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.
"We hold that all individuals have the right to excersise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.
I left them quickly after it became apparent liberal Democrats were joining in droves (when the writing was on the wall that the White House was lost).
Prior to that the subjects listed in the article were open to honest discussion and debate. After the scum influx they were verbotten.
I do agree with Hodar that the WOD is a terrible waste of our money that only benefits those who gain riches and careers from it - the entire private prison industry couldn't survive without it. While legalizing all of them is out of the question taking the profit margin out of marijuana would immediately pay off in reduced incarcerations and otherwise salvagable lives. Allowing the provenly harmful substances alcohol and tobacco, albeit controlled, just wreaks of hypocrisy. This is why our kids roll their eyes at us when we lecture them.
Prior to legal efforts to control them drug use had little appeal to the average citizen, affecting far less a percentage than we have now. From Harry Aslinger's time to now, it was always about ego and power rather than the public good. Follow the money.
Yeah, I kunda agree w/ you that today's GOP is like the Democratic Party of 70 yrs ago: you hardly ever hear Republicans question the constitutionality (or better yet, the LACK THEREOF) of FDR's big-government programs...or those of LBJ's Great Society, let alone abolish them. They said back in 1994 that they wanted to eliminate the Dept. of Education, but once they took control of Congress, that idea was flushed down the toilet.
A smaller government party my aSS.
That sites no good either. It starts out with some positive statistics but it ends up on your side.
I hope it happems...I'd love to see it!
But there are other parties out there, such as the Constitution Party & the Independent American Party, both of which I have a great deal of respect for.
If they came, they'd be called RINO's themselves.
I'd suggest taking a closer look at your link .....
The link goes on to show the falacy of the data you support.
My personal view is to legalize EVERYTHING. Make it cheap, sell it at Wal-Mart to anyone over 18/21. This will have a two-fold impact.
First off, the current drug users will have a heyday. They will find themselves available to afford their drug of choice, and will either Overdose (self-correcting problem), or will live through this phase and then want to get free. At this time, the money we save on the WoD can be used to help subsidize their Drug Recovery program (I'd suggest an 80/20 split; nothing is ever free).
Secondly, kiddies will see their friends die, the Gangsta's will be out of business, as you can't compete with Free Enterprize. Drugs will become 'un-cool'.
This policy worked prior to the USA having an Anti-Drug policy and law enforcement division. Coke used to have Cocaine in it. Drug users were held in disdain, and society did prosper. By making it illegal, we have created a demand that simply wasn't there before (historically speaking).
What you don't seem to realize is.....when prohibition was ended people could now purchase safe, regulated, taxed, quality controlled alcoholic products. The criminal element was driven out and the habit was controlled legally.
I have never taken illegal drugs or had the desire to do so..but if I were to do so....I would want to make my purchase legally at Sav-On instead of relying on the quality control of the Bloods or the Crips! I would also appreciate the drop in crime necessary to sustain an illegal drug habit. If folks can buy their stuff at the drug store at resonable prices they won't have to break and enter to steal "your" stuff to get "their" stuff.
An earliar post mentioned the dismal record of the "War on Drugs" and the attendant restrictions of liberty it has caused. It reminds me of the "War on Poverty" and the huge successes we have seen in that area. You know....we ought to start a government program called the "War on Food" to insure no one ever goes hungry again. It is human nature to find a way to fill a market....and if that market is illegal the prices will be high. If drugs are legal your pusher is now out of business.
AKA, the I want government to make everyone behave the way I want them to behave coalition.
I hear you, libertyman.
We'll see what happens within the next 4 years, but I don't see why they *deserve* my vote if it keeps up...
Believe it or not, most Americans simply do not agree with the (L)'s on those issues. That's not my problem.
Come back, Fred Thompson!
I believe there are two options for the war on drugs. One is give up and legalize them. The other option is to make their use so prohibitive that people will choose not to use them. From my observations, that would require the death penalty without exception for the first possession charge. I don’t think you can sell the death penalty for drug possession, so I would vote for legalization.
"Do the (L)'s want to privatize the military too?"
Not exactly. Although the 2000 Libertarian presidential candidate thought the proper way to respond to 9/11 was to issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal.
Some Libertarians do call for the elimination of all courts and police and fire departments. If you have a legal dispute or want police or fire protection, you should contract with a private provider.
Hilarious!
Do you realize that even a small split, where say just 1 out of 10 Republicans walk, that it is the Democrats and no one else that will benefit? If just a splinter of a splinter of Republicans walk wholesale, the Democrats will win a huge majority and the presidency.
Thanks for the info. I actually agree in concept that, generally speaking, private ownership is better than government ownership of certain resources, but the (L)'s are a lot more "extreme" in that respect than I am. Using your earlier example, a public transportation system just makes good sense.
It depends.... I get the sense that there are really three main groupings of political beliefs these days: A moral conservative grouping, a left-wing/green grouping, and a centrist, moderate/libertarian grouping. The moral conservatives are about 35-40%; the left-wing/greens are about 15-20%, and the center is about 40-50%.
The Democrats stay close by keeping the left-wing greens, black voters who are moral conservatives, and centrists who are more scared of moral conservatives than the left.
However, if there was a split in the GOP, the black moral conservatives could leave the Dems (especially if the conservatives took some other name than "Repblican") and the moderate Dems could well join the centrist party. We'd have, at least for a little while, a party system that represented most Americans without any faction able to pin down anything more than a bare majority.
Makes a lot of sense.
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.