Ted Cruz Speech Nods to Increasing Libertarian Views within Republican Party

Cato Institute ^ | 9/26/13 | David Kirby

[shego]

During his Ironman 21-hour speech, Sen. Ted Cruz read excerpts from Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, name-dropped "libertarians" at least six times, and yielded to Sen. Rand Paul, who invoked Frederic Bastiat's "What is Seen and Unseen," a favorite among libertarians.

Ted Cruz, who retained remarkable composure over the long night, seems in all things deliberate. Political leaders seem to have become more comfortable talking about libertarians, even identifying themselves as such. Libertarians may have reached a tipping point within the Republican Party.

Last week, a FreedomWorks study on public opinion found that libertarian views within the Republican Party are at the highest point in a decade, today representing 41 percent of Republican voters....

We define libertarians as those who favor "smaller government" and think government should not promote "traditional values." Using this method, FreedomWorks data show that 41 percent of Republicans and Republican leaning independents are libertarian today.

Two separate data sources, Gallup and ANES, show the same trend: that libertarian views are at the highest point in a decade....

Of course, as I've have noted previously, not all these libertarians self-identify as such and many don't know the word. But even that seems to be changing, and it's not just Ted Cruz.

Sen. Rand Paul calls himself a "libertarian-leaning Republican." Glenn Beck now considers himself libertarian, saying "I'm a lot closer to Penn Jillette than I am to Chuck Hagel." Matt Drudge recently tweeted his frustration with Republicans on Syria, saying it's now "authoritarian vs. libertarian." According to FreedomWorks' poll, only 10 percent of Republicans "don't know" the word libertarian, compared to 27 percent nationally.

The data confirm that libertarian views may well have reached a tipping point in the Republican Party.

[Gene Eric]

You’re very sensitive for someone that has no problem attributing depraved traits to others without evidence.

You don’t agree with my definition of libertarianism and how it’s distinguished from liberalism, right?

[freedom462]

Don’t sweat it that much. As a lurker here, I have seen right-libertarians blow their opponents out of the water in intellectual debates on this forum for years. In fact, they usually make their authoritarian statists opponents look like idiots with severe Narcissistic Personality Disorder - no matter what end of the political spectrum they claim to be on.

[freedom462]

Eventually, it becomes pointless trying to explain that a true small l libertarian is NOT pro gay marriage and in fact is NOT pro homosexual agenda in any form - in fact the homosexual agenda activists are often way more scared of small l libertarians than anyone else. And that there are plenty of small l libertarians - and those of us here on FR are great examples - who are as passionate about getting rid of abortion forever as conservatives. And that a true small l libertarian is not gonna promote casual sex, homosexualism, porn and drugs in our public schools - because a true small l libertarian advocates for our public schools teaching reading, writing, math, science and history and that’s it.

But of course, it gets old trying to eplain this to people.

[Gene Eric]

Agreed.

The Country began on small libertarianism, not the behemoth of statism it is today.

[ansel12]

Is this going to be just another series of weird personal attacks from you?

Why not just respond to the post itself, and no, no one cares about your personal definitions for anything?

Why is opposing the libertarian position on homosexuality and law, for instance in the military and immigration statism?

ansel12 to Gene Eric
Calling people who do not support the libertarian position on homosexuals and the military for instance “statist” is no defense for radical liberalism.

Opposing this libertarian claptrap is not statist, it is conservatism and traditional Americanism.

libertarianism’s position on personal relationships and laws and government:

“”Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government’s treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws.””

[Gene Eric]

My personal definitions? You’re an idiot.

[Gene Eric]

statism
- - - - - - - -
Political system in which central government has a major role

libertarianism
- - - - - - - -
Political philosophy that emphasizes the importance of personal liberty and political freedom, with strict limits on state activity

conservatism
- - - - - - - -
A political or theological orientation advocating the preservation of the best in society and opposing radical changes

liberalism
- - - - - - - -
A political orientation that favors social progress by reform and by changing laws rather than by revolution

Don’t be a statist!

[ansel12]

Eventually, it becomes pointless trying to explain that a true small l libertarian is NOT pro gay marriage and in fact is NOT pro homosexual agenda in any form - in fact the homosexual agenda activists are often way more scared of small l libertarians than anyone else

Because it isn't true, no one cares about whatever your personal differences with libertarianism are, it doesn't change libertarianism.

Look at this Cato article for instance and how libertarianism is defined. It is defined just as I always define, conservative economics and social liberalism. """We define libertarians as those who favor "smaller government" and think government should not promote "traditional values."""

ie ""Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government’s treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws.""

[ansel12]

Too bad the article uses my definition.

See post 128.

[CatherineofAragon]

"Still no evidence, huh?"

Still no answer as to whether you agree with your candidate's pro-queer view, huh?

[freedom462]

There are tons of definitions of small l libertarians, anyone who understands it knows that it includes social conservatives and social liberals - and either way they don’t believe in gov’t force to do their dirty work.

A legit small l libertarian is never gonna advocate having a gov’t force Christians to accept a definition of marriage they do not feel is Biblically appropriate. Anyone who says otherwise has been warped on what small l libertarianism actually is. Those who know can clearly tell you that a true small l libertarian would be completely revolted at forcing churches to perform gay marriage ceremonies against their will.

[ansel12]

Wow, what a silly and dishonest straw dog.

Libertarians are fighting for this agenda. “”Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government’s treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws.””

No one said anything about them fighting for laws requiring unwilling churches to marry gays etc.

The libertarians oppose conservatives not on economics, but on social issues.

[ansel12]

The Country began on small libertarianism, not the behemoth of statism it is today.

This country began on Social Conservatism that would make your head spin today, and conservative economics.

Today libertarians want the old economics and the social agenda of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Which is impossible to have at the same time.

[Rodamala]

All those "new normals" you are attributing as an agenda of libertarians or the Libertarian Party are misleading. I believe the point is that the federal government should have no part of what brand of shoe you wear, what sort of medical coverage one elects to have, or how often a man may have sex with his wife... or go out for ice cream. The place for evaluating stuff like homos in the military is in open society. Personally, I have had one good gay friend in my life, and he was an angry, petty, little wretch of a man... but still, he was a good friend. The point is that society should be responsible for deciding what it consider socially acceptable... or if homos ought to be taken seriously. Even if the queer agenda is so "loud and proud", I believe a majority of people in society see homosexual men simply as perversions of nature that have turdmeat on the tip of their peckers.

[SUSSA]

REASON: Governor Reagan, you have been quoted in the press as saying that you’re doing a lot of speaking now on behalf of the philosophy of conservatism and libertarianism. Is there a difference between the two?

REAGAN: 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.

Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path.
######

Reagan didn’t agree with every libertarian on every issue. Nor did he agree with every real conservative on every issue. Indeed, few libertarians agree on every issue. Only low information ideologues agree with each other on every issue.

A few libertarians are over the top and crossing into anarchy, but certainly not all are; and none are that I’ve encountered on FR. Most libertarians I’ve encountered would reject them just as Reagan did.

The fact remains, Reagan agreed more with libertarians than with establishment Republicans who call themselves conservatives. In fact, it was those establishment Republicans who were some of Reagan’s most vicious attackers.

No libertarian I’ve encountered is for homosexuals in the military. I have met libertarians who believe marriage is a church issue not a government issue and every religion should decide who can and who can’t be married and the government should stay out of it. I prefer that view of marriage to people who argue all marriage should conform to their church’s teachings.

[freedom462]

Annnnnd ......

Looks like another one of us has gotten suckered into the flame wars.

[ansel12]

LOL, nonsense, Reagan was no libertarian and distanced himself from them even in that 1975 interview when he was trying not to offend them.

You are seeing libertarians defend the homosexual agenda on this very thread, just as you see on every libber thread, you are doing that in that very post when you call to end marriage and just let everyone just make up there own definitions.

Actually they can already, anyone can and always could, it just wasn’t legal when it came time for divorce or death, child custody, inheritance etc, or in the military for instance, one of the countless places where the government has to decide which soldiers are legally “married”.

[Gene Eric]

>> Too bad the article uses my definition.

While you may think it's "too bad", you're admitting we don't agree on the definitions. It was bound to happen one day despite the fact you were working so hard to avoid it:

You don’t agree with my definition of libertarianism and how it’s distinguished from liberalism, right?

So to answer an outstanding question of yours, I don't support the homosexualization of the Country whether in the Military, institution of Marriage, schools, etc.; a position 1) not inconsistent with the book definition of libertarianism, 2) consistent with the book definition of conservatism, but a position 3) at odds with the book definition of liberalism.

Bye!

[ansel12]

I believe the point is that the federal government should have no part of what brand of shoe you wear, what sort of medical coverage one elects to have, or how often a man may have sex with his wife... or go out for ice cream.

Those are all conservative positions so that isn't it.

Now the second portion of your post where you timidly started to promote the homosexual agenda, that was getting into the area of discussion and the disagreement between conservative traditional America and libertarians.

[Dead Corpse]

Yep...