Libertarian or Libertarian?

realclearpolitics.com ^ | December 19, 2006 | Bruce Bartlett

[neverdem]

In a recent column, I discussed the disaffection of libertarians within the conservative coalition, suggesting that many might be more at home on the political left. A number of readers wrote to say that they agreed with my analysis and had left the Republican Party for the Libertarian Party. Among these is former Republican Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia, who officially joined the Libertarians last week.

Of course, people are free to do what they want to do, and if they want to join the Libertarians, that's their business. But if their goal is to actually change policy in a libertarian direction, then they are making a big mistake, in my opinion. The Libertarian Party is worse than a waste of time. I believe it has done far more to hamper the advancement of libertarian ideas and policies than it has done to advance them. In my view, it is essential for the Libertarian Party to completely disappear before libertarian ideas will again have political currency.

The basic problem with the Libertarian Party is the same problem faced by all third parties: It cannot win. The reason is that under the Constitution a candidate must win an absolute majority in the all-important Electoral College. It won't do just to have the most votes in a three- or four-way race. You have to have at least 270 electoral votes to win, period.

Theoretically, this is no barrier to third parties at the state and local level. But in practice, if a party cannot win at the presidential level, it is very unlikely to achieve success at lower levels of government. In short, the Electoral College imposes a two-party system on the country that makes it prohibitively difficult for third parties to compete.

[LexBaird]

I consider myself a libertarian and what I want is, less government control and interference in my life. I really don't give a damn what someone else chooses to do with their life.

Then you are pretty much straight up the Y axis. This makes you a swing voter. Which would you rather tolerate: the way that conservatives interfere with your individualism, or the way the "progressives" do?

Leftists want to regulate things like guns, freedom of association, resource expenditure, education, charity donations, health decisions, etc. Rightists want to regulate things like moral codes, national borders, mind altering substances, etc. Pick your poison, but on the whole, the conservatives are typically more individualistic and the proggies more collectivist.

[monday]

"Then he said, we Conservatives weren't Conservative."

Perhaps you could explain how out spending the Democrats is conservative? Is starting a new bloated bureaucracy called the prescription drug plan conservative?

Bush's 'compassionate conservatism' looks like socialism from an economic standpoint. It's not that libertarians think Democrats would be any better. From an economic standpoint, the Republicans and Democrats are almost indistinguishable from each other. Their plans seem to be socialism Plan A, and socialism Plan B.

[monday]

"It can make a major party lose however."

Which is the point of third parties. Funny how that fact is lost on most people.

[monday]

"As soon as this party starts to gain a significant following, the Republican Party will adopt the same platform. You don't think they're going to just sit back and lose."

lol... no principles, just win, at any cost. If true no wonder Republicans are acting like socialists these days.

"Now, that's good for us, but spells doom for the third party. Once they're gone, the Republican Party goes back to what they were doing before."

Gone? I suppose this is wishful thinking. Perhaps you assume libertarians are as unprincipled as you apparently think Republicans are?

[Rhiannon]

I personally want a federal government that only has jurisdiction based on what the constitution provides. Not the overarching govt these days.

Basic services such as provide for defenses and offenses ie:military
Basic common currency.
Standardized measures so we don't have 50 different standards.

Federal govt does foreign policy

Interstate highways under commerce clause.

No constitution jurisdiction for charitable causes this also means welfare. No jurisdiction over education, health insurance. I have very conservative individualistic views. I agree with small govt. This is a republic and all powers not specifically delegated to fed govt by the constitution are reserve to the people and the states. I do not want the federal govt to have all these overreaching powers. This is the general basis of conservatives. Ronald Reagan types.

The difference is the Libertarian party also is isolationist not interventionist. Since I think intervention can solve problems when they are smaller than when they get large.

Example: should have taken out Chavez when he was first running for office. Solve the problem of him becoming the next Castro for 20-30 years. Or take out Sadr when he was first showed up before he got a large power base.

Republican party had a lot of conservatives with Libertarian leanings. Bob Barr is probably the best arguing for our self rights not to be usurped. He is not a Liberal who believes father govt knows best.

Republicans have been disappointed with the Feingold campaign finance reformed which diluted our 1st amendment rights. WE are not happy with the expansion of the federal govt under Bush. We support Bush since he better than a Demoncrat but he is not a small govt conservative. More the old big business GOP type. He is right to confront the Islam problem that is increasing and pushing the terror groups.But he still thinking too small.

[brooklyn dave]

What about Moulitsos from Daily Kos yammering about Democratic Libertarians?

[marinamuffy]

I still a libertarian, but I am no longer a Libertarian. The party leadership showed their leftist tendencies after 9-11 and I no longer wanted to be associated with them. Reading the afterward that Larry Elder added to the paperback version of his book "Showdown" helped me to see that although I don't always agree with what the Republican party does, it's a much better home for me than the Libertarian party.

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

You bring up 1992 to contradict my point?

Isn't that the election that really sticks in every GOP-devotee's craw?

Perhaps you could explain the loss of the House and Senate in 2006? Was it really the Libertarians, or was it the policies of the GOP and it's leaders?

[Paige]

When did I mention the PRESIDENT? I was talking about myself personally and others.

Please don't start by placing words where I have not placed them. Thanks so much.

[Paige]

When did I mention the PRESIDENT? I was talking about myself personally and others.

Please don't start by placing words where I have not placed them. Thanks so much.

[monday]

"It's the LP's failure to build a party structure at the state and local level that keeps them from winning much of anything. You need canvassers and envelope stuffers, people to make coffee and sandwiches, gofers, somebody who can meet the guest speaker and make sure he has a room reserved...."

Er.... The LP is the only small party that does that sort of stuff right. They have very efficient grass roots organizations, including local and state, and indeed are the only third party to register in all fifty states for each and every election. They have state and national level conventions, a speakers circut, everything. You must have confused libertarians with some other political party.

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

You bring up 1992 to contradict my point?

Sorry, I should have been more specific about 1992. Almost without exception, every GOPper blames Perot for GHW Bush's loss.

Yet, Bush was a sitting President who had just finished the Gulf War I and was riding a wave of popularity. His job approval ratings were at 85%. How could a third-party pipsqueak like Perot beat the man behind the bully pulpit?

Easy. Bush went back on his word. Remember "Know New Taxes"? Remember "Read My Lips"? Those were the words that got him elected to his first term. People like me didn't turn their backs on him until he signed the tax increase. When he did that he proved he was just another two-faced lying politician and was unceremoniously tossed from office.

The GOP didn't learn anything because 4 years later, they ran Dowdly Bob Dole against young, virile, Bill Clinton and lost again. Only this time they didn't have Ross Perot to kick around.

The GOP went back to their roots and that's what got them the House and Senate in 1994. In 2006, they proved they didn't deserve to keep them and were tossed.

How is the loss of the House and Senate in 2006, in any way, the fault of Libertarians? How is it not the fault of the GOP.

Yet, who do they blame? The Libertarians.

[Dead Corpse]

This should be interesting.

Somehow, I doubt that.

[Dead Corpse]

I want a smaller government, but I want one that provides sensible and efficient services.

Ok... so how do you get that with a huge, wasteful, bureaucracy? You didn't think that one through very far did you...

[monday]

"It's also bad strategy for the Libertarian party to divide the small government vote and thereby help elect HUGE government Democrats."

Actually the government has grown less under Democrat administrations than it has under Republican ones lately. Your argument would carry more weight if there were any evidence that there were some Republicans in favor of smaller government. There isn't except in their rhetoric. As they say, "Talk is cheep".

[steve-b]

I'm a social + fiscal conservative, but frankly, the social issues the Republicans have chosen to tackle are NOT ones that I would have. I feel they wasted a lot of good capital on Schiavo and stem cell research.

The GOP has punted the social conservative issues that regular working people care about (which boil down to "protect people who want to live in a conservative manner from liberal big-governement social engineering") in favor of the ones that noisy self-appointed leaders (the right's version of Jesse Jackson and Revverund Al) find useful for politicking and fund-raising.

[Dead Corpse]

Ah... so all those threads on the Second Amendment, private property Rights, freedom OF religion, free speech, free market capitalism, freedom of association, and rule of law are all just a smoke screen for pot use?

What have you been smoking?

[Hemingway's Ghost]

I'm a libertarian and I'm no steenking liberal-- beware of Bill Maher types masquerading as "libertarians" to impress their friends and co-workers with their maverick political philosophy.

Well said.

[steve-b]

So how the Hell was the Republican Party born? Immaculate conception?

One of the incumbent major parties (the Whigs) was completely incapable of dealing with a major issue of public concern (slavery in general and the admission of new slave states in particular), and fractured. The same could happen to the GOP if it can't get a grip on fiscal management.

[tacticalogic]

Somehow, I doubt that.

Theoretically, I think it should be interesting. In practice it may well turn out to be the same old same old.