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".
Do you really thin small 'l' libertarians vote for the elimination of state sponsered marriage, open borders and elimination of all drug laws just because they are ticked that the republicans spend too much?
It makes sense that Soros would pay Libertarians to run against us.
Evil and clever.
As I said they are basically snobs and self richeous standing above the fray proclaiming we are the last defeners of the constitution
I am sure they will be happy with the 51 federal judges Bush has to appoint and get through the democrats
As I said brilliant way to revive the Constitution
But they have the right to vote as they want
It is their sanctimonious attitude that gets me
Good!
And in the dozen or so others, they didn't. Also, how many had GOP backed rivals? Ron Paul not only has to fight Democrats, but often his own party to get elected. He's arguably one of the few smaller, Constitutional government Republicans in the House.
"Libertarians would accomplish more if they were not a political party, but were instead organized like the AARP or NRA."
You might have a point, but the majority of libertarians aren't even Libertarians.
They had control of Congress and did nothing but GROW government and make it even LESS Constitutional. We should vote for MORE of this without protest? Just shut up and punch the lever for more RINO's?
Yeah right...
Gun control, property Rights, and the economy kinda seperate the Dems and the Libs by an unsurmountable gulf.
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.
###
This is wrong in two areas. First, the Republicans need both fiscal and social conservatives to win. Second, Libertarians cannot support unregulated abortion and be true to their ideals.
The basic premise of libertarianism is that each individual should be free to do as he or she pleases so long as he or she does not harm others. This is totally at odds with legal abortion.
Abortion is killing an unborn baby. Pro-abortion Libertarians try to deny this simple truth but the scientific evidence is overwhelming that the unborn baby is a living human person.
By 21 days after conception the baby pumps his own blood through separate closed circulatory system with his own blood type. By 42 days the baby’s brain waves can be recorded, his skeleton is complete, and reflexes present. He also has unique human DNA.
In every state in the nation death occurs when there is no brain wave or no heart beat. If both exit no state recognizes that life has ended. If life has not ended when both exist it must be present when both exist. So while we cannot scientifically prove when life begins, we can scientifically determine when it is present and detectable.
Therefore, no Libertarian can be against laws that prohibit abortion after the 42nd day after conception. At least, they can’t be against such laws and remain true to the basic premise they espouse.
They can make a case for allowing abortion before 42 days after conception if they want to and still be consistent. But after that time a separate, unique, human life is unquestionably being ended by any abortion.
Libertarian support for killing unborn babies is one of the biggest issues keeping many people from considering the Libertarian party as a viable alternative to the Republican Party. It also flies in the face of their most basic belief.
They need to change their stance on abortion.
Try swinging the GOP back towards smaller government Constitutionalism if you want the LP vote back in your pocket. Bitching about it isn't going to get 'em back for you.
Again, I would remind you all that if no Libertarian candidate had been on the ballot in Montana or the other races where R + L > D in the vote totals, it is not clear this year that the Libertarian vote would have broken so strongly GOP that we would have won those seats.
This election was largely about defense policy, and the Libertarian party is as isolationist as the demonRATs. Why, with foreign affairs pulling them toward the 'RATs do you think their free-market stance and fiscal conservatism would trump their social liberalism and land them in our camp?
Hogwash.
"the party that went from Social Security reform"
In the midst of the grueling Iraq problems, rotten Plamegame, BUSH LIED!!!!!, Sheehan-stalking, UN reform, etc, President Bush burned up precious political capital and time traveling the country for months last year trying push through Social Security reform...
And then the libertarians rewarded him and the GOP by handing America to the Marxist Party that sabotaged it.
*spit*
To those of you who agree with Sanchez and the obnoxious choir echoing his juvenile tantrums, I'm glad you are not in my camp or my party. I would be ashamed to have you on my side.
Is that "principled" enough for you? Other than that, each individual SHOULD be allowed to do what they want as long as doing so doesn't interfere with the equal Rights of others. And no, using the excuse of socialism's "cost" via insurance and medical care rates doesn't count. Those are problems created by government, not by freedom of action.
The Republicans still have the majority, Bush should call them into session and end earmarks.
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.