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

CATO Institute by way of Heretical Ideas.com ^ | 10/24/2006 | Tom Traina

[Matchett-PI]

Has Our Time Come? http://www.hereticalideas.com/

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.

** http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1718392/posts

[steve-b]

If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.
Now, I can't say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don't each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path.

[steve-b]

The Dimorats NEVER vote "libertarian" on ANY policy issue that favors small government.

Nonsense. To give them their due, they've generally been good at getting rid of Big Government Comstockery.

[steve-b]

I don't speak crazy.

Odd; your earlier posts to this thread indicate that you are fluent in it.

[sheikdetailfeather]

The very fact that people have to ask why this happened proves that those who sought to punish the Republicans never really got the point/points? across!! Now we have speaker Pelosi and those who want terrorist rights. Wow! What a great step in the right direction!..NOT!

[steve-b]

Ramesh Ponnuru has a cover story in the new National Review about Cato's view of things: according to him, there are fewer libertarians or "economic conservatives" in the country than traditionalists or social conservatives

The GOP has mortally offended the libertarian/economic conservative portion of the electorate, while sucking up to the traditionalist/social conservative portion. The result is that they got their heads handed to them yesterday.

Conclusion: Ramesh Ponnuru needs new batteries for his calculator, or new beads for his abacus, or a sharper point on his pencil, or some improvement to whatever he's using to keep score.

[fight_truth_decay]

"Hardly. They approved the building of a wimpy fence over a small percentage of our border, but they failed to fund it."

I'm sure the Democrats will do far better with that issue. They'll probably even ask Tom Tancredo to head a Task Force regarding it.

Sarcasm on..I am sure.

While we're at it a nice shiny bridge to the US and a McDonalds, Dunkin Donuts or Burger King with banners "Welcome to America!" ...the Land of Milk and Honey.

[rottweiller_inc]

how much of that has to do with the two party mentality. a question: how many high schoolers do you suppose would say the two party system is in the constitution?

[Hemingway's Ghost]

I won't vote for a RINO. My vote has to be earned by the candidate NOT being a liberal. That isn't too much to ask.

Amen to that, DC. Did the exact same thing.

[Constantine XIII]

I don't see what you mean. :)

[rottweiller_inc]

oh i think you see it. the two party system is drummed into the citizens of the good old us of a almost from birth.

[Constantine XIII]

Well, sort of, but I don't see what that has to do with the fact that Libertarians refuse to organize at the grassroots level and try to win local and state posts instead of trying and failing to be president and senator over and over. :p

[fight_truth_decay]

Rush Limbaugh's opinion is dead on. Don't blame the Libertarians. The Republicans are to blame.

The old blame game. Sounds like the DU.

"It's silly to blame the media. It is silly to blame the Democrats. It is silly to go out and try to find all these excuses," he said.

And Rush is thanked by one senator newly elected for the comments on Michael J.Fox and his "acting". She has stated, if not for Rush, she might not have won. Course Rush doesn't want anyone blamming the media. He and Kerry both made major media Bloopers! ;)

The Media played to the sympathy of the people and even though they thought they had a good life economically, the media told them differently. I hold a trick full length mirror up before you and say: " Look..You are not fat, but you know you are."

All Smoke and Mirrors.

But we go on.........

[rottweiller_inc]

it's not seen as possible yet. too much sentiment for the democrat/republican way of elections..one or both of the parties will have to fail first.

[Constantine XIII]

That's not going to happen if ya'll don't work at it.

The system is in equilibrium as it is. It will have to be actively upset if change is desired.

Things will not change otherwise. By change, I mean L candidates actually winning office.

[rottweiller_inc]

the system is not equalibrium at all..people are fed up with both and the other third parties are no different that wolves in that they have an instinct for weak prey. the groundwork is already laid. just a matter of time.

[mthom]

"This stings liberarians so much because it's true; socially, they're identical to Democrats....legalized abortion, euthanisia, eugenics, anything-goes morals, drug use. Libertarians are nothing but Democrats that don't want to pay taxes."

I love when they claim that a libertarian society would allow all those things but wouldnt have any of those things. Sure

[Wuli]

Are you nuts? Give us one example!

[muir_redwoods]

When the Republican party abandoned any trace of its libertarian roots and became just another big-spending, Abramoff-loving, corrupt, scandal-ridden party (like we need another one) it lost the libertarian vote.

I am a libertarian, small "L" and I voted a straight republican ticket yesterday. I am sorry for the loss but don't blame the libertarian wing. It was the so-called mainstream of the party that abandoned its roots and its character. That is why we lost.

[Jacquerie]

The Libertarian Party is for totally open borders and not defending our country. They are a problem, not a solution.

Amen. Aside from Congressman Ron Paul I don't recall another Libertarian at the federal level. No senators, no current congressmen or even governors right? The party has been around for over 30 years and all it has done is help elect demorats. As long as constitutionalists are divided we can look forward to more demorat victories.

IIRC once upon a time, the Libertarians even nominated that weirdo pervert Howard Stern for NY governor. Why give Libertarians the time of day?

[Constantine XIII]

"the system is not equalibrium at all..people are fed up with both and the other third parties are no different that wolves in that they have an instinct for weak prey. the groundwork is already laid. just a matter of time."

"it's not seen as possible yet. too much sentiment for the democrat/republican way of elections..one or both of the parties will have to fail first."

Make up yer mind! ;)

Hey, don't get me wrong, I'm sympatheic. The reason I'm angry at the Libertarians isn't because they want to win; that would be great if a 3rd party could come in, kick butt, and make changes! What angers me is that they are trying to destroy the Republicans, not by winning, but by drawing votes and throwing elections to Democrats. Moreover, what good is destroying the Republican party if there is no new party apparatus ready to replace them?

You see what I mean?