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".
Sorry for pointing out your lack of reading comprehension.
That was rude. (LOL)
"But that doesn't change the fact that constitutionally, the issue belongs at the state level, not federal."
Like slavery?
How does a matter of life or death only matter on the state level?
That is insane.
Be sorry all you want. I'm still not playing.
Those are not key issues for libertarians. I am a libertarian, and voted a straight Republican ticket this year, but I have voted for Libertarians before and will do it again.
I want closed borders, State's choice on abortion (I'm pro-life) and freedom for people do what they like in their houses and in private if it doesn't harm another person. People should be able to smoke pot if they want. Go ahead and drink until you can't feel your face, then drive home from a party or a bar, but don't smoke a joint in your living room on a Friday night. It's just a stupid law. I don't like gay marriage, my solution would be to remove any government regulation on marriage. If you can get a church to marry you, good, great, fine whatever. If you can get an insurance company to recognize partner benifits, great, fine whatever. There are a lot of things that we could fix in our world by getting the government the hell out of.
As far as troops overseas... except for actual real live "declared" wars, or situations of Letters of Marquee and Reprisal, why would we need more than a few key bases across the globe? Why does Japan need a Marines base? Why does Germany need an Army base? Bottom line is we were totally justified, both morally and Constitutionally, to take action in Afghanistan. But the situation in Iraq is a mess both Constitutionally, fiscally, in terms of loss of life, our standing on the world stage, and its effects on our elections as we just saw.
If Republicans were following the Constitution in letter and spirit, and not just Dem-lite, we wouldn't have a need for a Libertarian party, and libertarians could exist within the GOP. Instead, the GOP is more interested in the short-sighted goal of winning elections as opposed to the hearts and minds of people in favor of a Republican, Constitutionally responsible form of government, and in the future we're all going to suffer.
Get with the program. The "libertarian paradise" you speak of is in New Hampshire, not Vermont.
You need seatbelts and motorcycle helmets in VT, plus they have income and sales taxes there!!!
*gag*
"or situations of Letters of Marquee and Reprisal"
Oh, my sides!
"People should be able to smoke pot if they want."
That's really all you needed to post. The rest is window-dressing.
Perhaps because it's a state issue? I realize you don't respect the 10th Amendment when it gets in the way of your 'conservative' agenda, but what were the arguments put forth by the Framers of the actual powers of the federal government versus the powers of the states (you should know this if you 'know' the Constitution so well yourself)? Of course we also have Justice White's opinion from the 1973 case
There apparently was no question concerning the validity of this provision or of any of the other state statutes when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted. The only conclusion possible from this history is that the drafters did not intend to have the Fourteenth Amendment withdraw from the States the power to legislate with respect to this matter.It matters at what level it is legislated because the Constitution has specific limits. It grants me no rights but instead limits the federal government from intruding upon the states and their respective citizens. And it also grants the rights to the states, as White pointed out, to legislate such laws at their level. However at no point does it grant the right to the federal government.
Childish irrationality is the hallmark of l/Libertarians.
Moreso the mark of 'conservatives' when the Constitution gets in the way of their agenda. I have no problem with the states passing moral laws that adhere to the views of the majority of their citizens. But I do have a problem when such morality is legislated 400+ miles away from me by politicians who do not represent my state or the views of my fellow citizens of said state
Actually, all of the Democrats this year were elected by Democrats. Seriously. It's true.
And too, a Libertarian government is an enigma to self-governance. Who knows, there may be hundreds of millions of Americans who are Libertarian but who refuse to vote for any government. LOL!
Libertarians are not doing anything but putting socialists in power. They ought to get power within the Republican party because otherwise, the only progress they make is to put rats in power. They lose elections for themselves and the Repubican Party and put in power the opposite of what they want - socialism. That is not something to be proud of. Libertarians are vying for the title of the "stupid party."
I'm also a libertarian and with the exception of a few local races where I voted for a Democratic candidate, I voted mostly Conservative, entirely for national and state races. I'm in agreement with what you posted.
Exactly like slavery, as a matter of fact, before the 13th Amendment.
How does a matter of life or death only matter on the state level? That is insane.
Because that is where the issue belongs. You asked earlier, "If abortion is wrong, what difference does it make what "level" it is decided on?" If it doesn't matter, then we ought to campaign for the United Nations to impose an abortion ban worldwide. But we don't (I hope, that is, that you don't). Why? Because the U.N. has no legitimate authority to do anything of the kind. Similarly, I am unaware of where the federal government of the U.S. has been Constitutionally empowered to ban or regulate abortion. The federal Constitution empowers the federal government to do a few certain specific things, prohibits it from doing others, and reserves other rights to the states and the people. If regulating murder is not one of those enumerated powers, then it falls to the states.
The indefinite detaining and torture of the terrorists was clearly unconstitutional and the Supreme court agreed.
Much of what the Government routinely does is unconstitutional, bribing witnesses, gun control laws, extortion, regulating private activities, taking property, etc. Sadly most of the serfs, and specifically you Sam Hill, are complicit in these activities, if for no other reason than you don't try and stop them. We still have a Democracy, at least for a little while, but we are no longer free.
You won't, because you can't.
I understand that you don't recognize those actions as being unconstitutional because you have been trained to obey your masters and it is hard to think for yourself.
Right now the main battle ground is taxes and government spending. All of the other problems pale in comparison. If you don't have the right to benefit from your labors, nothing else matters. On this point most true conservatives and libertarians agree.
So my question to you, Sam Hill and all the rest of you who are attacking Libertarians, why are you berating your staunchest allies? We may disagree on the limits of personal freedom (Libertarians want more rather than less) but I believe we are fundamentally on the same side. Yes a few Libertarians refused to hold their noses and vote for the Republicans, but by far the majority try to make the best of the very limited options we have :(
Yes the Republicans lost the Congress by a very narrow margin, but the truth is that they never really had it. The Rino's actually dictated what could and couldn't be done. Now the moderate Democrats (many of whom are more conservative than the Rinos) get to control the Democratic party. And before you get too upset, yes I am well aware of the who the speakers will be, but they will have exactly the same problem holding their coalitions together that the Republicans had. Look for very little to happen in the next two years and that is a very good thing.
Another notorious time-wasting troll chimes in.
Not a very good definition IMO
"The indefinite detaining and torture of the terrorists was clearly unconstitutional and the Supreme court agreed."
The Contitution applies to non-citizens who are captured making war against the US?
Yeah, you know your stuff all right.
God help this republic with clucks like you voting. Or did you stay home?
I hope you did. I think all libertarians should (all 3,000 of you).
You are nothing but wreckers and well-poisoners. The suicide bombers of American politics.
And just because you want to smoke dope.
"Exactly like slavery, as a matter of fact, before the 13th Amendment."
Well, that worked out great, didn't.
And never mind the rightness or wrongness of it.
You're the party of principals all right.
LOL
go drink another quart of gin and tell me about idiocy.
"You asked earlier, "If abortion is wrong, what difference does it make what "level" it is decided on?" If it doesn't matter, then we ought to campaign for the United Nations to impose an abortion ban worldwide."
This is what I mean by the l/Libertarians' inability to have a rational discussion.
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.