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.
Apparently you weren't around while Reagan's very public feud with PATCO was going on. He very explicitly called for privatization of everything having to do with aviation. As for the rest, my response said "that is exactly the kind of thing..." meaning his public pronouncements were more or less specific on those issues, on multiple occasions.
I don't know how the CP organizations are across the country, but my brief encounter with the one here in NC was not positive. There was a great deal of in-fighting and grappling for ideological control. If I want to deal with that, I can stick with the GOP. Additionally, while I am also a religious conservative, the direction of the CP seems to me to be alarmingly headed toward theocracy. There were members (or prospective members) who insisted that the strictures of the first amendment needed to be relaxed.
PING!
Now you are getting the picture. It is not within the federal governments constitutional mandate. If it was then there would not have been a need for a constitutional amendment to have prohibition.
Many powers were left to the states, that is the way it should be. Local control. I really doubt many it any states would legalize meth the same way not many states legalize 190 proof. I think most would legalize marijuana.
As a libertarian who has volunteered--and voted--fer local Libertarian candidates in the past, I can say these three issues are exactly the ones that I have a disagreement about. Here's my philosophy on each...
Abortion...the Right of a woman to do with one's body as she pleases is at the basis of libertarianism...fer instance, if my young daughter was raped and impregnated, I would want to preserve the right to abort the pregnancy. Every woman should have this right, imho. However, at some point during the pregnancy, the unborn child has rights that must be protected as well. If a fetus is viable and can live outside the womb, imho, there is no way we should allow the unborn child to be exterminated. In my view, States should decide at what point in the pregnancy the Rights of the fetus supercede those of the mother's right to terminate her pregnancy.
Foreign Policy...while I'm all for avoiding foreign entanglements, I believe the Libertarian Party's position is IGNORANT of the fact that our borders are no longer safe from random attacks by the forces of Oppression and Tyranny, and sometimes the prudent thing is to take the fight to our enemies. Harry Browne's rantings of a few years ago on this issue were enough to turn me off of the Libertarian Party to this day.
Immigration...the Libertarian Party's open borders policy is simply ludicrous...how the heck can America hope to accomplish a libertarian future if we are continually taking on the burden of every would-be immigrant who prefers to take advantage of the bounty that Americans have earned? To think we could absorb everyone who wants to become Americans is just plain silly!!
FReegards...MUD
Well, since you pinged me...
RE: viability, here's how I view it.
A fetus is "viable" from conception as long as the growth process is not unnaturally stopped. That fetus is viable as long as the food, blood, oxygen, warmth and other life sustaining needs stay in place.
Take away your food, blood, oxygen, warmth and other needs...you're not very "viable" either.
That's just my 2 cents.
Like I said, the whole argument comes down to how States define "viable"...yer argument is a perfectly defensible one, and perhaps Virginia would see it exactly that way. But this whole "Roe vs. Wade" debacle is an embarrasment to our judicial system...MUD
There is a party that is for limited, Constitutional government without the problems of Libertarianism as this article citez -- and the article leaves out the drug issue altogether, a big deterrent for libertarian-inclined conservatives who might be thinking of joining the LP.
That party is the Constitution Party.
I agree with the LP that "We welcome all refugees to our country" but5 there is a difference, as the article points out, between refugees and immigrants who come for economic reasons. If we need to take in non-natives, I suggest that we take in more political asylum applicants (even 90+ percent of those who apply from China are rejected) and toughen up on immigration.
We may need to rewrite the rules for legal immigration, but what we need most is to do all that can be done to stop illegal immigration and to remove illegal immigrants from this country.
Drugs are (somewhat unlike alcohol) a kind of self-increasing demand. You need more and more and more to get the high. So even if they are legalized, you'll still have an ever-increasing demand, and as long as demand increases, supply will increase also. Besides, once government legalizes drugs, they will be seen as just another opportunity to create a tax. (Notice that just about the only thing they don't tax is abortion -- if you did, there might be fewer of them.) So the price will keep going up, too. Now, if the demand is increasing and the price is being kept high, the crime that is associated with the habit will continue or increase. Libertarians say we should punish the associated crime, not the drug use, and they do have a point. But if we know that drugs breed crime, then isn't the policy of keeping them illegal a crime-prevention measure? But I do agree that some people's civil rights have been trampled on in the War on Drugs. There must be a better way...
I'm surprised to here this. Sounds like they are on the move. Serious internal competition alway accompanies strong long term growth, except of course where entire caucuses walk or win absolute control. Growing pains always accompany growth. I wonder if a constitutional movement is being born out of the Constitution Party.
I thought you oppose government-funded health care and would consider drug legalization after we got rid of it. Here you are claiming that addition treatment is money well spent. What gives?
This is also true of alcohol.
So even if they are legalized, you'll still have an ever-increasing demand,
No, a dynamic equilibrium will be reached as high-tolerance users quit (or die) and new users start.
once government legalizes drugs, they will be seen as just another opportunity to create a tax. [...] So the price will keep going up, too. [...] the crime that is associated with the habit will continue or increase.
So don't overtax them; it's a choice, not an inevitability.
The regulation of drugs is within their Commerce Clause power.
"If it was then there would not have been a need for a constitutional amendment to have prohibition."
An amendment was desired. But it was not required.
"I really doubt many it any states would legalize meth ... I think most would legalize marijuana.
If that's the case, the gangs will not go away. Neither will the DEA. The prisons will remain full. Addicts will continue to prostitute and steal to get their fix. The courts will remain full.
So where's the savings? Where's the benefits? Why should the U.S. make this change? Why should the people vote for it?
"The DEA costs $11 billion per year out of a $2.3 trillion budget. Half of that money is spent on drug education, anti-drug advertising and treatment. The other half is spent on overseas drug interdiction and border patrol. Seems to me like the programs on drug education, anti-drug advertising, overseas drug interdiction and border patrol are money well spent, even if some drugs were made legal."
Laziness, that's all. But thanks so much for bringing that to my attention.
"As for the rest, my response said "that is exactly the kind of thing..." meaning his public pronouncements were more or less specific on those issues, on multiple occasions."
Well, I was around during the PATCO feud and I do not recall RR saying a word about privitizing all public roads and the national highway system.
No it is not.
An amendment was desired. But it was not required.
Yes it was.
If that's the case, the gangs will not go away. Neither will the DEA. The prisons will remain full. Addicts will continue to prostitute and steal to get their fix. The courts will remain full.
If you are saying that it will not bring utopia then I agree. But that was never the motive in the first place.
So where's the savings?
The saving would be in not having long drawn out court battles about whether a state can legalize drugs for one thing.
Where's the benefits?
Returning something to local control is always a benefit.
Why should the U.S. make this change?
Because the one size fits all that we have now is not working.
Why should the people vote for it?
They have. Two states voted to legalize marijuana. They are being told that they may not.
Well The Wall Street Journal is in their corner (such a policy would make labor really cheap.
Do you have just one court case that supports your statement? If not, then please phrase this as an opinion, not a statement of fact.
"Yes it was."
Again, do you have anything at all to support this statement? If not, then please phrase this as an opinion, not a statement of fact.
"If you are saying that it will not bring utopia then I agree. But that was never the motive in the first place."
Well, in post #135, you felt we could get rid of the DEA. Legalizing only marijuana will not eliminate the need for the DEA. Actually, nothing would change for the better. I see no benefit in casting my vote for this scheme.
"Two states voted to legalize marijuana. They are being told that they may not."
Yep. That pesky U.S. Constitution that you want to adhere to when it benefits your cause and ignore when it doesn't.
Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
You notice that it does not say with in the states.
Do you have any evidence to support your position?
Legalizing only marijuana will not eliminate the need for the DEA.
Who said it would? Returning the rights to the states would elimate the DEA.
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.