Posted on 04/18/2015 4:39:28 AM PDT by Kaslin
Rand Paul’s entry into the presidential race raises an interesting question: Just how many people consider themselves “libertarian” and what is the potential voting strength of this segment of the population?
Paul Krugman weighed in early with the brash claim that "there basically aren't any libertarians." But as David Henderson reminds us, once again Krugman’s opinions are nowhere near factual reality.
Gallup, which has been polling on the issue for quite some time, finds that 38 percent of the public identifies as “conservative” and 24 percent as “liberal” in the latest poll
Gallup doesn’t ask people if they are libertarian, but fortunately other polls have asked that question in various ways. In 2006 the Cato Institute commissioned Zogby International to ask 596 voters this question: “Would you describe yourself as fiscally conservative and socially liberal?” Fully 59 percent of the respondents said “yes.”
Then Zogby asked the same question of the same number of voters, but this time they added the “L” label: “Would you describe yourself as fiscally conservative and socially liberal, also known as libertarian?” David Boaz recounts the results:
The addition of the word “libertarian” clearly made the question more challenging. What surprised us was how small the drop-off was. A healthy 44 percent of respondents answered “yes” to that question, accepting a self-description as “libertarian.”
If that result is anywhere close to accurate it means that libertarians out number both conservative and liberals among the electorate. Or perhaps more precisely, more people seem to lean libertarian than lean conservative or liberal.
So why don’t we see more elections in which a libertarian candidate is opposed by an anti-libertarian (someone who advocates more government both in the boardroom and the bedroom)? In other words, why aren’t more candidates consistently in favor of more government across the board, or less government across the board?
Think of the process of producing votes as analogous to a business producing a good or service. Just as a firm needs both capital and labor, so do political candidates. Then we can apply the:
Goodman/Porter Theorem on Political Coalitions
: Candidates who are capital-intensive will seek labor-intensive supporters to add to their coalition; candidates that are labor-intensive will do the opposite.
This follows from the law of diminishing returns. The more capital you have, the less valuable one more unit of it is. Similarly, for labor.
Suppose that we start out with a Republican candidate who is supported with heavy capital contributions from the business community (because of her generally free enterprise positions) and a Democratic candidate who has a lot of support from labor (because of his support for various kinds of government intervention). Although, unions do give a lot of money to Democrats, they also provide a lot of boots on the ground, which I will call “labor.” So initially, the Republican is relatively capital intensive and the Democrat is relatively labor intensive. At this point a unit of labor is far more valuable to the Republican and a unit of capital is far more valuable to the Democrat.
Where can the Republican get labor? From social conservatives. Where can the Democrat get capital? From wealthy liberals who care about social issues (and the environment) and from The New York Times and other media outlets who believe in laissez faire in the market for ideas – no matter how regulated the market for goods and services is. I am counting newspapers editorials and biased reporting as a capital contribution – the alternative to paid advertising.
This theorem seem to fit the facts reasonably well. At least better than alternative explanations which assume that the process is basically irrational.
Political scientist Hans Noel argues that parties have, in a sense, been captured by ideologues who have persuaded those who pay close attention to politics to adopt “conservative” or “liberal” ideologies. Johnathan Bernstein at Bloomberg argues that:
[L]ooking for ideologies among voters is sort of pointless. People have impulses on various issues, but it is the parties that organize those impulses into something resembling overall world views. The parties do this by teaching their adherents which positions they should take on all those subjects the rank-and-file voter doesn’t care about much.
In other words, parties have ideologies, but not people? I don’t think so.
Back to our original question. Just how many libertarians are there? Krugman is joined by polling expert Nathan Cohn and by columnist Nate Silver in the belief that they are few and far between. But that depends crucially on how you define libertarian and how you word the questions put to votes. Political scientist John Sides, for example, thinks that a libertarian is someone who wants government to provide “fewer services.” But who wants fewer services? That’s not the public policy option. The question is: do you want more services plus higher taxes to pay for them or do you want fewer services and a tax cut?
In Krugman’s view of the world, the choice being a libertarian and not being one is a choice between “social insurance” and “no social insurance”? But what does “no social insurance” mean? Abolish Social Security? Abolish Medicare?
The question should be: Do you want to participate in a Ponzi scheme in which you have no court-enforced right to any future benefits or would you like private ownership of your retirement benefits, fully protected by the laws of contract?aa
With drones and security cameras getting affordable, I believe that many seniors could supplement their income by working at home on computers — maybe just 20 hours a day total with flexible hours and better pay for unpopular time periods or to fill absentee slots.
They could coordinate with corporate supervision, local police, stores worried about shoplifting, parking lot security, counter-terror, etc. There would need to be occassional alertness tests. That’s about it. That could be automated.
If we wipe out crime, that’s a boost to the economy. Even more importantly, if we wipe out on-the-job apathy, that’s a HUGE boost to our economy.
But we must quit penalizing low income households regardless of age for working. It should be a big ‘plus’ for them, at least for five years. Workfare on steroids.
The increasing pressure applied to social issues in this country is turning a lot of former quasi-conservatives into libertarians.
...and the 2 biggest elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity. So what’s the authors point?
CC
I used to laugh at libertarians, but the public seems to want legalized pot despite all the downsides to society. Now I’m just concerned. Now that the young lose their innocence so quickly, they want to dope themselves.
Zogby’s definition is flawed. Many “libertarians” (small L) are not liberal on social issues but feel the fiscal issues are so overwhelming that in view of the practicalities of politics (e.g. that you have to be able to win elections before you can do anything about anything), they simply do not choose to pick the fight over every social issue.
In practical terms, when the very fabric of the nation is being torn apart by government over-spending, regulatory over-reach and waste, these folks don’t elevate the antics of the 1.5% of the population who are queer to an equal level of importance.
after 20 hours a day I’d think most would be plumb tuckered out!
“socially liberal” refers to pro-Abort more often than pro-drugs.
Do you realize that many conservatives are registered independents because the Republican Party’s lurch to the left makes them want to vomit?
The author’s point about biased reporting, is that it is functionally equivalent to paid advertising for the Dem side — that every paid political ad from our side is offset by free agitation for the Dems from leftist reporters.
Libertarians are the enemy to both government AND traditional values. In other words, they are self centered social anarchists who believe in hippy dippy baloney that evil people doing evil things are “none of my business if they’re not hurting anyone.”
Oh you mean like those that vote for third party candidates, who have no chance to ever get elected? Or those that rather sit an election out because they don’t like the nominee? No wonder that arrogant pos of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave was reelected
Progressive socialists want to use the power of government to force their values onto everyone. Social conservative think the same thing. The only real difference is that they have different value.
We used to have wars to determine who would have the coercive value of government. Replacing wars with elections was a real advance for mankind. But we will only have peace and prosperity when we stop fighting for who shall rule over others.
To my dim-witted friends who worry about the legalization of drugs, with liberty, dopers eliminate themselves. What’s to worry about? That which doesn’t work can only be sustained by subsidies. Subsidizing the life-style choices of those who aren’t productive leads to illegal immigration, welfare baby breeders, dysfunctional individuals, the breakdown of the family and the collapse of entire neighborhoods.
But, hey, it may already be too late. If it isn’t already too late, it will be too late if Hillary is elected.
If your headline is correct, then why isn’t Ron Paul President?
Headline should have read Libertarians WISH they Outnumbered Both Liberals and Conservatives.
“Libertarian” means a lot of things. There are left libertarians - most of whom have no further depth than just wanting to smoke dope - and there are right libertarians. There are libertarians that believe in freedom, and those that are simply sweeping away obstacles to liscence. There are loads that are Democrats that just want to sound open minded by not declaring. ...and there are amongst all that detritus, the occasional thoughtful well thought out philosophers with an even keel.
Bingo...most don’t know what Libertarian means.
That is me. I will not vote for a person who will grow government. I am not alone.
Make fun of libertarians. Call us names. Then wonder why the democrats win.
Still stumping for your beloved affordable care act I see.
I take it you are now afraid it will be repealed.
Very well said
A "libertarian" is not the same thing a "classic liberal".
"Classical liberalism" is the term used to designate the ideology advocating private property, an unhampered market economy, the rule of law, constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion and of the press, and international peace based on free trade.(Mises website)
"Libertarianism is a political philosophy that upholds liberty as its principal objective. Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and freedom of choice, emphasizing political freedom, voluntary association and the primacy of individual judgement."(wiki)
My issues with libertarians is their primacy of individual judgement...
If Jefferson was as you say, a "libertarian' they would still be hashing out the Constitution...
This country is chock full of idiots that think their rights end at the tip of your nose...letting individuals decide drugs and deviant sexual behavior as normal and within their rights as it's their "primary individual judgment"
Forgetting about the cost to our culture and society as a whole...
Thats why we have a representative type government or are supposed to have one...to give voice to reason and general consensus...not "primary individual judgment"
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.