life and the abortion issue is a big thing for you, you CAN find a comfortable home in the Libertarian Party. Ditto if you are pro-choice.
The next big issue, which I think particularly harmed the LP in the last election, is foreign policy - especially since many people already harbor the perception that Libertarians are nothing but a bunch of dope-smoking hippie peaceniks. And although the LP's notion of "just leave them alone and they'll leave us alone" sounds nice in theory, it doesn't acknowledge life in the "real world." For the record, here's part of their platform position on Foreign Affairs.
"The United States government should return to the historic libertarian tradition of avoiding entangling alliances, abstaining totally from foreign quarrels and imperialist adventures, and recognizing the right to unrestricted trade and travel."
Under ideal circumstance in the United States of Utopia this would make sense. But a LOT of people are going to have trouble accepting and defending this position in the world as it actually exists. After all, the Constitution is not a suicide pact.
Recognizing the likes of Mohammed Atta's "right to unrestricted...travel" in the United States is nothing short of an open invitation to conduct more extensive and deadly terrorist operations on our soil. This particular foreign policy position DOES reaffirm the perception that the LP is weak, if not naïve, on national defense.
As to the historic tradition of avoiding entangling alliances - which President Washington was so adamant about in his Farewell Address - it should be noted that had that particular libertarian theory been put into practice by France and other nations during our Revolutionary War, Gen. Washington and the Founders might not have prevailed and we'd all be sipping tea at high noon to this day. Indeed, Ben Franklin and John Adams devoted considerable time and effort trying to persuade others to entangle themselves in our foreign quarrel with King George. Fortunately, some did.
Absolutely, sticking our nose into every foreign dispute is unwise and should be avoided; however, there are foreign alliances which serve the best interests of our national security. The key is to differentiate objectively without becoming the "world's policeman." In any event, I think the LP needs to take off the rose-colored glasses on this issue if they expect more people to join their political ranks.
Last, there's the red-hot issue of immigration. And it's rather disappointing to see the Libertarians acting like Bush Republicans in trying to "spin" this issue and justify their position on it. Here's the LP platform language: "We welcome all refugees to our country and condemn the efforts of U.S. officials to create a new 'Berlin Wall' which would keep them captive."
Note how the LP uses the term "refugee" rather than immigrant. A refugee is someone who flees for protection from war and oppression. Now, there may be a lot of economic problems South of the Border, but I don't think millions of illegal aliens have crossed over the U.S. border to flee war and oppression in Mexico. This is a very disingenuous use of the word "refugee." Kinda like calling an amnesty proposal a "guest worker" program.
The LP platform adds, "We call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally."
The Libertarians can debate their open borders philosophy 'til the cows come home in an academic environment, but politically speaking, "a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally" is DOA with the electorate. It also doesn't square with the views on immigration as articulated by a number of prominent Founding Fathers.
Hearing what Ben Franklin had to say about German immigration, for example, would singe today's politically-correct ears. "Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a colony of aliens who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them," Franklin wrote, "and (who) will never adopt our language or customs any more than they can acquire our complexion." Ouch.
Franklin bemoaned the mass influx of foreign-speaking immigrants noting that "instead of learning our language, we must learn theirs, or live as in a foreign country." Sounds a lot like former Maryland Gov. William Donald Shaeffer, who only last year said of an Hispanic-speaking McDonald's cashier, "I don't want to adjust to another language. This is the United States. I think they ought to adjust to us."
For his part, George Washington questioned the "advantage" of mass immigration, suggesting the number of immigrants be kept small enough for the new citizens to "get assimilated to our customs, measures and laws." And many generally believed that new immigrants should be limited to those who possessed particular and specialized talents, abilities and skills which were needed in the new nation.
Then there was Thomas Jefferson, author of our Declaration of Independence, who warned of the dangers new immigrants posed to our republic: "They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another," Jefferson wrote. "They will infuse into (American society) their spirit, warp and bias its direction, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass." Yikes.
Or as Alexander Hamilton put it: "The safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias and prejudice; and on the love of country, which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education, and family. The opinion advanced in [Jefferson's] Notes on Virginia is undoubtedly correct, that foreigners will generally be apt to bring with them attachments to the persons they have left behind."
Kinda like Californians moving to Nevada.
In their defense, the Libertarians have at least taken a VERY hard line on immigrants and public assistance: "The right to immigrate does not imply a right to welfare -- or any other government service," their platform reads. If only the White House and the Republican Party were so adamant on that position.
In conclusion, I think individuals can take contrary constitutionally defensible positions to the official platform positions of the Libertarian Party and still be good Libertarians; however, I suggest that the Libertarian positions on these three BIG issues discourage a lot of disgruntled limited-government voters, particularly Republicans, from making the leap to their party. The Libertarians would be well advised to go back to the drawing board and come up with some new language on them.
# # #
Chuck Muth is president of Citizen Outreach, a non-profit public policy advocacy organization in Washington, D.C. The views expressed are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Citizen Outreach. He may be reached at chuck@citizenoutreach.com.
I agree. There are some things for which there are simply no feasible private providers. Besides, I wouldn't want to have to stop by the back for a roll of quarters in order to pay the toll fees every time I leave my home.
"The bottom line: If you are pro-life and the abortion issue is a big thing for you, you CAN find a comfortable home in the Libertarian Party. Ditto if you are pro-choice."
Oh, happy horse feathers. This is the most absurd statement I've heard in some time. One cannot be 'pro-life' and be comfortable in the Libertarian party. The libertarian position is indistinguisable from the pro-choice position because it is pro-choice. The only difference between the libertarian and the democrat position is funding. Do libertarians want to end abortion? No, only government funding. That is hardly a position one can be 'comfortable with' if one things abortion is morally wrong and akin to murder.
"Recognizing that abortion is a very sensitive issue and that people, including libertarians, can hold good-faith views on both sides, we believe the government should be kept out of the question."
Translation: "Kill the babies! Kill the babies! Kill! Kill! Kill!"
Ummm, hate to burst your bubble, but that is exactly the kind of thing Ronald Reagan proposed while getting re-elected in a landslide. In fact, Reagan said explicitly that the majority of functions performed by the government other than defense could better be served by private entities in a competetive marketplace.
I guess Reagan was just one of those crazy old Libertarians, though.
No analogy whatsoever. Does Boeing provide "military consultants" as pilots ? Do we have "Wild Geese" or mercenary units ?
A lot of libertarian nonsense romantically assumes that a capitalist society will just plain magically more militarily effective than an authoritarian society. That is romantic nonsense. The values of a good soldier are duty, obedience, order, discipline, courage, and self-sacrifice. These are not free market libertarian values. They are authoritarian values.
The people who voted Libertarian were not likely to have voted for those Republicans had the LP candidates not been available and the outcome would have been unchanged. For some reason, that never seems to occur to people who make this argument.
That somehow third-party candidates cost Republicans votes and or elections has to be one of the most often repeated and most ignorant arguments on the political landscape today. It is also a singularly arrogant argument since it implies that somehow the Republican candidate had some right to those votes.
A pox on thick-headed party hacks of every stripe, I say.
No, a Libertarian would base his disagreement with an argument based on the LP's Statement of Principles.
I disagree that we could have a privately run military. But, given that in many countries the state has provided the armament and equipment, not private industry, I think it's an important point.
The values of a good soldier are duty, obedience, order, discipline, courage, and self-sacrifice. These are not free market libertarian values. They are authoritarian values.
But it is a free market value to choose to perform under authoratarian discipline -- something that more doctrinaire libertarians sometimes forget.
Not having served, I could be wrong. But I have the impression that initiative is also a virtue that the military approves of -- one that is more prevalent in a free market society. I'd also suggest that courage and discipline (at least of the self-discipline sort) are as much free market as authoritarian virtues.
LSD is not a "super addicting" drug, or anything similar. Perhaps the correct role for the Feds is to control sugar, fat and caffeine intake. We could establish an agency.
You'll take my cola, when you pry it from my dead, cold, frosty, refreshing hands! 8>)
That's when I stopped listening to the old hippies and went Reaganaut. That and his confrontational strategy to end the Cold War. Unfortunately, he couldn't foresee how some of the functions taken over would be abused (the corporate prison industry I mentioned before). Without strong oversight humans will almost always succumb to their base temptations.
As long as its not Pepsi. They donate to Handgun Control Inc.
Reagan was my Commander-in Chief. Times then were great.
My wife is from Atlanta. Of course I do not drink Pepsi.
(Actually, I drink Dr. Pepper and Mountain Dew, as well, but, oh, well.)
B"ut the bottom line is, you have to draw a line somewhere. Are you going to let LSD and heroine and other super addicting drugs out on the free market where pushers can get people hooked?"
The stuff is already freely availble given 20 years of WOD. How do you explain that?
You wouldn't want me in charge.
Can I be your XO?
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.