Posted on 11/14/2006 6:25:58 PM PST by Purple GOPer
In one closely watched Congressional race (Sodrel v Hill, IN-9) and two critical Senate races (Missouri and Montana), the Republican candidate was defeated by fewer votes than the Libertarian candidate received.
[Note: the last data I could find on the Missouri race still had two of the 3746 precincts to report, so it is possible that statement isn't true for Missouri, but if it is not true it is still very close and does not diminish my point.]
In other words, in these two critical Senate races and if the Republican had gotten the Libertarian's votes, the Republican would have won.
For the rest of this article, please recognize that I am speaking of the small-"l" libertarian, and not the Libertarian Party of the candidates mentioned above. A "libertarian", in the shortest definition I can muster, is someone who is fiscally conservative and socially liberal. In other words, it is someone who wants the government to perform a very small set of legitimate functions and otherwise leave us alone.
I can hardly contain my glee at seeing this happen after years of hoping it would. And in such dramatic fashion, with such important results. I did not hope it would because I wanted Republicans to lose, but because the Republicans had become corrupted (by which I do not mean corrupt in the typical sense.) They became enamored of power, and believed that they could get away with expanding the size, intrusiveness, and cost of government as long as they had government aim for "conservative" goals rather than liberal ones. This loss, and the way it happened, was the best thing that could have happened for Americans who care about a government focused on limited government and liberty.
No, the Democrats are not that government. They believe in anything but limited government, and they only believe in liberty in one's personal life, but not in one's economic life. In a sense, Democrats believe that the citizens work for the government.
Republicans on the other hand have acted in just the opposite way: they believe in economic liberty and they know we do not work for government. But they do not believe in personal liberty. The failure of the strategery of the Republicans, to focus on "the base" by trotting out social issues such as the South Dakota no-exception abortion ban (which lost, I'm pleased to say) demonstrated two things: First, social issues do not have long coat-tails. Second, the GOP base is fiscal conservatives more than it is social conservatives.
Fiscal conservatives, even more than social conservatives, were the demotivated voting block. Fiscal conservatives who are not socially conservative, i.e. voters who are libertarian even if they don't know it or wouldn't identify themselves that way, were the key swing vote in this election and were the reason that the GOP lost Congress...the Senate in particular.
In a recent study called "The Libertarian Vote", David Boaz (Cato Institute) and David Kirby (America's Future Foundation) discuss the growing number of American libertarians, the growing dissatisfaction among them (including me) with the GOP, and the continuing shift in voting patterns caused by that dissatisfaction. Tuesday held the obvious conclusion of this shift.
The party which went from reforming welfare to banning internet gambling by sticking the ban inside a port security bill, the party which went from Social Security reform to trying to amend the Federal Constitution to prevent gay marriage, the party which went from controlling the size and scope of government to banning horse meat became a party which libertarians and Republicans alike could not stomach.
The Democrats are a disaster, though they probably realize they need to move to the center. The Republicans have just been taught a brutal lesson that they also need to move to the center (on social issues) and back to fundamental principles of our Founders on issues of economics and basic liberties. No party can rely on the unappealing nature of their opponent to be a strong enough motivation to win elections, nor should we let them win if being just a bit better than the other guys is all they aspire to.
What I love about libertarian voters is that they vote on principle, not on party. The GOP might not like it, but politics should not be about blind loyalty if your party has lost its way. So, I disagree with suggestions that libertarians are fickle and unreliable voters. Instead the Republicans became an unreliable party. The Democrats on the other hand are extremely reliable -- they will always raise spending and taxes, get government involved where it doesn't belong. But other than the tax cuts of several years ago, the Republicans have been no different other than choosing different areas of our lives to intrude upon.
I hope that the result of the Libertarian Effect, particularly on the GOP, will be that the next election may provide us an opportunity to replace this batch of Democrat placeholders with Congressmen who not only have read the Constitution, but respect it. Congressmen who understand that Republican voters do not elect politicians to have them impose their (or our) morality on the people, but rather to keep government from interfering in our lives and leaving us, in the immortal words of Milton Friedman, "Free to Choose".
"Losertarians"...interesting new name for the GOP....
http://kvoa.com/Global/story.asp?S=5681481&nav=HMO6 PHOENIX Republican Congressman J.D. Hayworth congratulated Democratic challenger Harry Mitchell on what he says is Mitchell's likely victory in Arizona's 5th Congressional District race.
Election workers have been counting ballots since the election on November 7th, when The Associated Press called the race for Mitchell.
Hayworth says "while there are still tens of thousands of votes left to count, it has become apparent that it is unlikely we'll get enough of these votes to win the election."
Results released today show Mitchell's margin over Hayworth has grown slightly over the previous day.
Mitchell has 92-thousand-648 votes, or 50-point-one-percent of the vote.
Hayworth has collected 86-thousand-149 votes or 46-point-six-percent.
The liberal-tarians... Screw them, they can keep on voting for the Democrats like they always have... they are Cultural Marxists...
Some of them are only here to undermine the conservatives.
Because after the Libertarian elected Democrats have changed the election laws so that no Republican will ever win again, and make sure the courts are stacked with liberals, thus assuring our country's further slide towards degeneracy, apathy, stupidity until we're all a bunch of 40 year-old over taxed losers living in our mom's basement ripe for invasion by Islamic hoards who will subject us to thousands of years of slaughter and enslavement before they utterly screw up the world in some kind of freak accident killing off all intelligent life until millions of years later when the (I don't know,... let's say llamas) llamas develop the ability to produce tools and then their own society based on peace, happiness, some spitting, and equality thus making everything worth it.
Those Liberaltarians really think ahead.
That's because they are basically anarchists who have a burr under their saddle no matter who is in power. However, as much as they would like to claim the blame for the Republicans losses, their claims are much like the small time burglars who flood the police with claims of guilt when a major theft has occurred by professional thieves.
The liberal-tarians... Screw them, they can keep on voting for the Democrats like they always have... they are Cultural Marxists...
Some of them are only here to undermine the conservatives.
P.S. Pay attention to who posted this article...
I read it here in an article this past weekend. I'll see if I can locate it and ping you.
No argument there. What I disagree with is the idea that libertarians are a natural and consistent part of the Republican constituency.
Democrats elect democrats. In the Missouri race, the Libertarian candidate got 2.4% of the vote. Talent lost by 1.9%. The turnout was 53%. You can't tell me there weren't enough Republican votes in the 47% of the electorate who sat home on their butts to elect Talent if they'd just gotten up and done it.
Democrats elect democrats. In the Missouri race, the Libertarian candidate got 2.4% of the vote. Talent lost by 1.9%. The turnout was 53%. You can't tell me there weren't enough Republican votes in the 47% of the electorate who sat home on their butts to elect Talent if they'd just gotten up and done it.
This libertarian didn't vote for a single liberal and no Democrats this last election. All conservatives. That most of them weren't Republicans wasn't my fault.
Some of them are only here to undermine the conservatives.
No. We point out the hypocrisy of RINO's. A difference with a distinction. One quite a few of you RINO's seems to get your panties in a wad over.
Constitutionally minded conservative libertarians 'hang here' because the site is dedicated, in part, to constitutional restoration.
And, as you so wisely note, restoring our Constitution is indeed a lofty goal.. -- Its only 'different' to those who are incapable of understanding liberty as practiced by libertarians, and call them 'loosers' out of misguided spite.
I never once claimed to be a "conservative." I thinjk the so-called "libertarians" are really liberal-tarians (cultural Marxists). Pi$$ on them...
Typical libertarian. All boast, no action.
Great article, thanks for posting it
This is not a Republican website. It is a conservative one, and in fact is much more libertarian than Republican, when you consider what small-l libertarian means and what capital-R Republican is, these days.
In fact, as you can see on the FR home page:
Free Republic is not affiliated with any political party, group, news source, government agency or anyone else.Furthermore, the site used to proclaim quite prominently a mission that supports my point...
Basically, we believe that the Founders designed our system of government in the form of a constitutionally limited republic, with maximum freedom intended for the people and minimum government control or interference into our personal lives and business affairs.
The united states of America was intended to be a federation of sovereign states, each with its own constitution and state government. Governments at all levels -- federal, state and local -- were to be controlled by the people. Our Constitution explicitly restricts the power of our federal government; and our Bill of Rights guarantees that NO government may infringe upon our God given unalienable rights. This is to ensure that the real power remains close to home, with the states, the local governments and always in the hands of the people.
We the People have granted our federal government limited powers to oversee certain things, such as national defense, interstate commerce, the postal service, the coining of money, and the operation of a court system. Most other powers now in the hands of the federal government were illegally usurped from the states and from the people.
Somehow, over the years, our guiding principles of law, as set forth in the Constitution, have been eroded to the point that the federal government now has total control -- leaving the states impotent and the people as captive servants to the federal government. This must be reversed if we are to survive as a free Republic and a free people.
We at Free Republic are determined to return the Constitution to its rightful place as the Supreme Law of the land as the Founders intended.
It is not necessary for everyone to hold the same views to be members of Free Republic, however, many of us do share many of the following as common beliefs and goals:
Repeal of the war and emergency powers acts and the various states of national emergencies will allow the abolishing of all unconstitutional federal law, agencies and departments. This will return us to a Federalist system of government and return many responsibilities to the States and personal rights to the citizens.
A return to a strictly Constitutional form of federal government will automatically repeal and abolish all unconstitutional federal involvement in states issues such as: crime, health, education, welfare and the environment. The Tenth Amendment will again be in effect, which will bar all federal attempts at legislating social issues. This will also require that social programs such as Social Security, welfare and Medicare be repealed. So too, will most federal subsidies.
Myself being a "losertarian" (little l), I find myself in agreement with republicans 80% of the time, and almost always vote republican. This year I voted 'straight R' for the first time ever, in spite of being the most unhappy with the republicans I've ever been. I just recognized what was at stake, and didn't want to vote for surrender, but that's just me. I can completely understand why others would have not voted for republicans, though I would disagree with them.
Rather than bitching about libertarians after they deservedly lose an election, republicans should analyze and figure out why the libertarian wing of their party didn't show up, and do what they can to draw them back for the next election. Libertarians not voting for republicans, is as bad for republicans as religious conservatives staying home. Like it or not, that's just how it is.
Libertarian != libertarian
Read the article...it's referring to small-l libertarianism.
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.