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

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:

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

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).

A new US study published in the journal Cancer found that men who regularly smoked marijuana for at least 10 years have a higher risk of contracting testicular cancer.

Yes bamahead, if you "regularly" (not varying; constant) grill chicken or steak on an outdoor barbecue, you'd have to be wary of cancer as well. It's a good thing that you don't smoke dope on a "regular" basis (not varying; constant).

Nobody I know that’s conservative OR libertarian likes Roe v. Wade

You really should get to know the people over at the Party that shares the same "l" word with you (they capitalize theirs). From their Party Platform: "Government should be kept out of the matter of abortion.
Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration."
Link to Dopertarian Party Platform

Remember that government either legislates "Thou Shalt" or "Thou Shalt Not"; there is no neutral ground.

As far as the homosexual take - truthfully I think there was just as much of the problems you described before any of those sodomy laws were nullified. The only thing those laws did was criminalize ‘bedroom’ behavior.

If you consider homosexual bathhouses, bars and glory hole infested public restrooms "bedrooms" then you're wrong. Laws that promoted decency kept these perverts hiding in the sewer where they belong.

Look at what has happened to our once great Christian Nation since we have basically decriminalized "bedroom behavior" amongst the sodomites:

Homosexuals have left the confines of their sodomy chambers and are openly changing (or attempting to change) valuable American institutions such as marriage, the military, the nuclear family, organized religion, and youth mentor groups such as the Boy Scouts (I bet they're just licking their lips at the thought of being a Scout Master and going on overnight campouts with 12 year old boys).

There was a term that was used by homosexuals that you don't hear much anymore: "In the closet". When a sin comes "out of the closet", no matter what the sin is, society will be negatively effected by it.

On the alcohol thing, we’ll just continue to disagree :) Prohibition and blue/dry laws do nothing to reduce consumption

I did some research on the libertarian "stink tank", The Cato Institute. I'll be darned if there is anyplace in their website that talks about God and His laws.
Link to Cato stink tank

Before I close with the brilliant words of a fellow Christian conservative regarding atheists/moral relativists/libertarians, whatever they're calling themselves this week; I'll nullify your argument that "more people use (and hence abuse) something that is unlawful."

As shown in a previous post, there are many more abortions and deaths of homosexuals (500,000+ in 10 years) since those laws (laws that God approves of) were decriminalized. If you really think that the vast majority of people DON'T abide by the law, whether they think it is just or not, do the following:

Stand near an intersection with a traffic light and watch how many people in cars run the red light. Next, watch to see how many people run the light when a police patrol car is sitting next to them. My point? The vast majority of American's that don't use and have no need for illegal narcotics respect our laws banning them. For those that don't, there is that police patrol car sitting next to them or either nearby to "encourage" them to abide by the law.

And now some brilliant words:

"It is laughable that a whole nation can conduct honest business without the principles of the Ten Commandments. Some say, “I can be honest without believing in God.” I say, if you are honest, why do you resent the restraining hand of God?"

He has shown you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God? (Micah 6:8)

Is not this the creed of healthy business practices? Is not this the simple creed for a healthy country?

Atheists are cancer. They attached themselves to every organ in the body of this nation, and business is no exception. They are undermining the capitalist system from both the left and the right, because the atheist’s mind knows no limit and no restriction.

The Libertarian Party wants to legislate immorality. This should ring the alarm. They are far from remaining “neutral” in religious matters. I know they are a lost cause since they adopted “The Fountainhead” as their “bible.”

I used to read Ayn Rand’s books rather uncritically when I was younger. She was an enemy of socialism; I liked that. I thought that the “enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Now I know she was no friend of liberty. “Liberty” cannot be practiced by children; it is the property of adults. Ayn Rand forever remained a rebellious little girl, who, by her own words, harbored a “guilty secret.” She was devoid of “moral instincts.” So were Hitler and Stalin. Ayn Rand had the mindset of a totalitarian ruler. She did not hate “slavery”; she hated dictators because she was their competitor. (Hitler hated Stalin, not because he hated socialist utopia in principle, but because he wanted to establish his own kind.)

So Rand made up her own “uncharted” country, a state of anarchists, where morality is immoral. (Her personal life was rotten; she promoted “open marriage.”) The free enterprise system was flourishing in this country before she came. She did not care to see whether the absence of “moral code” would benefit it or not. As a good utopist, she was certain that her idea “works.” (Although it was not her original idea. Nietzsche asked first: “Should moralizing not be—immoral? (Beyond Good and Evil, 228) Ayn Rand believed in the moral standard of human reason. “Whose reason? The answer is: Yours” (The Fountainhead). This might sound flattering to some, but think! 300 million moral standards? Her philosophy is just as dangerous as any other “Humanism.”

Warning: capitalists are not necessarily enemies of state control. Often, millionaires and billionaires offer their money and expertise, propping up socialist politicians. Unprincipled capitalists may be control-freaks too, and they have no scruples to make deals with the government when their interest dictates it. A historical example of this is Naftaly Frenkel, a Turkish millionaire businessman, who designed and operated the system of Gulags for Stalin. His motto was that the life of a prisoner should last for three months to be “profitable.” Evil is Evil, it may attach himself to any man’s heart.
Link to American Vision

Christianity is the answer my FRiend; dope smoking libertarianism isn't.

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.

	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

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%