No we weren't.
There are enough libertarians at FR, so I will let them comment. I consider myself a conservative, but turn up libertarian centrist on the little political test. There is no darned way I will ever vote for a Democrat or not vote and allow the vote to go that way. Ever.
Brink Lindsey? Never heard of him/her but if he/she actually believes this horse manure then I will be delighted to forget I ever saw the name.
That's the main issue here. ....not the war on drugs, not nation-building in Iraq, not "replacing science with theology" (a ridiculous/fictional assertion), and certainly not gay marriage and Terri Shiavo.
It's about big gov't spending. .....an issue that all Republicans and Libertarians can agree on. If the GOP goes back to its fiscal conservative roots it wouldn't have to worry much about losing voters to third parties.
Just stay out of our wallets, our gun collections, and our property in general. ....and if you fight wars, fight all-out without concern for "hearts and minds."
...and stop throwing U.S. taxpayer dollars around in the Third World like its Monopoly money.
George Washington asserted that people naturally migrate to either of two camps - Those who trust governement and those who do not. According to him, you could call them any names you pleased, but when you boiled it down to the root, that's what you had. This is where the "two party system" idea originated. The way he saw it, those were the only two political differences between people and that as long as you had those two parties at war with each other in congress, very little could be accomplished - Which was the idea.
Fast forward to today and we see that the Republicans and Democrats, while to quick to assert the contrary, all belong to the first party. They both believe that government is the answer, what they disagree on is the question, or questions as it were.
There's an awful lot of us out here who belong to the second party - the party of Washington who once said that government was not reason or eloquence, but force - We are those who believe that government is never the answer. It is merely a necessary evil to be boxed up tight - To paraphrase Jefferson: Governments exist to protect the rights of the individual - They have no other function.
It cannot continue in this manner forever.
Regards,
Col Sanders
I need neither the Right's 'cultural vision' nor the Left's version of the 'vision'. What I need is: a 'constitutional' vision. If neither party will deliver, we're in trouble.
'08 will see Hillary's red flag raised (with hammer and sickle), what shall the Right raise? A white flag? Something with red, white, and blue would be nice for a change.
Note to Liberaltarians (formally known as Libertarians). You have been officially pigeonholed (Soccer Mom'ed) and renamed by the wackos in the Liberal MSM. CONGRATUALTIONS!!!!!
I prefer libertarians to Rudy-supporters. At least they are firm in their ideals and aren't willing to give away conservative ideals to win an election. What good is having a republican win if it's just another gun grabbing, free-spech stomping rino who cheats on his wife and loves the idea of hoovering babies out of women.
Seems more BS to lay the groundwork for a suicide third party run in order to divide and conquer to allow Hitlery a better shot.
I bet there are enough mercenaries who can be paid to be spoilers ala ross perot.
This article is weak.. Although I will agree Bush has opened the door to all these crackpot articles, IMO.
I disagree with the axioms. Republicans have a mild split between true conservatives, who are pretty much content with the status quo and hesitate to support any strong or rapid political change; and religious republicans, who do want change to both undo past governmental wrongs and move the country in a positive direction, and with due speed.
But this is not a hostile split, there is considerable issue agreement, and the disagreement is as much over style as substance.
In the last elections, republicans didn't vote for democrats, they just neglected to enthusiastically support republicans who both went hog wild with government spending and largesse; and blatantly and cynically ignored the wishes of their supporters on major issues, especially immigration.
So what is the future of libertarians? If they wish to attract republicans, they must advocate issues that both appeal to libertarians, yet attract some republicans:
1) Liberalize gun laws.
2) Quit enforcing the more insane drug prohibition laws.
3) Return our internal national security to a sensible level. Racially profiling Arabs is far more reasonable than is searching 75 year old white grandmothers in wheelchairs.
4) Eliminate many federal laws that are redundant with State laws, and should only be enforced by individual States.
5) Stop spending money like it is just paper.
6) Build a fence between the US and Mexico. (Granted, this one is difficult for libertarians; but they need to accept that libertarian principles need to be applied to Americans first.)
Conversely, if libertarians wish to attract liberal democrats, they need to advocate issues that appeal both to them, and to liberal democrats:
Unfortunately, liberal democrats have been short of ideas for a long time. Ironically, they would be most successful in restoring their power if they became much more like libertarians. That is, such things would appeal more to the public right now. But what it might be could include:
1) Returning to a post-Watergate distrust of intelligence agencies, and legally restricting their actions in the US.
2) Again, reform of the drug laws.
3) Anti-globalization and isolationism.
4) Establishment of a public privacy regime that restricts both government and business development and use of private information about individuals.
5) Reform of monetary policy along with constitutional amendments for a balanced budget, line-item veto, and other amendments to be named later.
I doubt any of it will happen.
I kept reading this article and I kept coming to the same conclusion. This guy desperately wants to somehow see the majority Democratic coalition recreated again so it can relive the glory days of the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. I don't have a huge staff of pollsters and pundits at my disposal, but the argument felt fake, forced, and hollow. Or in the words of Groucho Marx: "Who are you going to believe? Me or your own eyes?"
Yup..............But I'm still here, barely........
This article encompasses exactly what I am seeing in the Midwest and South. But they are not becoming Democrats. They are becoming independents, and they are protest voting for the reasons stated. Particularly the younger 20-30 somethings...and the old Reagan Democrats. They voted for blue dog Dems, this time around.
A total distortion of the actual libertarian position on gay marriage.
What libertarians are concerned about is the extent of government involvement in marriage itself. So long as tax codes, inheritance, and innumerable other areas of law distinguish between the married and single state, we see attempts by new groups to legally define their relationships as "marriage", as nothing more than an attempt to carve out new government subsidies for themselves.
And the Democrats are going to be better on this issue than the GOP?
Democrat theocons want to censor any dissent from their global warming mythology, prevent us from using nuclear energy and "recuse" us away from genetic engineering, robotics and nanotechnology. If Republicans were able to teach creationism in every biology class in the country, they would do less damage to science than any one of the above.
Omigawd! Democrats pick up another 2000 votes nationally.
They are united in their hatred for jews and Israel.