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.
will cause the Republican party to move more in their direction.
Have a nice time in the minority.
Regards,
L
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.
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.
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.
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.
Very good point. I suspect this is because libertarianism by definition is completely meaningless unless it is implemented in its entirety. Anything short of a 100% libertarian system is dysfunctional by definition.
I use the example of the "selective libertarian" to make this point. He's the guy who insists -- based on his libertarian principles -- that the government has no business outlawing drugs, but then turns around and calls on the government to expand drug treatment programs for people who "need them."
You forgot to mention becoming a permanent minority party based in the South.
Wow, I just love these sweeping generalizations. And the insults. Those are especially fun. I wonder why it might be that you say that the libertarians can't be be relied upon for votes for the republican candidates? It wouldn't possibly be the sweeping generalizations, the easy dismissal, or the insults, would it? Nahhhh.
Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Mark