HAS OUR TIME COME? (Blame CATO/Libertarians for this election result)

A **new study from the Cato Institute [see link below] suggests that libertarians might be the new swing vote.

The libertarian vote is in play. At some 13 percent of the electorate, it is sizable enough to swing elections. Pollsters, political strategists, candidates, and the media should take note of it.

After examining the relevant polling data, Cato concludes that libertarians and libertarian sympathizers constitute somewhere between 10 and 20% of the American population. Some explanations are offered as to why libertarians constitute such a bigger constituency than one might expect. First is that libertarians tend not to be as well-organized as other interest groups. Most groups that organize and try to exert political influence want some sort of government action: unions want favorable labor laws passed, the Christian Coalition wants abortion outlawed and anti-homosexual laws passed, environmentalists want pollution restricted and ecosystems protected, businesses want favorable tax and commercial laws. Libertarians generally don’t want government to take action, and are therefore less likely to organize into a pressure group because of that. It also argues that the difficulty people have in breaking out of the left-right liberal-conservative paradigm of politics keeps “populists” (authoritarians) and libertarians underrepresented. While most political scholarship accepts the inadequacy of a simple one-dimensional view of politics, it hasn’t sunk down into popular culture as strongly. Often talk shows and debate programs on television and radio will feature someone “from the left” and someone “from the right”, squeezing libertarians out of the picture.

An unexplored reason that might contribute is the higher prevalence of libertarianism among younger people than older people. The Cato paper notes this statistic but doesn’t explore its relationship to voter turnout. It explains the phenomenon this way. Younger people were more influenced by 2 of the most significant individualist movements of the 20th century: the ’60s counter culture and the ’80s Reagan Revolution. As a result, younger generations have seen both the socially liberal and the economically conservative side of individualism and turn to libertarianism as a way to emulate both ideals. The downside is that since younger people in general are less likely to vote, libertarians wind up underrepresented at the polls.

But don’t libertarian have to swing their votes to become a swing vote? Well, more and more frequently libertarian-minded people are losing the loyalty to the party they usually vote for (mostly the GOP), which puts their vote as a bloc in play.

Many commentators noted the high turnout in the 2004 election. Nationally, voter turnout increased 6.1 percent. That might help explain some of the swing in 2004. According to ANES data, libertarians reported turning out to vote at higher percentages than total respondents in 2000 and even higher in 2004.

This libertarian swing trend is particularly pronounced by age. Libertarians aged 18–29 many of whom were new voters in 2004 voted 71–42 for Kerry. Libertarians aged 30–49 voted almost completely the reverse, 72–21 for Bush.

Going back to the generational argument, I imagine that older individuals who can remember a time when the religious Right wasn’t nearly as omnipresent of a force in the Republican Party and therefore don’t automatically associate it with tirades about the moral dangers of homosexuality and feticide. So I can understand younger libertarians leaning more democratic than older ones who might remember the time of more Goldwater-like or even maybe Reagan-like Republicans.

What does all this mean in practical terms? What will we see coming out of the major political parties Conservatives resist cultural change and personal liberation; liberals resist economic dynamism and globalization. Libertarians embrace both. The political party that comes to terms with that can win the next generation.

It would really be great to see both political parties converge to a libertarian center. But as the article points out, the nature of libertarians makes them much harder to corral than other groups, which makes attracting us to their political parties a far more expensive and riskier proposition than going after churchgoers and soccer moms. Perhaps in time it will happen. But I doubt it will happen very soon.

That was before I realized they were rabidly pro-abortion, for legalization of all drugs, which would be the ruin of so many and although the military is one of the branched that they do feel is necessarily part of the governent they apparantly don't believe it should EVER be used. That and of course that 95% of their candidates are total nutjobs.

Amen, brother. (Unfortunately.) If the Founders read some of the assertions Libertarians make in their name, they would leave the room as if to escape a bad smell.

It's too bad not to have balance—to realize that the people's freedom includes public spaces free from certain kinds of vice for which many people (including some Libertarians) seem to have a weakness.

I learned a lot from Libertarians during the Reagan years and met many great minds among them. They did excellent work on economics, which needed to be justified from the ground up after decades of Great Society hogwash. I heard Walter Williams speak at their New York State convention. He seems to be way more conservative than Libertarian now.

We all need to recognize that there is a certain minimum social order needed in order to make economic freedom possible. Liberals and Libertarians share something important: a lack of appreciation of some of the sources of the comfort and opportunity we all enjoy in the West. Two sources I have in mind include our legal prejudices in favor of normal family life and a military that can kick butt. There's no economic freedom when the Huns (or the Mooselimbs, or ACORN) break down your infrastructure and replace it with disorder.

"Conservatives need a slap in the face."

November 02, 2006

The 2006 Choice

By Cal Thomas
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/11/the_2006_choice.html

Conservatives who are upset that Republicans haven't done enough during their 12 years in control of the House and Senate and nearly six years in control of the White House need a slap in the face.

Republicans may have controlled all three branches of government, but conservatives haven't.

If conservatives believe enough has not been done to advance their agenda, let them work to elect more conservatives, not hand control of Congress over to a party controlled by far-left liberals who have no intention of moderating their tone or watering down their beliefs after the election.

One issue should trump all others for conservatives: judges.

As Manuel Miranda of Third Branch writes in Human Events, "If the GOP loses the Senate, precedent shows that more than 60 Bush judicial nominees will never get a Judiciary Committee hearing under the chairmanship of Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.).

Republicans will be unable to stop a filibuster of a next Supreme Court nominee and countless circuit court picks. This will dwarf Democrats' past six years of obstruction."

Liberals have used the courts for decades to bypass the public will and impose a secular agenda on the country.

If they win control of the Senate, their current leadership will be emboldened to continue that practice.

Any judge who manages to make it onto the bench will most likely be of the judicial philosophy of Anthony Kennedy and David Souter. Republican presidents named both men because they thought it would be easier to win the approval of Senate Democrats. Neither turned out to be conservative, despite the White House sales job to conservative groups.

Then there is the war.

We live in a time when most people do not remember what a real war looks like.

Some are horrified that nearly 3,000 Americans have died in the Iraq War, but ignore that in World War II more than 407,000 Americans died. Sixty-two million were killed on all sides.

Some say this war is taking longer than that war.

That's because this war is different from that war in that it has no home state, unless we abandon Iraq. And the enemy accepts no rules for fighting it.

Democrats speak only of withdrawing American troops and of how our presence inflames the enemy, yet they have no explanation for what inflamed them before the war.

President Bush may have to change tactics, as he has said he is willing to do, but he understands the challenge. This isn't Vietnam.

This is a religious-philosophical war for control of the planet.

Anyone who thinks any objective other than the complete defeat and humiliation of these Islamofascists will deter them from their goal of world domination is self-delusional.

Last week over lunch, I asked Vice President Dick Cheney about conservative angst. He said in previous campaigns, "I would have given a lot to get an economy this good to be able to run on." Noting the recession that occurred right after he and the president took office in 2001, Cheney told me, "We (also) had 9/11. . We had Katrina, a war.

We had to spend a lot of money on the war and homeland security. And so a series of repeated shocks... to the economy and here we are, we've got 4.6 unemployment. We added 6.6 million new jobs in the last three years. Productivity is running at an all-time high. More Americans (are) working than ever before. Inflation is under control. . The stock market has hit all-time records.

What do you want? How much better do we have to make it before people say, 'yes, that's pretty good'?" It's a good question.

Is there anyone who believes government doesn't have enough of our money? Then vote for Democrats.

Is there anyone who thinks withdrawing from Iraq before the country can stand on its own against terrorism means there won't be more terrorism? Then vote for Democrats.

Do you prefer liberal judges reading their prejudices into the Constitution and increasingly depriving us of our right to decide our own future? Then vote for Democrats.

If not, conservatives should vote Republican and then work to continue advancing conservative goals. Those goals are more likely to be reached under Republicans than under Democrats.

That's the choice this year, a choice that will be made whether one votes, or cuts and runs out of a false notion that Republicans need to be punished for not doing more.

As the vice president said, "What do you want?"

bttt

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.