Posted on 07/14/2014 6:21:19 AM PDT by Kaslin
This week another Reason/Rupe poll came out, this one on the political leanings of my generation, the Millennials. One interesting thing to note for people concerned with how we vote is that a plurality of Millennials surveyed who described themselves as “liberal” express support for downright libertarian positions.
Liberal, to many Millennials (33 percent), just means belief in “social tolerance, openness, and personal freedom.” And far from preferring a leviathan state, many Millennials said they were liberal because people should have freedom to do what they want in their personal lives without government interference.
So how does that impact our voting? More liberal millennials than conservative ones indicated support for a classically “libertarian-leaning candidate,” by a margin of 60 to 27 percent. But nearly half of conservative millennials oppose a “fiscally conservative, socially liberal” candidate.
Here’s the deal. Conservative Millennials won’t vote for a Democrat. They especially won’t vote for any of the Democrats being floated. But what this poll is showing is that liberal Millennials are fed up with a Democratic party which has been anything but liberal. Consider that 60 percent of Hillary Clinton voters and 56 percent of those who approve of President Obama say they would support a fiscally conservative, socially liberal candidate. They’re open to free markets, as long as they get their personal freedoms.
In total, a majority—53 percent—of millennials say they would support a candidate who described him or herself as socially liberal and economically conservative.
So what does that mean?
Young people were key to Obama’s election and re-election. Ignoring their wishes not only harms the GOP now, but also going forward.
Traditionally, the GOP has had an all-too-testy relationship with its libertarian wing. Mediaite’s Andrew Kirell:
To wit: There’s the GOP’s historically poor convention treatment of Paul supporters; the incessant scapegoating of Libertarian candidates for GOP losses, even despite mathematical impossibility; the perpetual misunderstanding of what libertarians believe in; the conservative belittling of libertarian causes; the penchant for selecting terrible candidates and then getting pissy when libertarians hesitate to get behind the false choice; and plenty of embarrassing moves that make libertarians want to crawl under a rock.
The personal freedoms we Millennials want in no way violate small-government principles. In fact, they are full expressions of that idea that that government which governs least, governs best. Ending the War on Drugs, fixing our broken immigration system, no longer allowing the state to discriminate against gays in marriage, reining in domestic spying, and protecting whistleblowers are all, fundamentally, small-government positions which would all result in a net decrease in the state.
Nominating truly small-government politicians, who want the government out of the bedroom and the boardroom, isn’t just the only principled path forward for the GOP. It’s also the best way to attract my generation to the party. It’s the GOP, not the Democrats, who Millennials should associate with “social tolerance, openness, and personal freedom.”
For a guy who has been here only weeks, you sure post in a strange manner demanding
I should just take others' word for what was said on other threads ... because I've been here only 8 weeks?
and aggressive
No more so than you.
I thought this was quite clear:
"Sane conservatives and sane libertarians can and should make common cause on those many issues where they agree - despite the shrieking and waste-flinging of their respective lunatic fringes."
That doesn’t say anything, since freerepublic is a conservative site we sure won’t be accepting many of the goals of libertarianism and Rand Paul, or of the millennials described in this article.
“It was not too long ago that libertarians posted that those who oppose legal drugs must support the grenading of babies in their cribs.”
I can’t find that claim on any of these threads:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3163692/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3161932/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3161916/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3161782/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3161685/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3161587/posts
The way you argue with such hostility, yet evasiveness, and never actually let on what your politics are, you sure do look like a retread.
What questions have I been asked and not answered?
and never actually let on what your politics are
If you must have a label, I'm a conservative with a few libertarian leanings (no open borders, no abortion, yes to legally distinguishing minors from adults).
Again, you said nothing.
If you are conservative then I don’t know what you seem so disagreeable about with conservatives or what passion drives you on this thread.
Surely you support our conservative positions then and you must be disturbed by this libertarianism/liberalism of the millenials.
Remember those kids are pro-gay marriage, and pro-gay agenda, and pro-drugs, and I assume open borders and pro-abortion, since those are positions of libertarianism.
Then ask better questions. Or not.
If you are conservative then I don’t know what you seem so disagreeable about with conservatives or what passion drives you on this thread.
I disagree with attempts to discourage sane conservatives and sane libertarians from making common cause on those many issues where they agree - that is, I disagree with the shrieking and waste-flinging of their respective lunatic fringes.
Libertarians are not on our side. That has been shown over and over again.
The retread above seems to just be trolling.
You can not make common cause with libertarians.
Just opposing legalizing drugs gets this response.
Do you think we can be on the same side?
......................
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/rlc/3172322/posts?page=4
This baby’s blood is on the hands of all who support the war on some drugs.
13 posted on Wed 25 Jun 2014 05:42:36 PM CDT by SpeakerToAnimals
o you support throwing grenades at children? You’re sick.
32 posted on Wed 25 Jun 2014 06:07:56 PM CDT by csvset
If you were actually a conservative, rather than a thug, it would dawn on you.
Y’all keep filling those ticket quotas and wearing that SWAT ID on your body armor 27/7. There will NEVER be a backlash.
54 posted on Wed 25 Jun 2014 06:32:37 PM CDT by jonascord
Save your applause for the cops that throw grenades on top of children.
60 posted on Wed 25 Jun 2014 06:39:29 PM CDT by csvset
Are all libertarians “liberdopians”?
An assumption that they are is entirely understandable and predictable, "liberdopian" not being in any dictionary and "dope" being something 99.9+% of libertarians want to legalize.
Here here!
I am more liberal than Barack or Mrs. C and I am not ashamed to say it.
There are no libertarians that believe someone else should pay for it. Those are liberals. It's like saying there are communists that believe in a free market.
No, the ones who think legalizing drugs (pretty much all of them) +_____________________ = UTOPIA
This is true, but it certainly means one is not a conservative. Believing that the state, or even present society as a whole, has the authority to redefine the very nature of a fundamental human institution, grounded in biology, which predates all nation-states and has been foundational to all civilizations throughout history is about as anti-conservative as one can get. Not merely moving the "boundary markers" of the American Founders, but the boundary markers of all heretofore existing human societies.
Indeed all true and valid points, but you also have to keep all the moral busybodies in check that will most assuredly crawl out of the woodwork in Joe’s defense. They will bash us over the head with all of the “we have to take care of the downtrodden”, “we need to give him a helping hand”, “we can’t just let him die”, “we must keep him from starving”, it was his upbringing, etc, etc, ad-nauseum.
You and I both know that is exactly what happens and will continue to happen until we stop dumbing America’s populace down and actually start speaking the unvarnished truth - as politically incorrect or uncomfortable as it may be.
I agree that Joe should have the ability to ruin his life and face his consequences directly without any interference from anyone else - as long as Joe doesn’t harm anyone else in the process (which is a very unlikely proposition). That won’t happen until America has the guts to stand up and say “no more!”.
If all of the drug laws were repealed tomorrow and the social safety nets were eliminated at the same time, well, I think we both know what would happen.
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.