The Libertarian Effect

Real Clear Politics ^ | 11/13/06 | ROSS KAMINSKY

[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".

[takenoprisoner]

Those casino's you can still go to were the big backers of that bill.

One of the largest lobbyists, The American Gaming Association, didn't back it. They backed a feasibility study to regulate it.

Regardless, the demopublicons, holding the majority in Congress, passed yet another law prohibiting Americans from exercising an individual freedom. This demonstrates to me that republicans, like democrats, believe that most Americans are simply unable to regulate their own indivdiual lives. Therefore, it is up to Congress to control our behavior with prohibition legislation.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Right, I know. I'm just as much against an intrusive government into the private lives of the citizens as much as the next guy. I am also against all these non-profits set up to lobby government to regulate what I can and cannot watch on TV or listen to on the radio. If I don't want to watch smut and garbage on the TV or listen to Howard Stern, I'll change the station and have always done so.

[Junior]

...then they applaud when their ideology sucks votes frpm Republicans and elects liberal Democrats.

Libertarian ideology did not "suck votes" from Republicans. Those votes don't "belong" to the Republican Party and are not theirs by Divine Right. If the Republicans field truly conservative candidates then they have nothing to fear.

[GOP_1900AD]

Who were the candidates I voted for? I don't think I ever mentioned it.

[photodawg]

The causal relationsip is between something that failed to occur and something that failed to occur. The two things that failed to occur were Republicans getting elected, and a bunch of them failing to get up off their ass and vote. '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''


No, the assertion was that libertarians not voting for republicans did not cause republicans to lose. Both conditions actually occurred. You then go on to postulate the assertion that the republicans lost because some people didn't vote. which is the invalid statement since you are basing the fact that the republicans lost on the assertion that the people who didn't vote would have voted for republicans. This can't be proved since the individuals in question didn't vote. That, my friend is conjecture and simply cannot be substantiated. What we do know factually is that the LIBertarians had a large enough vote count to give the republicans the majority of votes, but did not vote for republicans. Two undeniable facts that result in the conclusion that the LIBertarians caused the republicans to fall 1.2% short of victory. conjecture about things that did not occur, while interesting hypothetically have no place in a discussion of factual causation.

[tacticalogic]

When you have to waffle around about whether out of 47% of the electorate you could find at least 2% Republicans, you're really, really desperate.

I understand Reagan's 11th commandment, but this is a local race and I'm registered as an Independent. I voted for Talent, the Republican candidate and he lost, by less than 2%. There were more than enough Republicans in that 47% to get him another 2% and they stayed home. If they do it again, it's going to happen again. Figure it out or get used to losing.

[lakey]

Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual. --Thomas Jefferson

From your freeper page - thanks!

[lakey]

Reading your misinformed comments, I must say, shows one and all why the Republican Party has become a failure.

[takenoprisoner]

I am deeply saddened (sarc/off) to report that Sam Hill was captured and subsequently silenced by informed freepers who ruthlessly and without prejudice tortured him with undeniable truths. Rumor has it that he returned to DU from whence he came. I'm in the process of searching snopes now to comfirm the veracity of the rumor.

[lakey]

Awww, returned to DU? Are you sure he wasn't DUI?

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

But what about the key issues for Libertarians:

drugs,

Drug abuse is rampant and it's illegal

sex

None of your business who's screwing who

open borders

LOL - Borders are already open, Bush is about to sign an amnesty bill

and no troops overseas?

No neo-Wilsonian, spreading democracy, "winning hearts and minds" strategy

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

liberal-tarians

Liberals and Libertarians have nothing in common.

There are plenty of Libertarians who are pro-life, just as there are plenty of Republicans who are pro-abortion.

[jonesboheim]

Are all cultures equal? Hell no... Only a cultural Marxist would think so.

That's your definition of "Cultural Marxist"? I've never heard the term before, but confusing some egalitatian ethos with Marxism doesn't make any sense to me. Did you make the term up?

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

"Libertartian" (big "L") does not equal "libertarian" (small "l"), in case you did not notice my precise use of the term...

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

"Cultural Marxist"? I've never heard the term before, but confusing some egalitatian ethos with Marxism doesn't make any sense to me.

Egalitarian = socialist = communist = Marxist...

Cultural Marxism is one path to economic Marxism.

[takenoprisoner]

The last I heard he was seen running down Pennsylvania Avenue screaming virulent and vulgar accusations regarding those 'effin' libertarians.

So yea, I would presume he was either drunk or gone mad.

[dixiechick2000]

ROTFLOLOL!

What have you done to Odd Job? ;o)

[devolve]

See!

I told you Odd Job would be recognized -

[dixiechick2000]

Did I win a prize? lol

[potlatch]

You are sounding like a 5 year old!!

I'll remember that "SEE" word!!