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.
The trick is to work to demolish the political parties. This country is not well served by either major party, and of course the parties are not intended to serve the citizens needs anyway. Take away ALL tax deductions for donations to the political parties, don't allow them to deduct any expenses in running for office, and allow donations to candidates only from citizens, and none from corporations or groups. It would not be perfect, but better than the corruption that is the heart of the current system.
Sometimes, I think our Founding Fathers would have a second revolution if they could see what our government and political parties have become.
(A news item about the L.P. carries as much weight as those about the Constitution Party, or the Socialist Worker's Party)
Yet Libertarians come here asserting how conservative they are and how we should follow. Rhetorical question. How is the conservative agenda advanced with Washington's Marie Cantwell (D)rather than Slade Gordon (R)?
I was nearly court-martialed for beating the crap out of a barracks-mate's Turkish "friend" when he groped me while I was sleeping. She (my female CO) was screaming "international incident" until the Division IG set her straight. I still ended up painting most of the place.
The wonder of it all is that I'm not inherently violent and have had little trouble since getting out.
BTTT
I strongly disagree w/ your equating Constitutionalists w/ Conservatives. For example, I respect Rev. Jerry Falwell, & consider hime to be a Conservative. However, he is by no means a Constitutionalist: he suppoorts having the federal government pass laws that the 10th Amendment leaves to the states (anti-drug & abortion laws, for example), & he supports foreign aid to Israel--& no, I'm NOT anti-Israel, but foreign aid to ANY country is flat-out inconstitutional, 'cuz the Constitution doesn't give the federal government the authority to give taxpayer $ to foreign governments. He supports having the feds get involved in education (school vouchers, for example), yet the Constitution never mentions that...& as a matter of fact, James Madison spoke out AGAINST having the federal government involved in our schools. The constitutional answer to this would be to ELIMINATE the unconstitutional Dept. of Education, & give that power back to the state & local governments where it originally belonged.
So conservatives & the Constitution have several points of disagreement, just like modern liberals & the Constitution...albeit on different issues or for different purposes. But either way, the Constitution is being evaded, overlooked, or ignored on BOTH sides of the liberal/conservative debate.
But if you consider the simple ramifications of what he is proposing, it becomes clear that their is more to it than what is said. Take the best case scenario. Quickly transform the Libertarian Party from a party of principle into a party for political power. The best possible results, the Republican Party collapses, and the LP becomes just like the RP(a modern semi capitalist socialist compromise). We will then have to be contending with LINOs instead of RINOs. During the interim, the Democrats will have a field day at the polls, winning more elections than ever. They also will no longer have to concern themselves with the libertarian itch on their flank that has the potential of really burning them by out lefting them with free enterprise.
Of course the best possible outcome is not going to occur. What will occur will be a weakening of the conservative base with in the Republican Party and a strengthening of the conservative base within the Libertarian Party, to the detriment of both. A dream come true for any democratic party policy advocate. They get to have their party winning more elections as their main opposition increasingly splits its votes. And better still, even when they lose elections, they more easily get to have their policies fully advanced by the Republicans. And they get to have the libertarian itch permanently stunted. Win, win, win.
As a Libertarian, I can only hope that my Party comes to its senses, and re think this unofficial, never debated, top down imposed, quick win strategy, of hiding its principles so as to outreach to conservatives and republicans. Hopefully the LP will return to its original purpose of education and furtherance of its principles.
Libertarians need to start recognizing their own self worth, thereby replacing the top down guest speaker concept, with members only strategy debates. Had such been the practice in the past 22 years, it is unlikely that the likes of Mr. Muth and company, would ever survived the challenge. We need to bring to a halt, this mindless approach to politics. We need to stop letting others maneuver the libertarian movement around as a pawns in the rear of the Republican Party. We need to stop being the Democratic Party's cavalry operation.
We Libertarians have a tremendous potential to open ears that will not otherwise hear economic truths. That alone gives us an importance that conservatives will never have, nor ever fully understand. It also gives us a means of building a movement for individual freedom that will be realized either by our ultimate success, or by others taking the ideas furthering them without us. It should not matter to us whether it be us or others who institute those freedoms. It is the Freedom we believe in that should count.
The Party has been wasting unique potential now for last 18 years. Its time for a rebirth of the Libertarian Party, and not its decline into power politics.
(Denny Crane: "There are two places to find the truth. First God and then Fox News.")
Amen to that.
I do not doubt you in the slightest. But would you explain more. How did it become apparent? Give some specifics, not names, but examples of speech, proposals, characteristics, or what ever comes to mind. I'm really interested.
Won't happen. Overdose is primarily a problem that arises out of the blackmarket nature of the business. Take heroine for example. Good stuff in the country use to be about 6 to 8% pure. Average junk 4%. Weak heroine 2 to 3%. Availability is always in flux. Overdoses occur when a period of low availability (resulting in lower quality due to increased cutting) ends with arrival of new shipments. Quality stuff is suddenly put on the market. When word does not reach the junky that he is getting really good stuff, he treats it as the recent usual and overdoses.
And no donations from government either. Even after being elected, pay for serving should come only from citizen contribution. And if no one donates to a particular office holder, then no pay. (: )
I'm a pro-lifer who doesn't mind voting for pro-choice folks if they argree with me more then their opponent, especially if one holds some pro-life positions and their opponent holds none, but saying that pro-lifers should be fine with this position is abosolutely absured.
No, its more then that, its intellectually dishonest and downright condencending to the basic pro-life belief, that being that life begins at conception and that it is the duty of the Government to protect the life of a 3 month old just as much as a 30 year old. If you don't agree, fine, I can live with that and agree to disagree, but it is just so absured to say that we should just be fine with the position you listed is insulting.
Frankly, because of crap like that, and the general laughably naive foreign policy of the L's since 9/11, that I would rather vote for Barbra Boxer then a L. At least they won't claim to be my friend while they stab me in the back.
Losertarians always talk tough about how they'll show the Republicans in the next election by taking away votes from them (and they really, really mean it this time!) But real Republicans will stay with the party they know has a realistic shot at winning the White House. Maybe we should legalize drugs, but just for the losertarians-then they can get stoned to the gills if they want and they'll stop bitching and whining and leave the rest of us alone.
True, but the HAVE cost us 3 Senate seats and arguably one Governor's race.
1998, Navada, Senate: Reid vs. Ensign: Reid Wins by 428 votes. The L takes 6,000
2000, Washington State, Senate: Cantwell vs. Gorton: Cantwell wins by 2,200 votes. L gets 60,000.
2002, South Dakota, Senate: Thune vs. Johnson: Thune loses by 524. L gets 3,000.
2004, Washington State, Governor: Rossi vs. Gregoire: Rossi wins twice, and loses the manual recount by 129 votes. L gets 63,000.
In fairness, two things:
Thune's loss ended up being a blessing in disquise, and since he unseated Dashle 2 years later, it didn't cost us a seat exactly, because we wouldn't have been able to beat Dashle w/o Thune. That said, it was still a loss because of an L.
The L in the 2004 Washington's Governor's race campaigned as a hardcore Gay Rights person, so it is arguable that she took more votes from Gregoire then Rossi, but she was so low visibility, and so few people actually knew her positions, I still think that she probably cost at least a few more Rossi votes then Gregoire votes, and in a race decided by 129, that's enough.
Things I saw and heard at the last meeting I attended in Nashville:
Speech: "The death penalty is the ultimate form of fascism. Do you think they have any herbal tea here?"
Proposals: "They should have given Hillary's plan a chance. We should finish socializing medicine and be done with it."
Characteristics: Men wearing sandals and woman wearing moustaches.
I don't know anything about either of those people, but your question is indeed rhetorical since it has little or nothing to do with reality. With regard to furthering the conservative agenda there are two cases with Libertarian voters in that election. First, conservative LP voters obviously disagreed with you and felt the LP candidate better represented their conservative values. It is likely they found the tenets of limited government and self-responsibility to be more important than furthering the Bush Doctrine or "reforming" Socialist Security. Second, non-conservative LP voters weren't interested in furthering the conservative agenda. I either case, they wouldn't have voted for Slade Gordon anyway in enough numbers to change the outcome.
Voting is not a team sport. It is not up to voters to "take one for the team" and elect someone who doesn't represent their values and beliefs. That kind of foolishness is how we ended up with the corrupt and degenerate political system under which we suffer today.
Besides, if Slade Gordon is even worth considering as a candidate, especially a Republican candidate, he is not wasting time whining about LP voters who wouldn't have voted for him anyway. If he is worth his salt as a conservative, he is trying to find a way to get his message across to more voters in the next election.
Hopefully things are different where you live, jackbob. I found the Constitution Party more suited to my beliefs.
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.