GOP Is Losing Its Libertarian Voters

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

[HitmanLV]

Not at all. One thing both conservatives and liberals have in common is that they see an appropriate use of government and law as an agent for social policy. They disagree on the goals and the methods.

I think that's true also of most moderates and centrists. Libertarians, at least the ones I know, don't acknowledge a government role as an agent for a social policy. By this standard, libertarians are neither moderates nor centrists, so I don't know if the labeling you suggest is terribly helpful.

I actually like moderates and centrists in the GOP. Libertarians are neither - they tend to have a fringy approach to law, political policy, and social policy. The day that a majority of americans see things their way will be a happy day for them. That's far off, and I don't consider them reliable ideological kin to conservatives, moderates, centrists, or liberals for that matter.

[neverdem]

"stem cell research restrictions." by which the dishonest author means embryonic stem cell restrictions - in fact, there are many pro-life libertarians who object to Mengalian experimentation on human life

I don't know how dishonest the authors are, but I would be surprised to find any informed libertarian that wanted to fund with taxes embryonic stem cell research. Results so far is without any clinical utility.

[Indy Pendance]

Free Republic now is just a popular chat site. And that's really a pity, because we have a lot of like minded folks who could do something, but they just 'don't have the time'. Free Republic used to be a do something site, not a bitch and moan site.

[onyx]

Some chapters are still "doing good work." I miss San Diego for that reason and I applaud and thank my San Diego FRiends for their continued good FReeps.

You have FR mail.

[neverdem]

I could never figure why anyone votes libertarian. You might as well stay home.

Should the Conservatives in NY State stay home too, or should they vote for the likes of Bloomberg, Giuliani and Pataki?

[HitmanLV]

I think that libertarians have some things in common with conservatives, but depart from most conservatives in several respects. Most conservatives and liberals do think there is a legitimate role of government in setting social policy, though they disagree with the goals and methods.

Libertarians I know don't think that's the case. The small government part is ok, but I tend to think conservatives have an agenda beyond that, and not limited to a 'theocon' agenda in any way. Most Americans believe there is a legitimate role of government in the social sphere - libertarians tend to think there isn't. They tend to really have no major political party as a natural home for them, their fiscal conservatism notwithstanding.

As it stands they haven't been able to convince many Americans of their point of view. That being said, their numbers are growing. But I don't consider their votes to be ones that the GOP can count on or rely upon.

I said before the election if the dems control the House by a 230 or so seats, the GOP won't see control of the House for a very long time, maybe decades. That has almost nothing to do with libertarian voters in those districts, though.

I just think that while conservatives and libertarians are of like mind on many issues, they are of different mind of other issues and just aren't a reliable part of the GOP constituency. The last election demonstrated that in some areas, but that's not to say libertarian voters are needed for conservatives to win. The GOP won many races in 2002 and 2004 by healthy margins - those weren't all libertarians making the difference. The GOP can win with some libertarian minded voters, but it certainly doesn't need them all, and it certainly doesn't need them to win, notwithstanding solid and heavy losses in 2006.

I just don't want serious minded libertarians to compromise much to join GOP ranks, and i don't want conservatvies to compromise much to make libertarians happy. The fact is there just aren't that many libertarians and until there are more, they are just a marginal force that tends to not accomplish very much, outside of talking.

And talk, after all, is cheap. Once they organize and capture larger numbers, they might win now and then. Until then, they need to work on converting people to their point of view and gaining political clout. I wish them the best but I find them to not be a good fit with the GOP except for some fiscal issues, and frankly that issue is overrated since it's clear to me that enough people like fat DC spending - at least, the fat DC spending that comes their way.

[Indy Pendance]

What happened to the FR network? where is all the chapter work?

[goldstategop]

Exactly. If we're going to give these voters the boot and tell them we don't want them, we shouldn't be surprised to see the Democrats end up running the country.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus

[California Patriot]

Uh, Jeff, I attacked the big-L Libertarian voters.

And I attacked them because they cost us Senate seats, not for their beliefs.

[neverdem]

And smoke doobies.

The war on guns: Joel Miller explains how drug cops are killing 2nd Amendment

Connecting the War on Guns & Drugs [my title]

The war on some drugs is as effective as alcohol prohibition and funds islamofascists.

[onyx]

Aside from the D.C. chapter and their GOOD work every Friday night at Walter Reed, the Fresno chapter and an occasional San Diego FReep, I can't name any others. Pitiful, huh?

[Indy Pendance]

Or Hillary. Get a grip. You people don't know history. Well, check this history out. This is the battle we're fighting. If people fail to see the big picture, than they shouldn't be allowed to voice an opinion, because the overall objective, outing the libs is forefront, not a one issue wonder. If you all can't see this, you don't belong here. IF we get a 300 majority, like the dems did in history, yes, review the below data, then maybe we can dictate how things are going to be. Now, we're lucky to get our dog catcher elected. And with the bare majority we had the previous 6 years, it's a wonder anything was done. For Gods sake, look at the FDR years, and you wonder why social security passed. People. You need to learn history, us nitpicking now isn't going to do it. Stand up, do something other than gripe and moan on the internet. Have you actually helped a conservative cause? LOL! And if this is what Free Republic's become, a bitch and moan session, then I suppose my time is done here. Frankly, I can join any chat site and get the same results.

Historical Party Strength in Congress U.S. Senate

Historical Party Strength in Congress U.S. House

As if anyone on this board other than us long timers really care about the history of politics. Look at the FDR years, they had at times over 2/3rds in the senate:

1933-1935 1935-1937 1937-1939 1939-1941 1941-1943 1943-1945	73rd 74th 75th 76th 77th 78th	D D D D D D	60 69 76 69 66 58	R R R R R R	35 25 16 23 28 37	1 2 4 4 2 1	F.Roosevelt (D) F.Roosevelt (D) F.Roosevelt (D) F.Roosevelt (D) F.Roosevelt (D) F.Roosevelt (D)
1945-1947 1947-1949 1949-1951 1951-1953 1953-1955 1955-1957	79th 80th 81st 82nd 83rd 84th	D R D D R D	56 51 54 49 48 48	R D R R D R	38 45 42 47 47 47	1 - - - 1 1	F.Roosevelt (D) Truman (D) Truman (D) Truman (D) Eisenhower (R) Eisenhower (R)
1957-1959 1959-1961 1961-1963 1963-1965 1965-1967 1967-1969	85th 86th 87th 88th 89th 90th	D D D D D D	49 65 65 67 68 64	R R R R R R	47 35 35 33 32 36	1 1 1 1 1 1	Eisenhower (R) Eisenhower (R) Kennedy (D) Kennedy (D) L.Johnson (D) L.Johnson (D)
1969-1971 1971-1973 1973-1975 1975-1977 1977-1979 1979-1981	91st 92nd 93rd 94th 95th 96th	D D D D D D	57 54 56 60 61 58	R R R R R R	43 44 42 37 38 41	- 2 2 3 1 1	Nixon (R) Nixon (R) Nixon(R) Ford (R) Carter (D) Carter (D)
1981-1983 1983-1985 1985-1987 1987-1989 1989-1991 1991-1993	97th 98th 99th 100th 101st 102nd	R R R D D D	53 55 53 55 54 56	D D D R R R	46 45 47 45 46 44	1 - - - - -	Reagan (R) Reagan (R) Reagan (R) Reagan (R) GHW Bush (R) GHW Bush (R)
1993-1995 1995-1997 1997-1999 1999-2001 2001-2003 2003-2005	103rd 104th 105th 106th 107th 108th	D R R R D R	57 52 55 55 50 51	R D D D R D	43 48 45 45 49 48	- - - - 1 1	Clinton (D) Clinton (D) Clinton (D) Clinton (D) G.W. Bush (R) G.W. Bush (R)

But take a look at the house in that same era. There were only two GOP terms up til 1994, and one congress was pretty slim. And add to the fact that FDR created a welfare country. Well, is it any wonder we are battling for conservative values today, when even the republicans don't know what real limited government is? Especially look where we've come since 1937. And people on FR think this is going to be a piece of cake when historical data indicates otherwise. In other words, getting a real majority of conservative republicans can be done in 6 years is a pipe dream. It's going to take a LONG time. And what have you done do advance conservativism, other than post on a chat site?

1933-1935 1935-1937 1937-1939 1939-1941 1941-1943 1943-1945	73rd 74th 75th 76th 77th 78th	D D D D D D	313 322 334 262 267 222	R R R R R R	117 103 88 169 162 209	5 10 13 4 5 4	F.Roosevelt (D) F.Roosevelt (D) F.Roosevelt (D) F.Roosevelt (D) F.Roosevelt (D) F.Roosevelt (D)
1945-1947 1947-1949 1949-1951 1951-1953 1953-1955 1955-1957	79th 80th 81st 82nd 83rd 84th	D R D D R D	242 246 263 235 221 232	R D R R D R	191 188 171 199 213 203	2 1 1 1 1 -	F.Roosevelt (D) Truman (D) Truman (D) Truman (D) Eisenhower (R) Eisenhower (R)
1957-1959 1959-1961 1961-1963 1963-1965 1965-1967 1967-1969	85th 86th 87th 88th 89th 90th	D D D D D D	234 283 263 259 295 247	R R R R R R	201 153 174 176 140 187	- 1 - - - -	Eisenhower (R) Eisenhower (R) Kennedy (D) Kennedy (D) L.Johnson (D) L.Johnson (D)
1969-1971 1971-1973 1973-1975 1975-1977 1977-1979 1979-1981	91st 92nd 93rd 94th 95th 96th	D D D D D D	243 255 242 291 292 277	R R R R R R	192 180 192 144 143 158	- - 1 - - -	Nixon (R) Nixon (R) Nixon(R) Ford (R) Carter (D) Carter (D)
1981-1983 1983-1985 1985-1987 1987-1989 1989-1991 1991-1993	97th 98th 99th 100th 101st 102nd	D D D D D D	242 269 253 258 260 267	R R R R R R	192 166 182 177 175 167	1 - - - - 1	Reagan (R) Reagan (R) Reagan (R) Reagan (R) GHW Bush (R) GHW Bush (R)
1993-1995 1995-1997 1997-1999 1999-2001 2001-2003 2003-2005	103rd 104th 105th 106th 107th 108th	D R R R R R	258 230 228 223 221 229	R D D D D D	176 204 206 211 212 204	1 1 1 1 2 1	Clinton (D) Clinton (D) Clinton (D) Clinton (D) G.W. Bush (R) G.W. Bush (R)
2005-2007	109th	R	232	D	202	1	G.W. Bush (R)

[Constantine XIII]

Ouch! That'll leave a mark. Nice post!

[onyx]

Now, there's a worthy post and it deserves a thread of its own! Excellent post and research. Thank you, Indy!!!!

BTTT

[JeffAtlanta]

Uh, Jeff, I attacked the big-L Libertarian voters. And I attacked them because they cost us Senate seats, not for their beliefs.

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.

[Indy Pendance]

Sorry, it is what it is. You see it too.

[neverdem]

Or Hillary. Get a grip. You people don't know history.

I know NY Rockefeller Pubbie history quite well. Thank you. That's why NY's Conservative Party was started. They had some successes. The RINOs is in NY have always been too smart by half. Now NY has become doomed by demographics, immigration into and emigration from NY to points south and west. The overall state poulation hasn't changed much in decades, a little over 18 million. I'm not voting for pubbies that want un-Constitutional laws.

[Indy Pendance]

It won't make a dent unless some illegals steal a baby or a family takes a wrong turn, or a 'Mormon' runs for president. If you wonder why republicans don't win, well, just look at the state of our electorate.

[Sunsong]

The parties are due for a realignment - hopefully all the small government voters can unite and save this country from the big government types that control both the Republican and Democratic parties.

What a fabulous idea!!

[Indy Pendance]

Did you even bother to read my post? Prime example of the failure of Free Republic.