GOP Is Losing Its Libertarian Voters

HUMAN EVENTS ^ | Dec 08, 2006 | David Boaz and David Kirby

[Stone Mountain]

President Bush and the congressional Republicans left no libertarian button unpushed in the past six years: soaring spending, expansion of entitlements, federalization of education, cracking down on state medical marijuana initiatives, Sarbanes-Oxley, gay marriage bans, stem cell research restrictions, wiretapping, incarcerating U.S. citizens without a lawyer, unprecedented executive powers, and of course an unnecessary and apparently futile war.

Don't forget Frist sneaking in that provision that banned internet poker right before the election... I believe that had a bigger effect on this election than many think...

[Stone Mountain]

Libertarians aren't really a natural part of the GOP constituency, and shouldn't be treated as such or relied upon in any way.

I can feel that tent shrinking... shrinking...

[Stone Mountain]

Libertarians are classical liberals: pro free market and keep government out of my guns, bedroom and personal life liberals.

Gee, I believe in the free market and keeping government out of my guns, bedroom and personal life. Wow, who knew I was a Liberal? Amazing.

[Stone Mountain]

Why you would attack a Libertarian voter for not voting for the Republican party is unclear. The only reason why libertarians and members of the Libertarian party ever vote Republican is because they feel like positives of the fiscal conservative aspect of the party outweigh the negatives of its theocon side. Unfortunately, over the last 6 years the GOP has become less and less fiscally conservative and began catering more and more to theocons. The GOP being expecting libertarian voters is like an unattractive, unemployed guy being upset because a girl doesn't choose to be with him.

Absolutley correct.

[California Patriot]

I certainly acknowledge that the Republican failure to limit government is a problem. But I think most Republicans in office do WANT to limit government. If there had been a larger majority in the Senate and a more secure majority in the House, it might have happened. Much of the problem stemmed from two things: Fear of losing our majority (cuts ARE unpopular) and inability to overcome filibusters in the Senate. In politics, you have to play on a team, and you have to be patient. Also, it is extremely "unintelligent" to allow the worse party to win just because the less-bad party isn't very good. It's only justified if the less-bad party is fairly certain to shape up after it loses. And that doesn't necessarily happen.

[Stone Mountain]

There are actually Marxist trolls here on FreeRepublic who cloak themselves in liberal-tarianism and attack anything related to Genesis... I could give you quite a list of their user names.

Please do...

[Stone Mountain]

The 1994 landslide pulled in all sorts of what I now call "liberty voters" - who, having seen Waco, Ruby Ridge, and HillaryCare became convinced that they were about to lose something important. The modern GOP congressional majority became contemptuous of liberty voters and their interests. But there cannot BE a GOP majority without liberty voters, and they have come to hate the Dobsonites. This Humpty-Dumpty has gotten badly broken up.

All true. And Liberty voters is a good way to distinguish them from Libertarians...

[neverdem]

Frankly by themselves, Libertarians cannot even add up to 1% of the vote. So the question is, do the Libertarians want to be politically relevant or not?

Neither this thread which mentioned about 15%, IIRC, nor this link is talking about the big 'L' Libertarian Party which will rarely be anything other than a spoiler. We're talking about one seventh of the electorate, small 'l' libertarians. Without the dems actively threatening some gun control BS, which they didn't say a peep this time, they can be the swing vote.

Libertarianism in One Country - On the Brink and beyond.

"According to Brink Lindsey, only 13 percent of Americans currently lean libertarian."

[B Knotts]

There are at least as many (I'd guess more) secular big-government types in the GOP as there are big-government social conservatives.

Heck, how many FReepers are supporting Giuliani, an authoritarian big-government type of the worst sort, and pretty much the antithesis of the "liberty voter?"

[Darkwolf377]

I'd have to agree with you there--there is a libertarian thrust in true Republican politics; the Libertarian PARTY is like a bunch of high school civics class geeks creating a design for how the world should work.

[Darkwolf377]

Yeah, a President Hillary Bush will get NOTHING done with a Democrat Republican, Pelosi/Reid Hastert/Frist-led Congress on hand. It's not social conservatism that lost the '08 election, as the left would have you believe. It was fiscal liberalism.

Yeah--the voters are so outraged by fiscal liberalism that they put a bunch of fiscal liberals in power.

[Darkwolf377]

Nah... just blame it on the 1% of voters who still think having PRINCIPLES still means something...

The self-pity of those who have helped bring the democrats this glorious victory continues to astonish.

[Darkwolf377]

Please show me in the Constitution where there's a "two party system" requirement... I'll wait.

Where, exactly, did I say there's a "two party system requirement in the COnstitution"?

I'll wait.

Also, please show me where in the Constitution that the two dominant parties in the nation will be the Democrat and Republican parties. I'll wait.

Whenever someone around here mentions a simple REALITY, the "third-party" drumbeaters always rush to silly false arguments.

There is no such requirement; I never said there was. But if one looks at history--not the Constitution--one finds there are always TWO sides battling for dominance. When there are multiple parties, they are variations of those two parties, and many other, smaller groups which are irrelevant.

If you want to bitch about "RINO's" (please show me where in the Constitution it says that the Republican party is the party of religious conservatives. I'll wait.), then I hope you enjoy a future where 20% of the electorate gets a "real" party--I can't wait to see how happy you are when that day comes. Oh, and kiss the solidity of the US political system--and our dominance in finance and world affairs--goodbye, as the US is seen to have the stability of a Third World nation.

[Darkwolf377]

I'm not a Libertarian, and Republicans like you, who were willing to excuse all sorts of ridiculousness in Washington, while we were in power, are a large part of the reason we aren't in power now.

What kind of ridiculousness did I excuse in Washington?

[Darkwolf377]

Please see my answer above, and I ask the same question of you.

Obviously a lot of people need to learn the difference between reality and a government's design.

[Doohickey]

Yeah--the voters are so outraged by fiscal liberalism that they put a bunch of fiscal liberals in power.

Yeah--and you can blame either the symptom or the disease. Meanwhile, the disease marches merrily on.

[Darkwolf377]

Issuing reams of position statements and press releases that nobody will ever read.

Yes, but like Liberals, they FEEEEL good because they FELT something; Libertarians feel superior because they come up with these silly plans that will never happen.

Like a liberal I know who drives two gas guzzlers and works for a large corporation, while I gave up my car and walk and use public transportation, and at the time was working in a homeless shelter--I was still evil because I vote Republican, while she hated George W. Bush. When I pointed out that she talks like a liberal while she lived like her caricature of a Republican, our friendship ended.

[Darkwolf377]

Yeah--and you can blame either the symptom or the disease. Meanwhile, the disease marches merrily on.

OK, so they toss out the fiscal liberals and put a bunch of fiscal liberals in power--and that's a "symptom"?

Sounds more like you've come up with a convenient theory that doesn't hold water.

People bitch about fiscal liberalism, except for their own pet projects. They vote for those who spend lots of money on the things they want, and against those who do otherwise. That's about the extent of most people's fighting the disease of fiscal liberalism.

[Poser]

"Sounds more like you've come up with a convenient theory that doesn't hold water."

That sounds a little like, "Vote for the Nazis because they aren't Communists."

[HitmanLV]

Not really. I don't think they have enough in common with the GOP mainstream thinking to be a reliable part of the GOP alliance. While libertarian numbers are growing, they haven't done a good job in marketing their ideas, and their philosophical nature, some of it admirable, makes compromise unrealistic with either major political party.

They really have no natural home with the GOP or with the Dems. That's not to say that someday they won't, but I think for now they are best on their own until they win the debate of ideas and get many, many more converts. Until then, they tend to be the smartest person in the room, who hasn't actually accomplished much of anything.

They have a good rap, though.