Elusive Libertarians: Do “libertarian leanings” constitute a significant political movement?

National Review Online ^ | February 18, 2010 | John Zogby & Zeljka Buturovic

[Delacon]

A number of commentators have recently taken up the notion that libertarianism has become a significant force in contemporary American politics. This conviction is partly based on the assumption that, by being different from both liberals and conservatives, libertarians can enter coalitions with both, thus boosting their political power beyond their numbers. For example, David Kirby and David Boaz of the Cato Institute recently argued that, although unaware of the appropriate label for their beliefs, a significant number of Americans have “libertarian leanings” and that they are not only swing but bellwether voters; their support for Republicans, for example, ominously dropped 13 points during George W. Bush’s years in the White House. Several libertarians have argued that progressivism is, at the very least, as much a natural ally of libertarianism as is conservatism, and have advocated a fusion between the two, dubbed liberaltarianism.

On the face of it, this is not an unreasonable argument. However, our polling data at Zogby International indicate that libertarianism does not play as significant a role as the media hype would suggest. Very few people claim adherence to libertarian philosophy. Among those who do, a majority identifies with the political Right because of the large role economic freedom plays in libertarian ideology. For the most part, libertarians are a fraction within the conservative coalition — not a stand-alone movement.

Here are some of our data that show this. As a rule, we at Zogby ask two questions about ideology: a qualitative one, where people can choose a political label — progressive, liberal, moderate, conservative, very conservative, or libertarian — and a quantitative one, in which we ask them to position themselves on a 1–9 ideological scale, where 1 is extremely liberal and 9 is extremely conservative.

In all our surveys, almost all our respondents answer both questions. Our December 2009 survey results are typical. First, we found 2 percent of likely voters describing their ideology as “libertarian.” Second, over 90 percent of these self-described libertarians were willing to position themselves on a continuum between Left and Right — although they were free to say they were “something else” or “not sure.” Of those who answered the question, 89 percent chose 5 or higher, with most choosing 6, 7, or 8. Here are the average scores for various ideological groups on our 1–9 scale in our December survey:

 

	Average ideological score on a 1-9 scale
Progressive	1.7
Liberal	2.8
Moderate	4.8
Conservative	7.1
Very conservative	8.3
Libertarian	6.4
Total	5.2

 

To be sure, libertarians and conservatives have quite different views on a number of issues. For example, when we ask questions about foreign policy, we find that voters who describe themselves as libertarians often hold views that are a combination of those held by progressive and very conservative voters. Here is just one example:

However, different as conservative and libertarian positions can be on some issues, this appears not to matter very much. The reason is that economic issues are central to the libertarian worldview, and on these issues, libertarians have far more in common with the Right than with the Left. According to our July 2009 survey, 69 percent of conservative and 68 percent of very conservative adults share the view of 64 percent of libertarians that “Economic freedom is the foundation for all other freedoms.” In that survey, we asked: Which of the following issue categories is most important to your current ideology: social/cultural issues (abortion, gay rights, gun control); economic issues (free markets, free trade, union rights); foreign-policy issues (intervention in other countries, national defense); or environmental/energy issues (government subsidies, global warming)?

 

 

Which of the following issue categories is most important to your current ideology:
	Social/ Cultural	Economics	Foreign Policy	Energy/ Environment	Other/ Not Sure
Progressive	35%	23%	8%	25%	10%
Liberal	34%	24%	7%	25%	11%
Moderate	19%	40%	12%	16%	12%
Conservative	24%	47%	15%	5%	9%
Very conservative	38%	37%	13%	4%	8%
Libertarian	17%	60%	8%	4%	11%
Total	25%	38%	12%	14%	11%

 
In the past, we at Zogby were often pestered by libertarians. “We are unfairly forced in your surveys,” they complained, “to choose between two crude views neither of which captures our philosophy.” It was in reaction to their insistence that they are fundamentally different from both liberals and conservatives that we added the “libertarian” category on our ideology question.

In this, we were not alone. Theories have been developed to accommodate ideological patterns that do not fit the somewhat limited Left–Right continuum. For example, The Political Compass has attempted to map attitudes toward economic and social freedom more accurately by creating four possible ideological types (authoritarian Left, authoritarian Right, libertarian Left, and libertarian Right). More elaborately, Brian Mitchell’s Eight Ways to Run the Country uses attitudes toward hierarchy and use of force to establish eight political types, two of which serve merely to disentangle the Hayek from the von Mises variety of libertarianism.

Let us for a moment follow these writers’ assumption that a person’s ideology is solely determined by his policy views. And let us also assume that social and economic liberties can largely be disentangled and that libertarians are as close to liberals on social issues as they are to conservatives on economic ones — a view implicit in the argument for liberaltarianism. Still, our data show that different aspects of ideology are not equally important for a person’s ideological identity, and, somewhat ironically, that this is especially true of libertarians. For all their insistence that liberty has multiple facets, libertarians appear to cherish one of them much more than others. This means that liberaltarians should not hold their breath waiting for self-described libertarians to join them.

Of course, as Kirby and Boaz point out, few people use the libertarian label to describe themselves. Part of the elusive promise of libertarianism as a political force is the assumption that there are plenty of unconscious libertarians, who have a broad, vague preference for both economic and social liberties. However, one has to wonder how much these people care about either of them. If they have not bothered to learn the name of their presumed philosophy, the chances that they are applying it with vigor and consistency to multiple domains must be rather slim. Libertarians proper might indeed derive their issue positions from general principles. But a vast majority of voters do not. Realistically speaking, libertarian philosophy is too abstract for a significant number of voters to have bothered to study it, let alone embrace it.

Political philosophy is cognitively complex and, in principle, allows for endless distinctions to be drawn and combinations of beliefs and convictions to be made. Yet when we look at people — as opposed to ideas — we see that a vast majority of voters have no problem with a binary choice. The Political Compass’s ratings of American politicians typically leave two and sometimes three of their four quadrants empty. Mitchell admitted that, of his eight ideological types, only three play a significant role in American politics.

One reason for this is that ideology is not only a theoretical but also a social category, and someone’s ideological identification depends not only on what he believes about policy but also on what sort of person he wants to be seen as being. Among libertarians, some see themselves as liberal intellectuals made better by their knowledge of economics and hence eager tutors to the partly benighted liberal elite. Others resent liberal intellectuals and feel a psychological kinship with modest men relying on common sense.

As a result, political coalitions depend not merely on compatibility of ideas among various factions but also on psychological affinities that particular people have for one another. Ed Kilgore points to secularism as a possible bridge between libertarians and liberal intellectuals. But he also points out the unacceptable eagerness — from the liberal point of view — with which libertarians have embraced the tea partiers. Our own data suggest that most libertarians find the company of conservatives to be more congenial than that of liberals. As Kirby and Boaz point out, libertarians sometimes part company with Republicans. Yet it is less clear how often, psychologically speaking, they part company with conservatives.

Politics is a social endeavor where practice trumps theory and results trump reasons and justifications. A robust political force should not need so much theoretical refinement and so much data collection for its power to be recognized. The libertarian movement is decades old, has its own party and tens of thousands of pages written on its behalf, and still struggles to be recognized and appreciated. Yet the political significance of the tea-party movement was recognized within months of its coming into existence, without anyone having predicted its arrival and with many still struggling to understand what the tea-partiers stand for. In the end, we find it unlikely that a significant group of voters committed to their philosophy — whatever that philosophy might be — would fail, decade after decade, to put into high office anyone seriously supportive of it.

— John Zogby is president and CEO of Zogby International, a global polling and market-research company. He is the author of The Way We’ll Be: The Zogby Report on the Transformation of the American Dream (Random House, 2008). Zeljka Buturovic is a research associate at Zogby International and co-author of the forthcoming book Tržišno Rešenje (Market Solution).

[parsifal]

I left them and joined the criminal party on March 15, 2001. When Bush signed the Bankruptcy “Reform” Nonsense. As a Democrat, I don’t have to put up with dumbness from the GOP and as a Democrat, I get to vote a whole lot more often.

parsy, the practical

[Delacon]

I think you give libertarians more credit than they deserve(did ya read the freakin article? :)) For myself I just mentioned the meat and potato disagreements, but yes there is a lot to disagree with. But that shouldnt preclude libertarians from being under the tent because you disagree with them on particular issues. They sure as hell aren’t compassionate conservatives(how do you think that will work next time around?). They will keep my traditional(not to be confused with social) cons on our toes. I invite that. They will give us dimension during any debate that might actually attract the independent voter. Just sayin.

[Dead Corpse]

Sorry. Sneaky monkey is sneaky...

Interesting article BTW. I don't agree with it all, I think some of the premises are flawed, but that again... I haven't read everything by every "libertarian" author out there.

[parsifal]

Good luck, but I think if the Birther Units formed their own party, it would get more votes than the libertarians.

parsy, who is going to practice and refine his poo flinging technique. (I think it is all in the wrist....)

[Delacon]

In the face of Kelo, and a broad interpetation of the general welfare clause, which both republicans and democrats like to play with, dont you think some libertarian “no coersion” might help the republican party?

[Dead Corpse]

Certainly. Kelo ranks up there with Miller, Wickard, Slaughthouse, and Barron for the Worst examples of blatant judicial activism by the SCOTUS.

IMO... of course.

[Darth Reardon]

A minimum wage simply distorts the market, giving employers an incentive to look for alternatives to using labor (or legal labor), and/or to pass the additional costs on to the consumers (as, you said, “for the rest of us to take care of”). There’s no magic money fairy, it comes from somewhere. A minimum wage is a lot like a labor union, any potential good for the union members comes at a cost to others.

[Delacon]

Jeeze P, I think libertarians help. Who thinks birthers do? Get serious. The fate of freedom and democracy hangs in the balance. :)

[Sloth]

if you believe in social security, you are a socialist Rino. Ditto for minimum wages, wage and hour laws, worker’s comp laws, child labor laws, FDA, social security, medicare, etc. Believe in those you and you are a socialist.

Well, duh. Most of these (though not child labor, at least) are socialist, by any decent definition of socialism. They are manifestations of violence on a mass scale. You think it's OK to take money from me & my family, at gunpoint, to give it to others you deem more deserving. Call it whatever you want, it's still a monstrous evil.

[parsifal]

Believe me yet? Another “conservative” who thinks social security is socialism. Gee, I guess Ronald Reagan was our first Socialist President?

parsy, who will send you some more of these if you like

[parsifal]

Don’t even get me started on the Birther Units and the CBC (Collective Birther Consciousness).

parsy, who is resting up from battling them

[aSeattleConservative]

You need to get your small l’s and big L’s straight.

I see; that would be like me saying "I'm a republican, but I don't have anything to do with the Republican Party". As I've mentioned many times in my debates with libertarians (note the small "l"), "While you might not totally agree with your parties platform, your political identity is based on the party you agree with most when it comes to their platform."

Besides that, libertarians hijacked the word from Christianity to begin with. Here's an excellent article by Bojidar Marinov entitled "Can I be a libertarian without Christ". Definitely worth the read. http://www.americanvision.org/article/can-i-be-a-libertarian-without-christ/

[Delacon]

Sloth it comes down to this, both parties pols are promising to make goverment take care of the people. Libertarians are the only ones who say that the government shouldnt be in that business. I think that is an idea that libertarians should shout to the rafters.

[Sloth]

I see; that would be like me saying "I'm a republican, but I don't have anything to do with the Republican Party".

That would be a perfectly reasonable thing to say. Article IV of the U.S. Constitution, for example, states that "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." Are you suggesting that they're referring to the political party that wouldn't exist for another 60 years or so?

[ChrisInAR]

You're going to need to get the RINO's out of the water first...

Or the Neocons poisoning the water like the Muslims down in Ft. Jackson tried to do.

[Mariner]

Reagan didn't begin Social Security, that was Roosevelt.

However, in '64 Reagan gave a speech which was opposed to big government programs (I believe it was Medicare at the time), called: A Time for Choosing.

As far as I know, Ronald Reagan didn't once propose a large government program unrelated to national defense. Not once. In fact he recommended the demolition of several.

[bamahead]

I don’t think Social Security is socialism.

I just think it’s a gigantic ponzi scam on the American taxpayer, which any private concern would go to prision for running.

Big difference.

[zeugma]

The main problem with the current political parties is that they are not philosophically internally consistent. I consider my self to be "libertarian" because neither party represents my views on liberty (economic, political, and personal) to any strong degree. I absolutely disagree that "progressivism is, at the very least, as much a natural ally of libertarianism as is conservatism". What has come to be known as "progressivism" is essentially a socialist/communist political and economic philosophy/religion, and in no way mirrors my views on much of anything.

Republicans are somewhat closer, but is still too much driven by the nanny staters to be able to garner my wholehearted support.

[aSeattleConservative]

The problem is my friend, is that the word “libertarian” has been grossly perverted.

“God [is] “the true sovereign and the true source of law.” “Western liberty began when the claim of the State to be man’s savior was denied. The State then, according to Scripture, was made the ministry of justice. But, wherever Christ ceases to be man’s Savior, there liberty perishes as the State again asserts its messianic claims. Man is in trouble, and history is the record of his attempt to find salvation. Man needs a savior, and the question is simply one of choice: Christ or the State? No man can choose one without denying the other, and all attempts at compromise are a delusion.”
http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=963

Would you not agree that in the minds and through the actions of the majority of libertarians, that Christ and His Father’s laws play a very insignificant role (if any)?

[Sloth]

Would you not agree that in the minds and through the actions of the majority of libertarians, that Christ and His Father’s laws play a very insignificant role (if any)?

I would say that is true not only of libertarians, but also of Republicans, Democrats, and even those who call themselves Christians.