Libertarian GOP defection?

Townhall.com ^ | Tuesday, December 12, 2006 | Bruce Bartlett

[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.

[Common Tator]

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.

That is one crock of crap.

The libertarians have never been there for Republicans when they need them. That was a fact that bright candidates like Ronald Reagan always understood. In 1980 he made a great effort to win the support of moderates. The support of the swing voters always wins elections.

There are about 5 or 6 million libertarians in the USA. To get their votes a candidate must sacrifice the votes of 30 million moderates. No candidate with a goal of winning an election would do anything except distance himself from the Libertarians.

Libertarians are libertarians because they see few differences between the two major parties. They are also not very bright. They seem to think that threatening to and in most cases withholding their votes will cause the Republican party to move more in their direction.

What happens when Republicans lose is they draw the very logical conclusion they must be more like the winners. So the Republican party turns to the left in emulation of the winners.

Any candidate with a brain knows that in a two person race the candidate that gets its base, half the moderates and some to the left of center will win.

Since no candidate can depend on libertarians, every candidate that wins has to find a way to appeal to a significant number of voters to the left of center. Republican candidates have to plan on not getting any libertarian votes. If they get them they win in a landslide if they don't then they will win in a close race. If they fail to get a descent majority of moderates they lose.. with or without libertarian support.

You do not have to be void of reality to be a libertarian, but I have never met one who was not.

[Moonman62]

Libertarian (big-L) = a set of nutcases who have taken the above and interpreted it to include anarchy, unlimited access to drugs, totally open borders, and a non-agression foreign policy, and who have little or no hope of being elected.

These guys pull away votes from anarchists, not Republicans.

[Poser]

Libertarians (capital L) are concerned primarily with smoking pot. Once they smoke it, they care about little else but food.

The libertarians are currently the most frustrated group in the US. The Republican party speaks in conservative and libertarian terms but delivers the exact opposite. When we complain we are told to shut up and vote for the Republican because otherwise we'll get Democrats.

Well, I voted for the Republicans and I got Democrats anyway. It's time to kick the big-government Republicans out and start over. Can we start over with a new contract for America and actually try to make it work?

[DManA]

I think the "a government plan for every problem" croud who vote Republican are a big confused.

Libertarians (small l) who vote Democrat are more than a bit confused.

[Mr. Mojo]

No doubt.

[DManA]

Too much to expect that Republicans would see the wisdom of the principles of freedom and embrace them. More fun to pursue convoluted political "strategies".

will cause the Republican party to move more in their direction.

[mysterio]

As I've stated before, here is the situation :

The GOP leaves the libertarians outside the tent, standing in the rain. Occasionally, they will come to the door of the tent and hurl insults. And then, once every two years, they walk outside the tent, punch the libertarians in the face, and demand a vote.

That's it in a nutshell.

[Beagle8U]

I've always said that Libertarians are nothing more than armed liberals that don't want to pay taxes.

Other than that there is zero difference.

[Grut]

Good definitions as far as they go but you forgot:

'Pubbies = squishies who genuflect to the right but mainly want to be graded 'Plays well with others'.

[tacticalogic]

Bruce Bartlett, the author of this article is confused.

Maybe. Or he may just be trying to stir up some animosity to drive a wedge.

[Lurker]

The libertarians have never been there for Republicans when they need them

Have a nice time in the minority.

Regards,

L

[Sam Cree]

"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."

Superficially, the above sounds correct, since there are distinct issues of individual freedom that are championed respectively by both the Right and the Left. It's a false position, though, since while the Left does champion certain freedoms, the underlying leftist philosophy itself is inherently totalitarian, and thus ultimately deadly to individual freedom of all kinds.

There is no underlying philosophy at all that unifies the "Right" as far as I can see, save for a shared distaste for the Left. Even that is not a sure thing.

This essay has caused me to lose a little respect for Bartlett.

[Lurker]

The GOP leaves the libertarians outside the tent, standing in the rain. Occasionally, they will come to the door of the tent and hurl insults. And then, once every two years, they walk outside the tent, punch the libertarians in the face, and demand a vote.

You forgot one thing. The Republicans will tell the libertarians that the Dems will punch them harder.

Otherwise you're spot on.

L

[Small-L]

Agreed. I think most small-l are simply hanging onto the GOP because it is the lesser of the two evils. As soon as a rational alternative comes along they'll abandon the GOP for the better alternative.

Unfortunately (or fortunately if you're a Big-R) the Big-L party has been hijacked by the extremists and because of their drugie/anti-war stance will never attract the masses of small-l. The Constitution Party might have a chance, except for their theocrat stance on abortion.

All the small-l need is a viable, nationally known, agressive candidate who is willing to make a third party run, and I think you'll see a Perot-like abandonment of the GOP.

[alice_in_bubbaland]

The only animosity is on his part. He seems to have nothing but disdain for Republicans. :)

[Publius Valerius]

What happens when Republicans lose is they draw the very logical conclusion they must be more like the winners. So the Republican party turns to the left in emulation of the winners.

Yep, this is exactly what the GOP has done over the past several years. How's that working out for y'all?

Here's a novel concept: how about trying to govern simply by what is good policy?

The Medicare Modernization Act was a great example of this concept in inacation. The Ds made a big stink about how there were old people without medicine and the GOP sat and wrung their hands and thought, "Old people without medicine? My God! If the Democrats run on this, we'll lose! What can we do? Aha! We'll steal their idea and give all the old people medicine for free! Hip, hip, hooray!" So what do we get? We get horrible policy, a medicare program that is slated to cost $534 billion over the next ten years, is deep in debt and totally unsustainable, AND a Republican Party that lost the next election anyway.

Yeah, thanks a negative 534 billion, GOP.

[Lurker]

I've always said that Libertarians are nothing more than armed liberals that don't want to pay taxes.

So basically what you're telling us is that for a very long while you've had absolutely no idea what you were talking about.

Why didn't you just say that in the first place?

L

[Sam Cree]

"Good, all Loserdopians get out and stop pretending to be conservatives."

'Course, nowadays, conservatism seems to include big government and big spending, even CFR, so exactly what a conservative even is remains open to question.

Hayek wrote a nice essay entitled "Why I am not a conservative," though it must be mentioned that he was at pains to point out that he was also not a "libertarian."

[MNJohnnie]

No what is a play for suckers is coming here every day screaming your 100% "My way or the Highway" dogmas. All that does is help elect Democrats.

You posted a whine a day and did EVERYTHING you could to make the results Nov 7th happen. Frankly the Conservative movement would be far stronger if all the shoot our own in the back all the time whiners did leave.

There is the door Democrat in everything but name activists. You want Democrats in power so bad, go talk to THEM about your agenda and see what parts of it they are willing to put into law.

Want to help the Conservatives? GET OFF OUR SIDE.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Good, all Loserdopians get out and stop pretending to be conservatives.

There you go again.

The mocking, denigrating, ad-hominem attacks against Libertarians.

Then you wonder why Libertarians don't support Republicans on election day, particularily RINOs, and denigrate them even more when the RINO lose.

A lot of people want less government, period. That means social issues too.