Posted on 12/14/2006 8:37:44 PM PST by neverdem
The Republicans handed libertarian votes--and the elections--over to the Democrats.
At the Democrats’ official election night party in Washington, D.C., all eyes were on Florida—for about 10 seconds. At 8 p.m. network exit polls confirmed that Rep. Katherine Harris, for this crowd the arch-villain of the 2000 election, was lopsidedly losing her bid for a Senate seat. The partygoers cheered the news. Then they turned their attention to races that carried at least a whiff of suspense.
They shouldn’t have dismissed Florida so quickly. Less than two years earlier, the Sunshine State had shown the first symptoms of the malady that would defeat the GOP in races from California to New Hampshire. Republicans had convinced themselves that socially conservative “values voters” were the key to maintaining and extending their power. It was in Florida that the strategy started to crumble, reminding any politician who cared to listen that a lot of voters just want the government to leave them alone.
The town of Pinellas Park, not far from Harris’ old House district, contains the hospice where Terri Schiavo died. The battle between the brain-damaged woman’s parents, who wanted to keep her on life support, and her husband, who wanted to remove it, had bubbled up into Florida’s Republican-controlled legislature before. But in March 2005, emboldened by the GOP’s 2004 victories, Tom DeLay’s House and Bill Frist’s Senate elbowed into the controversy. President Bush broke off a stint in Crawford, Texas, to sign emergency legislation to keep the feeding tube attached.
It was one of the worst political miscalculations of the decade. Immediately after the Schiavo push, approval numbers for Bush and his party started to plummet. Polls showed not just Democrats but Republicans and independents opposed to the Schiavo intervention. Republicans responded by assuming the polls were wrong. The country had re-elected them, hadn’t it? Of course voters were foursquare behind the idea of legislatively re-attaching a feeding tube to a brain-dead woman.
The president’s ratings reeled into the 40s, then the 30s, and never really recovered. The numbers for the GOP Congress fell even further. And on election night, voters turned out the most socially conservative Congress in decades while taking a two-by-four to socially conservative initiatives in the states. A ban on all abortions was defeated in South Dakota. Missouri legalized stem cell research. And while seven states passed gay marriage bans, Arizona became the first state ever to reject one. In most of the states where the bans did pass—South Carolina and Idaho being the exceptions—voters elected Democrats to major statewide offices anyway. The ballyhooed effect of gay marriage bans on conservative turnout, credited by some for George W. Bush’s 2004 victory in Ohio, fell utterly flat.
These defeats wouldn’t have come as a surprise if not for the consensus, minted hours after the 2004 polls closed, that Republicans were building a permanent majority on the backs of conservative evangelicals. The TV networks’ exit poll showed 22 percent of voters naming “moral values” as the key to their ballots. In the hands of a Republican caucus defined by the born-again Tom DeLay in the House and the big-government conservative Rick Santorum in the Senate, this was a mandate; it encouraged them to indulge their invasiveness on privacy and other civil liberties issues. The party didn’t just support national ID cards and warrantless wiretaps. With impunity, it campaigned against Democrats for opposing those measures.
Early in the 2006 cycle, Democrats spotted the opening they’d been given. They recruited candidates for every Republican seat in districts that had voted for John Kerry over George W. Bush, and they started to criticize the conduct, and sometimes the very fact, of the Iraq war. They got multiple adrenaline boosts from the GOP’s scandals, starting with the corruption allegations against DeLay, which the leadership took pains to overlook until he was actually indicted. They maintained leads as the incumbents cupped their hands over their eyes and ears and refused to consider any shifts in their approach to Iraq.
That strategy ended on November 7, with the defeat of many hot-button ballot measures and with heavy losses in House, Senate, and state races. The liberal Northeast was scrubbed almost clean of Republicans: From Pennsylvania through Maine, the Democrats picked up nine or 10 House seats. (At press time, one race in Connecticut was going to a recount.) And the rout continued in the Midwest and the Plains. Four years earlier Kansas had elected an ultra-conservative attorney general named Phill Kline, who used the power of his office to snoop into the medical records of patients at abortion clinics. He was crushed, 58 percent to 42 percent, by a Republican who switched parties to challenge him. And while Kline went down, Republicans lost an eastern Kansas House seat in a district that had voted for Bush over Kerry by 20 points.
There were lessons in the races the Republicans did win too. In the Mountain West, Republican candidates had their margins slashed dramatically. Idaho’s 1st District, which gave Bush 70 percent of its vote, handed only 50 percent to a doctrinaire conservative. Wyoming’s sole House seat gave its Republican incumbent a win by less than 1 percentage point. In state after state, Republican support plunged.
“The libertarian West,” Hotline Editor Chuck Todd wrote in a post-election column, “is a region that is more up for grabs than it should be. And it’s because the Republican Party has grown more religious and more pro-government, which turns off these ‘leave me alone,’ small-government libertarian Republicans.”
The decline isn’t entirely the Republicans’ fault. They just created an opening for their opponents to exploit. The Democrats in the libertarian West, tenderized by the wipeouts of the 1990s, reassessed their positions on the Second Amendment, public land, and taxes, and reintroduced themselves to voters. In the Bush years, they gave stronger support to civil liberties than most of their Republican competitors. At one Montana debate, GOP Sen. Conrad Burns lambasted Democrat Jon Tester for wanting to “weaken” the PATRIOT Act. Tester shot back that he didn’t want to weaken it: “I want to repeal it.” Tester won the election.
Of course, the PATRIOT Act isn’t a “social issue.” That’s part of the point. The Bush-Rove iteration of the Republican Party, with its tight focus on social issues and its coordination with religious groups to turn out votes, fell dramatically short with an electorate for whom other subjects had more salience. In future elections, that skeptical segment of the country will only grow larger. The libertarian states of Arizona, Colorado, and Nevada are growing as the Deep South and the Rust Belt stagnate. And young professionals in Republican killing fields like Virginia and Ohio are getting more socially liberal, not less.
Election-night spinners tried to argue that the new congressional class consists of “conservative Democrats.” But while the newly elected Democrats include several relatively libertarian supporters of the Second Amendment, even their most conservative members, such as Pennsylvania’s senator-elect Bob Casey Jr., support the morning-after pill and some stem cell research.
The GOP’s fundamentalist myopia, combined with its sorry record on spending and corruption, has made Grover Norquist’s “Leave Us Alone Coalition” a bloc that’s up for grabs. In Norquist’s formulation, the coalition includes “taxpayers who want the government to reduce the tax burden, property owners, farmers, and homeowners who want their property rights respected.” Voters like these are now willing to entertain alternatives to a Southern-dominated, religious GOP.
They proved that in Pennsylvania, where Casey felled Rick Santorum—the only senator who actually flew down to Florida to join the Pinellas Park circus—in an 18-point landslide. On Election Day, the Philadelphia Inquirer found a voter willing to explain why Santorum lost. “I don’t know what happened to him,” said Roby Lentz, a Republican. “He quit representing me when he showed up at Terri Schiavo’s bedside.”
David Weigel (dweigel@reason.com) is an assistant editor of Reason.
ndt, the link didn't mention anything about hate crime legislation. One of us seems to be confused, and it could be me. Either way, I think we have more in common than apart. I definitely do NOT support hate crime legislation. I'm also a big proponent of individual liberty within reasonable restraints.
Bump for later. This ought to be good!
The problem is that everyone believes their own definition of "reasonable restraint" is justified. Sometimes this is true, sometimes not. I do believe that most, if not all, cases where liberties have been violated, the violator(s) felt justified in their actions; it was for somebody's "best interest". In my experience, all of the places where social cons and libertarians disagreed, the social cons were on the side of "restraining" liberties.
LibertarianSchmoe wrote: "The problem is that everyone believes their own definition of "reasonable restraint" is justified. Sometimes this is true, sometimes not. I do believe that most, if not all, cases where liberties have been violated, the violator(s) felt justified in their actions; it was for somebody's "best interest". In my experience, all of the places where social cons and libertarians disagreed, the social cons were on the side of "restraining" liberties."
Certainly! I don't disagree, except for the part,"all of the places where social cons and libertarians disagreed." Perhaps most, but you qualify the statement by stating it's your own experience.
I'm definitely NOT saying libertarians and social conservatives agree on every issue. In fact, we definitely disagree on some things. However, if you study both positions, you'll find we agree on quite a bit. Even if our motivations differ, the end results are nearly identical.
Examples:
Abuse of Imminent Domain - a social con might say it's immoral to take someone else's property (equating it to theft). A libertarian might say it violates the owner's liberties. Result, we both fight for the right to own private property.
Taxation for Social Spending - again, a social con might say it's stealing. A libertarian might say government doesn't have the right to force you to be responsible for other citizens. Result, we both fight against taxation for the purpose of wealth redistribution.
I could give many more examples on very important issues where social cons and libertarians agree. Disagreements between us should be resolved WITHIN the party that most represents us, the Republicans.
Noticed that myself.
I completely agree.
But since the mid Nineties, it appears that building consensus has been supplanted by the quest for ideological purity.
I used to be a libertarian. Just can't get there anymore after a lifetime of watching the ruin moral libertarianism has brought to western civilization since the 60's.
I think you and I agree almost completely on size of gvt and spending type issues. Conservatives (not republicans in general, who are polluted by tax-and-spend dems playing republican and cynical power addicts) and libertarians are pretty much in lockstep on these issues.
The only serious difference between the two, conservatives and libertarians, is the moral issues--abortion, homosexual marriage, encouraging of homosexuality in schools, drug legalization--that type of thing.
The distinction I posed in my earlier post was not meant to be an insult, although I concede my language was more florid than, in retrospect, I would have preferred. It was meant as a delineation between practical social conservativism (which includes actual Christians, not the tiny minority of scary boogeyman Right-Wing Christians that the media goes 'boo' with and libertarians everywhere go 'eek, a Christian'), on the one hand, and libertarianism, on the other. The only really clear line between them is the moral issues. Maybe some preferences in WOT type civil liberties stuff like Clinton's wall between the FBI and CIA also.
Be clear in your own mind when you vote D that you are accepting the leftist agenda in exchange for prevailing on the moral issues and pretty much those issues alone. And I understand that some libertarians are not in it for the drugs and sex--I wasn't when I was a libertarian.
As for conciliation on the moral issues, I think, e.g., that 3,960 convenience abortions a day (and that's about the number--99%+ of abortions are not health related but lifestyle related)is an abomination and I won't be changing my thinking on that anytime soon. If you think otherwise and you believe that issue is sufficient (along with the other moral issues) to adopt a proto-stalinist agenda, then go in peace and may God bless you. I hope He shows you how wrong you are someday, if that's your belief. I just don't think that winning by accepting what I regard as not much different than genocide as a clever political strategy is worth it. In any event, I don't have a lot of common ground with folks who think that's a sensible choice so perhaps we don't belong together in a political party.
Just remember that, if political alignments shift to prevent social conservatives from having a voice in our government--and that certainly seems to be the way things are going--the long term result of that is that a good number of social conservatives will withdraw from politics--politics are a little unnatural for Christians anyway as our primary task is spreading the Gospel, not organizing politics. I see the withdrawal happening already on a small scale. As that grows, you will lose a lot of allies who are right with you on smaller government, lower taxes etc. Small gvt libertarians are a small group of voters. Your best allies are the much larger bloc of Christian conservatives, on small gvt issues.
And finally, yes, as much contempt as I have for R's in general, D's are way worse, orders of magnitude worse for anyone interested in preserving a government of limited powers. I agree that it isn't much of a political platform. But it has the benefit of being true. Your ridiculing the position doesn't make it wrong. I wish the R's had a better platform, too. As things stand, they don't.
But, IMHO, the stakes today are too high today to give power to folks who are bent on policies that will continue our descent into European socialist sclerosis and put our granddaughters in Burkhas at the tip of a sword.
BTW, I think it's important to say there are many shades of social conservatism and libertarianism. The left likes to categorize everyone into neat little boxes, and they would LOVE to divide the Republican party by making its divisions seem wider than they truly are.
Those of us who essentially agree on limited government, fiscal restraint, and individual liberty need to get our acts together, or we are going to be a minority party for a long time. In the meantime, we now have a Democrat-controlled congress that is opposed to most of our shared ideals.
Wormwood wrote: "But since the mid Nineties, it appears that building consensus has been supplanted by the quest for ideological purity."
Is that quest coming entirely from within the party, or is it being generated by other forces who have an interest in driving us apart? Personally, I don't know the answer, but I'm somewhat suspicious of articles like the one that started this thread. If you went back and looked at the author's voting record, would you see a lot of D's? I wonder.
I hope you have had another cup of coffee. You're usually sharper than this.
The bottom line is that the democrats had to pretend to be conservatives to get their (as Sen. Johnson proves) their razor thin majority.
True, but that's irrelevant to this thread.
Registered Libertarians are just useful idiots for the left whether they do it knowingly or not.
Please look at my thoughts in comment# 1. The thread is not about Registered Libertarians. It's about the small 'l' libertarians, who are swing voters, and who just showed that Rove's theory of getting out the base was not enough last November.
They are about 10 - 15 percent of the electorate. Some may have voted for dems or Libertarians as a protest vote. I suspect that many of them stayed home on Election Day, IMHO. Many small 'l' libertarians are registered Independents, which in some states outnumber either the dems or GOP, sometimes both. For the latter, Arizona and Connecticut come to mind, IIRC.
Smackdown! By Independents & Moderates (Quotes are from the end of the article.)
"Because exit polls show there's a large chunk of the electorate that is moderate, independent-minded and turned off by partisanship. In exit polls, 47 percent of voters described their views as moderate, 21 percent liberal and 32 percent conservative. And 61 percent of the moderates voted Democratic this year.
"On party identification, 26 percent said they're Independent, which is in line with recent elections. But this year, Independents went Democratic by a 57-39 margin. That's what gave the day to Democrats. In the 2002 midterm, by contrast, Independents went Republican in a 48-45 split.
"The bottom line: candidates ignore the middle and nonpartisan at their own peril."
ModelBreaker wrote: "And finally, yes, as much contempt as I have for R's in general, D's are way worse, orders of magnitude worse for anyone interested in preserving a government of limited powers. I agree that it isn't much of a political platform. But it has the benefit of being true."
Well said!
Being that you're posting it on a conservative website, wouldn't you make your point more strongly if you edited out some of the liberal accomplishments? There is plenty of good stuff on your list that you could leave in.
I've noticed that you guys have recently been highlighting the Medicare Prescription benefit in bold. Why on Earth would you choose that socialistic garbage to highlight on this site?
Sounds like I'll be voting independent again in '08.
neverdem wrote: "The bottom line: candidates ignore the middle and nonpartisan at their own peril."
LOL! EVERYONE else is a partisan except themselves.
Small 'l' libertarians are 10-15%. Big "L" Libertarians (LP members) are less than 2%. Libertarians (the party) are more focused on legal drugs and legal abortion and open borders. Libertarians (not party members) are just concerned about small government. Which is why I don't get voting Democrat at all.
Simple compromise - let the social issues be hashed out at a state/local level.
Don't confuse small 'l' libertarians with those who vote for the Libertarian Party. That's why I provided the links in comment# 1. Small 'l' libertarians are about 10 - 15 percent of the electorate. That's why Rove's theory of getting out the base failed in November, IMHO. Check the link in comment# 112 about registered Independents, over a quarter of the electorate, and self-described moderates, 47 percent.
Agreed. I've noticed that your posts are quite civil, and you represent your "side" (lack of better term) well. It is unfortunate that some feel the need to show their "love" with fangs and venom, but I've seen it happen, and been bitten more than once. Before the election, many S/Cs considered us Ls worthless to the party. These same S/Cs blamed us for the losses of that election. Huh?? Worthless AND crucial?
Many of us libertarians have the same basic morality that social conservatives have. The difference, I think, is that libertarians believe morality should be taught and learned by individuals, not enforced at the point of a gun (read: forbidden by law). Jesus wasn't an enforcer. He was a teacher. He led by example. There are plenty of things that I think are immoral that I don't think should be criminalized.
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.