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.
Republican = A Democrat with corporate money.
This article sounds suspiciously like just another effort to downplay the effect of conservative dissaffection on the last election and to make some other group seem more important.
The fact is that it's the traditional conservatives who have been lied to and are disillusioned with the phony conservatives in the Republican party.
Yep. It's become an anarchist party, not a limited gov't party. Shame.
"All the small-l need is a viable, nationally known, aggressive candidate who is willing to make a third party run, and I think you'll see a Perot-like abandonment of the GOP."
A scenario which would doubtlessly yield similar results to 1992 -- another Clinton infesting the WH. I'd rather see small ls direct their energies to bringing the GOP back to the party of limited gov't than to abandon it altogether.
Since you chose to mention RR's philosophy, I'll provide a quote from him:
"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals -- if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is." --Ronald Reagan in an interview published in Reason (July 01, 1975), emphasis added.
I think his quote says a lot about his regard for Small-l libertarians--he was one.
A problem is that the converse is also true, when they win, Republicans have a tendency to come to the conclusion that they must become more like the losers.
Speaking for myself:
I can't vote for people on the left because they do not believe in a negative rights framework for personal freedom. For example, they believe in the government recognizing gay marriage, when I believe that the government has no business "licensing" marriage. I do believe that religious traditions are a necessary support for free markets and personal freedom. I have far more in common with conservatives that liberals, and don't mind when people think of me as "conservative".
I am turned off by some policies advocated by the GOP, but I do not view the Dems as a viable alternative.
BTW, I don't understand why every profession of libertarian belief on FR must be met with references to "Loserdopians" and drug use. I suppose that these name-callers agree with the GOP on every issue?
It's certainly better than (most people) being unarmed & happily paying taxes as it is under the current GOP/Dim leadership.
yes big or little "L" libertarian has always been code for pothead.
If the only animosity in evidence on this thread was to be found within the text of the article, I'd agree with you :).
And the last I heard, Hannity was calling himself a libertarian.....hhhmmmmmmm
That's a crock pot of horse feces, because Libertarians for the most part have always held their noses for the Republicans despited being mocked and denigrated by the party's blind supporters.
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.
More BS. Who do you think moderates are? Moderates are simply people with Libertarian leanings. There really is no concept of what constitutes a "moderate." No matter what your ideology is, it's going to be closely aligned with a political party. Ditto for "Independents," which is another MSM fabrication just to water down GOP conservatism and move the goal posts further to the Left.
Let me guess - somewhere embedded in the platform, the LP supports child porn, open borders, and unlimited drug usage, right? Ergo, they're liberals?
I agree whole heartedly. Unfortunately there are some (many) here that would rather see the limited government types leave, and the GOP relegated to a permanent minority by trying to play both sides from the middle than by returning to the roots that won Reagan two terms and won both the House and the Senate.
Reagan conservatism (aka small-l libertarianism) won, Newt's limited government/economic conservatism won. If we want to win again, we've got to return to those roots.
True
They are also not very bright.
This is your opinion and you are welcome to it
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.
Doubtful, why would you expect someone who is NOT a member of a particular party to show loyalty to that party unconditionally? Libertarians do not necessarily "withhold" their vote, they simply do not cast it as you might expect them to.
The libertarians have never been there for Republicans when they need them.
The republicans, once in complete power, turned away from the ideals of personal freedom and smaller, less expensive government. Actions speak louder than words.
It would not be surprising if it turns out that the republicans have lost the support of the "Small-L" informed voter for good.
wow, well said.
From the article:
"Basically, libertarians are allied with the right on economic issues and the left on everything else."
No, that's the continuing misperception of kneejerk conservatives. For example, if I think the war on drugs is a failure, that doesn't mean I'm pro drug usage, like many of the Dems. Why some people can't get that simple concept is beyond me.
I take a couple amino acids from the health food store that do wonders for me and I would consider drugs. Conservatives I assume would want to take away that right from me. But they will support the smoking of cigars and drinking of Bud.
Somewhere there is a mental disconnect going on.
L
No problem Johnnie. The problem is, you guys need us more than we need you, and there are a lot of Libertarian voters out there who really don't support the LP or realize that they're even Libertarians. They just want less government, period.
So keep pandering to the Christian right and keep making gay marriage & flag burning the centerpiece of your agenda, and you're going to keep losing elections.
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.