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".

[jonesboheim]

Egalitarian = socialist = communist = Marxist...

Capitalism = Conservatism = Fascism ????

It doesn't make any sense, my friend.

[jonesboheim]

I should probably insert "authoritarianism" in there somewhere, but my point is that your connection is patently proven false by history. If socialists believe all cultures are fundamentally equal, why did we have a Cold War? There would be no reason for the Iron Curtain to descend and for there to be 40 years of rift between the Soviets and the West if they fundamentally believed all cultures are equal.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

It doesn't make any sense, my friend.

No, you don't...

[Triple]

Not hardly.

Republican on a power hungry spending spree put the dems in control. It is because of republican behavior that they lost.

R next to a name is not a free pass to mis-behave.

[photodawg]

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.
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

If you would stop wasting our time trying to win an argument and just try to understand what I'm saying we might have a productive conversation. My point remains that you can't productively analyze the logic of a factual occurrence by interjecting hypotheticals. If you would simply admit that logically, if the LIBertarians had voted for republicans they would have beaten the dems we could then move to the more hypothetical issues. The truth of the analysis of the LIBertarian vote, might also apply to the conservative vote, and the catholic vote and many other groups. We can analyze that with hard voting data. The reasons why some republicans, conservatives, catholics and yes LIBertarians just refused to vote at all are also important issues . They just can't be as easily analyzed. There is no single reason why 47% of the voters stayed home, in fact a 53% turnout in a non presidential year is pretty good and also should be analyzed. To make such a simplistic statement as " 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." is not productive merely vindictive and superficial. '08 has many variables that differ from '06, among them, Presidential vote, presidential candidate selection,changing economic conditions, possibility of terrorist attack in US, war with iran and/or syria, and many more. Please give some thought to what you are saying and doing on this website, while some people are simply here to criticize or argue, many others use it as a source of knowledge, ideas and communication. Nice talking to you.

[tacticalogic]

If you would stop wasting our time trying to win an argument and just try to understand what I'm saying we might have a productive conversation. My point remains that you can't productively analyze the logic of a factual occurrence by interjecting hypotheticals. If you would simply admit that logically, if the LIBertarians had voted for republicans they would have beaten the dems we could then move to the more hypothetical issues.

Sorry, I'm not buying it. One is no more hypothetical than the other, and I think all you're after is agreement on one specific hypothetical so you can "win" a libertarian bashing argument. I serously doubt you're interested in "moving on" to "other hypotheticals" once you've gotten it.

[kinoxi]

It's lame to imply that all the libertarians look at are the fiscal issues. Whatever.

It's lame to say all the conservatives look at are fiscal issues. I fail to see your point. Some semblance of fiscal responsibility would have swayed more voters. Do you disagree?

[Preachin']

"It's lame to say all the conservatives look at are fiscal issues. I fail to see your point. Some semblance of fiscal responsibility would have swayed more voters. Do you disagree?"

No. But don't make it appear that fiscal issues are all that matters to Liberaltarians.

I have contended all along that the GOPs defeat happened because they did not run on the economy, which is roaring.

They would've kept the political middle in their bag.

I speak of the political middle. I do not consider the Liberaltarians to be either. On fiscal issues yes, but on social issues they make the democrats look groovy.

[FYREDEUS]

I'm not sure I'd agree with defining Libertarians as fiscally conservative but socially liberal.

What does "socially liberal" mean? - the problem with defining Libertarians as "socially liberal" imo is that the meaning of 'liberal' CHANGED sometime between the 18th and 20th centuries, being stolen by collectivists of various stripes and used in the 20th century for all sorts of Big Government social agendas that 18th century "liberals" would spin in their graves to see...

And while we're on the subject of nomenclature and definition - since when is subjugating individual rights to social[ist] engineering schemes 'progressive'? - it doesnt seem to me [as someone who always supports REAL Progress for Humanity] to be much 'progress' for The People to be liberated from one form of Tyranny [Of Elites...in Americas case foreign elites at that] into a free Republic of free citizens equal under Law only to later be REsubjugated to another form of Tyranny [of the Majority, which fortunately America didnt fall quite as far into as some countries] over the next couple centuries.

I don't find Socialism 'progressive' at all.

[FYREDEUS]

"They believe in anything but limited government, and they only believe in liberty in one's personal life..."

Except when ones personal liberty is about ones personal PROTECTION - that Democrats DON'T believe in.

Armed Man is free and Free Man is armed - Dems don't get that at all.