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.”
I’m starting to wonder where freerepublic is on that position.
The problem isn’t the social programs themselves. It’s the two-track mentality that underlies them: that of supporters who believe that only the government can run them (and only the taxpayers can fund them) and that of the recipients, who feel entitled to them rather than a sense of shame in using them.
It used to be that the poor, downtrodden and down on their luck could turn to charitable organizations and mutual aid societies for help. They, being closest to the people they both served and who generously provided their largess, were positioned to give a handout, but also a hand up to those truly in need. Conversely those truly in need felt the sting of stigma and shame; a motivating force to accept the hand up to escape the handout.
We, as a nation, have lost that. But just getting rid of government run social welfare programs won’t fix the problem because it doen’t address the underlying issue.
Assumes facts not in evidence.
Those two posts were about the implication that conservatism had died here and would no longer be opposing libertarians but supporting them, except for a “half dozen” “clever agent provocateurs... “
That's not the implication, that's your bizarre misreading.
Everyone wants their entitlement candy, whether it's Boomers and their prescription drug bennies, Gen-X'ers and their child tax credits or Millennials and whatever they'll be getting, (student loan forgiveness perhaps?)
The prevailing attitude among all generations and demographics in this country is that we need to make entitlement cuts, just don't touch the entitlements I'm getting.
LOL, of course libertarians oppose conservatism, it is why they are not conservatives but instead are “libertarians”, and the more true libertarians formed a party.
Seriously, have you read the article?
And why on a conservative site, would someone try to claim that only a “half dozen” “clever agent provocateurs... “ would be opposing libertarians here?
But not all generations voted 66% for Obama.
just being for “gay marriage” doesn’t make one a libertarian....
Assumes facts not in evidence.
Plenty of threads where libertarians castigate traditional conservatives as nanny-state socialists on FR.
Look at the article that is the thread topic, it is in opposition to conservatism.
A goal that rinos and libertarians share is to defeat social conservatism.
Or maybe we can bring back the term "neo-liberal" or "revisionist liberal" to indicate that they are a little different from other liberals (but are they different enough to matter?)
Some millennials who other people describe as liberals very well may be libertarians of a sort, but I don't see many of them going whole hog Howard Roark Dominique Francon libertarian (or objectivist or whatever).
Libtardians support every liberal social issue except banning guns.
Queer marriage, prostitution, unlimited porn, abortion, open borders, and all forms of dope.
Not our daughter and her hubby. They are staunch conservatives and met at a TEA Party event. Both know it takes hard work to earn a paycheck.
So on your planet "to oppose" means "not to agree about absolutely everything"?
Seriously, have you read the article?
Yes. Neither millenials nor pollsters define conservatism or libertarianaism.
And why on a conservative site, would someone try to claim that only a “half dozen” “clever agent provocateurs... “ would be opposing libertarians here?
Again, that "opposing" is only according to your planet's definition. 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.
Libertarians do oppose conservatives on issues, that is why the article is talking about liberal millenials being libertarian, and not conservative and why libertarians don’t merely call themselves conservatives.
Just like Rand Paul and his opposition to conservatism.
RAND PAUL:
“”Evolve, adapt or die. That is the fate of our current Republican party. We must evolve as a party and find a way to attract millennials to the conservative movement or we will never succeed in realizing our ideals of individual freedom and freedom from government interference.””
“I think that the Republican Party, in order to get bigger, will have to agree to disagree on social issues,” Paul advised. “The Republican Party is not going to give up on having quite a few people who do believe in traditional marriage. But the Republican Party also has to find a place for young people and others who don’t want to be festooned by those issues.”
I'd have to see those threads myself. But in the meantime I'll note that the very existence of the phrase "traditional conservatives" implies that there are other kinds of conservatives - so to oppose the former is not necessarily to oppose conservatism.
Libertarians do oppose conservatives on issues, that is why the article is talking about liberal millenials being libertarian, and not conservative and why libertarians don’t merely call themselves conservatives.
You miss the point.
Just like Rand Paul
Rand Paul does not speak for all libertarians.
You would have to see those threads yourself?
For a guy who has been here only weeks, you sure post in a strange manner demanding and aggressive, even hostile, for instance “”Again, that “opposing” is only according to your planet’s definition. 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.”” when speaking of the conservative opposition to libertarianism on this conservative site.
It was not too long ago that libertarians posted that those who oppose legal drugs must support the grenading of babies in their cribs.
You don’t seem to speak for anyone or anything, you keep arguing for the sake of arguing, but there is no making out what you are arguing for.
And Rand Paul is currently the most prominent libertarian politician and the darling of the libertarians.
Huh?
I know that libertarianism is pro-abortion, but I don’t understand what you posted.
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.