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.
(Of course, far too many other intelligent people around here reduce it to rudeness and name-calling, all while pretending to be concerned about finding solutions to the problems we now face in the coming elections.)
I think it would be a helpful to discuss whether libertarianism should even be considered a branch of conservatism. Say what you will about the high-minded goals of libertarianism, but my observation of most living breathing self-identified libertarians on this board leads me to conclude that many are souless amoral narcissists who want government out of their faces so they won't have to pay taxes, can indulge in their pot habit, and consort with prostitutes without fear of government interference. Most I've seen here have no sense of civil responsibility, and are down on the concept of civic virtue. They're impractical and selfish, and, frankly, I'm tired of hearing them each election cycle threatening to boycott the Republican candidate. They should make good on their threat and take a hike. We'll muddle through without them.
The vast majority of screamers here on FR believe that libertarians are a bunch of pot heads, but the truth is that most libertarians don't give a rat's behind about drugs. They want what Reagan was offering, smaller, less obtrusive government. If we throw them out of the tent, the tent is going to get a lot smaller.
You are still confusing libertarians and Libertarians. They are completely different.
"So even if Rand and a few of her followers claim otherwise, their politics are libertarian."--first article
Russian-born Ayn Rand (1905-1982) brought more people into the libertarian movement than anybody else.--third article
Some have described her politics as minarchism and libertarianism, though she never used the first term and disavowed any connection to the second.--fourth article
Rand also said in the same article that you quoted, "I’ve read nothing by a Libertarian...that wasn’t my ideas badly mishandled—i.e., had the teeth pulled out of them—with no credit given."--fourth article
Just for clarity, let's reexamine that last quote, "I’ve read nothing by a Libertarian that wasn’t my ideas" She was admitting that her ideas were root of what was being written by Libertarian authors--she claimed to be the original author of their ideas.
Just for fun, try doing a Google search on the name Ayn Rand and the term libertarian. You might be surprised at the results.
If you're a serious analyst, you might also be interested in Wiki's definition of minarchism and libertarianism. Read a lot like Objectivism, don't they?
So go already. They've been threatening this for awhile. As they say in the Nike ads, just do it!
If he's like the typical libertarian, he'll get more Dems in office, and he'll still be happy, because the Dems agree with him on social issues.
But they'll never get a Libertarian elected to the office of the Presidency. Not in my lifetime anyway.
Maybe it's just coincidence but:
The Libertarian party is controlled by dopers.
The Republican party is controlled by big business.
The Democrat party is controlled by Marxists.
Our country is on its last leg.
I don't think that all Libertarians are dopers but more as Ayn Rand has said that they have failed at teaching what they stand for mostly because they can't agree among themselves.
Many (Most) of us see the drug issue as a distortion (and frankly a non-issue) perpetrated by the GOP-faithful to discredit and divert attention away from the concepts of limited government, individual responsibility, and maximum personal freedom. Such concepts are antithetic to the theocrats and power brokers that populate the GOP hierarchy.
After watching the reaction to the results of the last election, it's obvious that the GOP does not see the close races in 2000 and '04 and the loss of the House and Senate as a result of moving away from their conservative base, but because they have not moved far enough to the left. I expect to see the GOP becoming more liberal, more big spending, more big government solutions to every conceivable problem. And as more conservatives realize that they are being sacrificed and more libertarians look for other choices, a huge gap opens on the right. A gap begging for another Perot-type solution. I'll be the first to forcast another 40 years wandering in the desert for the GOP.
Thanks for the discussion.
Exactly. They have a foot in both worlds, so no matter what happens, they both win and lose at every election.
"Basically, libertarians are allied with the right on economic issues and the left on everything else" - author
Hard to recover from such a flawed view, no surprise - this author did not.
(see gun control for example)
"Basically, libertarians are allied with the right on economic issues and the left on everything else" - author
Hard to recover from such a flawed view, no surprise - this author did not.
(see gun control for example)
I wouldn't know if it makes me an 'average' one or not.
I do know I agree with the Libertarian party at least as often as I agree with the GOP.
But that isn't really relevant. What is relevant is that the GOP has apparently driven a good portion of the conservative base and a sizeable number of libertarians away.
What is also relevant is that you're going to have to move to the left yet again to make up for the lost voters, or return to those 'core principles' y'all keep yammering about of smaller less intrusive government.
But judging by the evidence of the last 6 years the GOP isn't capable of moving to the right.
So, get used to the GOP either becoming more and more liberal in a desparate attempt to regain power or truly moving to the right to capture the folks who are fed up with your obscene spending and 'socially conservative' nanny state regulation.
L
By the way, if you ask the average Dem voter (no the wing-nut "true believers"), most of them agree with the statement that "government is too large and intrusive". There is HUGE opportunity here for either party to make significant long-term gains if they make the right promises... and KEEP them... and judging by the number of Dem running right-leaning campaigns, they just might take advantage and relegate the Stupid Party to minority status for another two generations.
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.