Posted on 12/12/2006 7:37:39 AM PST by Small-L
For many years, those who consider themselves to be libertarians have been fairly reliable members of the Republican coalition. Although no libertarian would consider himself or herself to be entirely in agreement with either major party, they have historically sided with the GOP. But the relationship today seems more deeply strained than any time in the last 30 years, and a divorce may be forthcoming.
Basically, libertarians are allied with the right on economic issues and the left on everything else. They believe in the free market and freedom of choice in areas such as drugs, and favor a noninterventionist foreign policy. Consequently, someone who is a libertarian could prefer to ally with the right or the left, depending on what set of issues is most important to him or her.
I first became aware of the libertarian philosophy in 1969, when there was a big split in a college-based group called Young Americans for Freedom, which was supposed to be the right-wing alternative to the left's Students for a Democratic Society. The libertarians broke with those who considered themselves traditionalists -- conservatives in the mold of Edmund Burke and Russell Kirk.
The problem for the libertarians was that they didn't want to conserve anything. Whereas the conservatives prized order and continuity, the libertarians were radicals favoring change. The traditionalists in YAF viewed the libertarians with horror, like the Jacobins of the French Revolution, who destroyed the existing order without putting anything in its place, leading to a reign of terror.
The libertarians countered by associating themselves with the American revolutionary tradition of Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry and others. The true conservative, they argued, must defend both the bad and the good in the existing order. But what if there are deep problems in government and society that require change? The conservative traditionalist has little to offer.
In 1969, the key issue was obviously the Vietnam War. The traditionalists supported it, the libertarians opposed it. But drugs were also an important issue dividing the groups. Libertarians believe people have the right to do what they want with their own bodies, even if they end up hurting themselves in the process. Traditionalists take a more Puritanical approach, believing that people must be protected against their own folly.
Consequently, when I first became acquainted with libertarianism, most libertarians tended to associate with those on the left, where they had more in common. But with the end of the Vietnam War and the huge rise of inflation and other economic problems in the 1970s, libertarians mostly tended to drift rightward.
In the 1970s, the left was clueless about how to fix the economy. They had no idea what was causing inflation and insisted on dealing instead with its symptoms through wage and price controls. The left at that time was also highly sympathetic to socialism and often favor nationalization of businesses like the Penn Central Railroad when bankruptcy threatened.
The right at least understood that excessive money growth by the Federal Reserve caused inflation, and that socialism and nationalization were crazy. So most libertarians moved into the Republican Party, which then had leaders like Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan, who spoke their language and had libertarian sympathies.
With the passing of the older generation of Republican leaders who were at least sympathetic to the libertarian message, a new generation of Puritans have taken over the party. They seem to want nothing more than to impose Draconian new laws against drugs, gambling, pornography and other alleged vices. The new Republican Puritans don't trust people or believe that they have the right to do as they please as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. They want the government to impose itself on peoples' lives and deny them freedom of choice.
At the same time, the Iraq War has aroused the isolationist impulse among libertarians. Only a tiny number of them supported the war in the first place, and they have all now recanted. Moreover, Republicans have lost whatever credibility they once had on economics by indulging in an orgy spending and corruption, and by becoming very unreliable allies on issues such as free trade and government regulation of the economy.
Consequently, many libertarians are drifting back once again to the left, where they find more compatible allies on some of the key issues of the day. And a few on the left are reaching out to libertarians, or at least trying to open a dialogue where there really hasn't been one for a long time.
Libertarians probably don't represent more than 10 percent of the electorate at most and are easy for political consultants to ignore. But they are represented in much larger percentages among opinion leaders and thus have influence disproportionate to their numbers. Republicans will miss them if they leave the party en masse.
The current LP platform is quite clear and supports global free trade. How is the following unclear: "Efforts to forcibly redistribute wealth or forcibly manage trade are intolerable"?
As far as your other question, I don't think lack of taxes equates with anarchy. I don't claim to be speaking for the LP here, but I believe the vast majority of necessary government functions can be paid for by user fees--keeping in mind that this is a remarkably small number of legitimate functions. The rest can be funded one of two ways: either through ultra-low sales taxes or simply how any charitable institution obtains money: donations.
I think people would gladly contribute 5% of their salary for things like a judicial system, a national defense, etc. People will not voluntarily donate 50% of their salary to support a welfare state. Americans donate billions of dollars a year to institutions like the United Way or the Red Cross--is it so outrageous that they would not do the same to support certain functions of government?
re:127
I'm sorry, I don't understand your comment. I didn't say anything about Republicans.
jw
It your party. You define it.
You won't use the Republican Party platform to define republicanism, but you will use the Libertarian Party platform to define libertarianism.
Perhaps that's a good discussion point. Libertarians (Big-L and small-l) are constantly defending ourselves against others who attempt to define our beliefs using their metaphors and names. Would one of the staunch R-bots please define what republicanism is?
It seems appropriate under the circumstances.
"Judging by a lot of posts on this thread, it goes a lot farther than that, they're not just saying "it's your fault," they're saying "get lost and stay lost." Maybe they'll get their wish."
lol well they can kiss the rebels fanny goodbye. I know until the Repubs begin acting and voting and legislating like the conservatives they CLAIM to be, I'll find a real conservative to vote for. Even if it means writing in a conservative candidate to vote for.
Dim lite ain't in my voting future anymore, I'll be damned if I care what letter is beside their name.
"Exactly my point! Only by working within the party could my voice be heard on that by anyone that would care WHAT I thought."
Yes, some battles are fought and ssome are won-- the justices seem to be, however, the single exception to the rule regarding the overt neo-conservatism of this administration.
The runner-up might be the border fence, which Bush oh-so-reluctantly signed. But now that we don't control congress, you can kiss that one goodbye.
Bush is KILLING us. He is NOT conservative, and when he acts like one it is only under duress.
Yes, and I voted for Bush, too, even though I am a registered Libertarian because I see the imperitive. But I will not be silent about his HORRIBLE performance and the great need to reform the republican party in short order.
If we can expect nothing better than a succession of future Bushes, I will simply switch to voting straight Libertarian ticket and damn the torpedos-- and that's a fact.
"The only outcome was to make things worse."
And sometimes you REALLY do need to make things worse before you can expect them to get better.
The question is how much worse do we HAVE to make it before republicans get the message?
You got my vote in '04, but I may not feel like being suckered twice.
"And sometimes you REALLY do need to make things worse before you can expect them to get better."
Thats a simple concept. Make things really bad, then any improvement at all is better.
Thats kinda like jumping off the house to make things better.
You break both legs and its much worse, but if you heal enough to limp around, it got better!
Not getting any takers, I see.
"Do you really think that has any chance of furthering your views?"
Yes-- if enough people follow suit. And it has the added benefit of knowing you didn't vote for a son of a bitch.
The difference between you and I is that I do not fear being ruled by democrats all that much more than I fear being ruled by today's republicans.
I fear them both.
And I realize there is only ONE WAY to get what you want from government: you have to make them fear YOU.
Your only weapon is your vote. Remember that. Your ONLY WEAPON IS YOUR SINGLE SOLITARY VOTE.
Thought I might run into on this thread.
Regards
And, by the way, I think this is precisely what happened in November. A lot of sickened republicans and libertarians did not vote or voted libertarian or wrote in a candidate, and that led to the defeat we saw.
The pain is being felt-- yes. But this could be good pain, like when you know (or hope) the medicine is working.
In fact, I am a little grateful that we lost both houses for two years-- it gives us all a chance to ponder why, and prepare to get them back with a new true conservative presidential candidate.
Without losing the congress, it would be just more "Rove you magnificent bastard" bullshit from the Bushbots around here and you know it.
Nothing would be improved. Nothing achieved but more of this hideous neo-con pablum.
Not for me, my FRiend.
"The difference between you and I is that I do not fear being ruled by democrats all that much more than I fear being ruled by today's republicans."
At least you can admit you don't mind having RATS in control. You got your wish, Enjoy!
Would one of the staunch R-bots please define what republicanism is?
Not getting any takers, I see.
Perhaps they're waiting for limbaugh or hannity to issue a memo.........................
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.