Posted on 11/08/2006 2:27:12 PM PST by quidnunc
New York – Glum Republicans might turn their attention to the Libertarian Party to vent their anger. Libertarians are a generally Republican-leaning constituency, but over the last few years, their discontent has grown plain. It isn't just the war, which some libertarians supported, but the corruption and insider dealing, and particularly the massive expansion of spending. Mr Bush's much-vaunted prescription drug benefit for seniors, they fume, has opened up another gaping hole in America's fiscal situation, while the only issue that really seemed to energise congress was passing special laws to keep a brain-damaged woman on life support.
In two of the seats where control looks likely to switch, Missouri and Montana, the Libertarian party pulled more votes than the Democratic margin of victory. Considerably more, in Montana. If the Libertarian party hadn't been on the ballot, and the three percent of voters who pulled the "Libertarian" lever had broken only moderately Republican, Mr Burns would now be in office.
Does this mean that the libertarians are becoming a force in national elections, much as Ralph Nader managed to cost Al Gore a victory in 2000? Hope springs eternal among third-party afficionadoes, but the nature of the American electoral system, which directly elects representatives in a first-past-the-post system, makes it nearly impossible for third parties to gain traction. The last time it happened was in the 1850's, when the Whig party dissolved over internal disputes about slavery, opening the way for the emerging Republican party to put Abraham Lincoln in office. And acting as a spoiler is dubiously effective at achieving one's goals. In theory, it could pull the Repubicans towards the Libertarians, but in practice, it may just elect Democrats, pushing the nation's economic policy leftwards.
(Excerpt) Read more at economist.com ...
Can't be. Libertarians don't matter. I hear it here everyday.
See any flaws in that logic?
Yup, without Libertarians the GOP will go the way of the Whig party...
The difference between liberals, conservatives and libertarians. An anology:
A conservative meets a homeless alcholic on the street who asks him for a dollar; he yells a few obsentities at the man for being a bum and a drunk then passes him by, ignoring the principles of the Christianity he wears on his sleeve.
A liberal meets the same man, grabs him against his will, stuffs him in his vehicle and takes him to a AA shelter which is supported by tax dollars (none of which the drunk wants) then forgets about him and tells himself he's done a good deed. Suffering from the DTs, the drunk later dies.
A libertarian meets the man and gives him a dollar to help buy a bottle of Thunderbird.
And when you hard-right Bible-thumping neocons understand you're only a bit more tolerable than the hard-left perhaps we'll have a great country again.
Thank you!
Nope. My little 'ankle biter' is currently at Ft. Benning at the Ranger School.
Got any more ad hom's that you want to throw out there? Anything to avoid discussing the failure of your party eh Chief?
A true "Libertarian" is the exact opposite of socialist. If your neighbor is truly a Libertarian, then his positions should not only include "legalized drugs" and "open borders" but also an elimination of government agencies such as the FDA and the Dept. of Ed., an elmination of all gov't social programs, removing the U.S. from the United Nations, etc. etc.
While "socialist" is on the far Left, "Libertarian" is on the far Right. I think many Freepers lean in the libertarian direction on many issues, even if we're voting Republican. But the term is being hijacked by people on the Left.
It's not ALL about the quality of it's spin doctors, but that's a huge portion of it.
The other problem is that if you present yourself as the paragon of virtue and family values, you best be able to hold up to scrutiny in those areas.
Losers always blame everybody else. That's how they get to be losers.
One can't help but wonder: if the situation were reversed, if the Republican candidate was a libertarian and the third-party candidate was a socio-con, would many of these self-proclaimed TrueConservatives(TM) vote, against their values, for the Republican or the socio-con?
See #257. The Linear No-Threshold theory was established *without data* by Linus Pauling for political purposes.
It was used as justification to shut down nuclear testing and ultimately deny the US access to energy.
That's why Pauling was awarded the Lenin prize for his efforts.
For more on the subject see
Good article in yesterday's WSJ explaining while oil company exploration expenditures have increased 70% since 2001, this only represents a 5% increase in actual equipment and materials due to high commodity prices.
Well, let us know if they reproduce Shakespeare. And get out of the way while people with 3 digit IQs engage in ... what is it? ... thought.
Hubris is a moral disease, often fatal.
Bush has allowed nation building to become more important than fighting radical Islam. Well, we can count on Majority Leader Murtha to help us with that.
We should stick to our strengths, i.e. nation wrecking, not national building.
"Basically there are many Americans who don't agree with conservativism. It is very dissapointing but that's what it is."
IMO, dead wrong. The deal is simply that many people who *do* consider themselves conservatives decided that the Republican party as it stood in office didn't actually *implement* conservative principles. Therefore those people chose to sit out or vote 3rd party.
Obviously in the short-term this means Dims win. Over the last few months I've argued with people on various boards that the expression of their discontent would mean that the polar opposite of their preferred position would win (which, of course, just happened).
Their response was that this may be true but that allowing the status quo would endorse big-government Republicanism, and that a loss now gives an opportunity to enact real conservatism next time. No amount of repetition about how this was going to ensure, for instance, an illegal amnesty, made one dent in those peoples' opinions.
Me, I did my uprooting of RINOs in the primary by helping to vote out Schwarz (MI).
OK, they had their stand, and the first half of the prediction has come true; the Dims are in charge. Now, let's see if we can make the second half of their prediction come true and come back in '08 with a small-government conservative win.
Sorry I'm late, love.
Lovely quote (nothing like an appeal to authority tackle an argument). Unfortunately the efficacy of it's use rests on a single assumption; that you think all libertarians believe hat the current Republican party is the lesser of two evils. Some still do... just.
And yet consider, if you will, that the past 6 yrs have convinced many of us otherwise. Taking that into account, the quote you use is rather irrelevant isn't it? I mean, it's one thing to vote for the lesser of two evils if one is to choose between, say, Jimmy Carter and Joseph Stalin, in which case one must, with a sigh, compromise one's principles in the name of expedience. But the issue here is that the lesser of two evils in this two party system has become increasingly difficult to isolate, and the expedience simply doesn't significantly justify the attenuation of ones principles
What I really like about that particular quote you use is that, by and large, it's one of the favorites used to support the intrusive economic policies of the democrats. Regard:-
'2. By withholding unnecessary opportunities from a few, to increase the inequality of property, by an immoderate, and especially an unmerited, accumulation of riches. 3. By the silent operation of laws, which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigence towards a state of comfort.'
Incidentally, he later criticized his views on suffrage in these 5 proposals for exactly the reasons Democrats like to use them. Namely because he recognized that tyranny by majority, if that majority happened to own less, would almost certainly come into conflict with property rights. That is, if a majority decided someone had too much money, the majority might be inclined to take it. Hmm... now who does that remind you of?
I won't charge you for the edumacation. It's free
It's a word game. Most LP issues are.
The plank is worded "let peaceful people cross borders freely."
What brings one back to the Republicans in a Post 9/11 world is the fact that, if you let people cross the border freely, how will you know if they are peaceful?
Yet again, Tuesday proved that Republicans haven't answered that question either.
I did vote Republican by the way. I voted for only two LP Candidates, one for PSC commissioner (I know him) and one for Agriculture commissioner (best man for the job.)
I have voted for only two Democrats in my life, Zell Miller and Sam Nunn (and still proud of it!).
http://www.self-gov.org/communicating/type.html
- I found several prominent libertarians who swear by it. David Bergland (INTP), 1984 Presidential candidate, discovered the MBTI in 1985 through the book Please Understand Me. "I use it all the time in my work as an attorney," he told me. When speaking to groups or individuals about libertarianism, David finds it extremely useful. "People are what they are. There is room and a need for all types. When you deal with people on the basis of their values, you are on the way to winning." In fact, David now has a consulting business in which he conducts workshops on type for attorneys. -
"4 temperament types derived from the 16 personality types"
- Over the years, observers have noted that most libertarians are Intuitive Thinkers (NTs, "green cards") - a temperament type that makes up only 12% of the population. - Sharon Harris - Advocates for Self Government.
This is not a secret. It isn't a trick and I have found generally a fifty-fifty mix of Democrats and Republicans involved with the LP. Nobody else soiled your Wheaties. You are what you are.
Nice strawman. Check out what I posted way up-thread at #180.
But just because the heart of conservatism is libertarianism, doesn't mean that all of libertarianism is conservative. Socially liberal but fiscally conservative libertarians might vote Democrat rather than Republican, especially as the Republican party has become more authoritarian/socialist in its approach.
It is scientifically impossible to be addicted to THC. Sorry your Amway boss lost to a chick the other day.
Just as I thought - you are the "real jerk"--but that is to be expected from someone who lives in New Jersey and all that that entails.
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.