Posted on 11/11/2013 10:35:15 AM PST by Kaslin
Yesterday, Derek Hunter declared that libertarianism has entirely lost its meaning, that the party has devolved into a catch-all for people who want to criticize the government without doing anything about it. He also assumed that any Republican candidate would be better than a Democrat for classical liberals.
Hunter could not be more wrong. The Libertarian Party is still the face of “individual responsibility, small government, and free markets,” but how the LP arranges those priorities is changing. The Party needs to represent its constituency, appeal to young voters who largely have experience with Ron Paul, and has to emphasize its social liberalism to appeal to the broader American public. In doing so, the Libertarian Party is sharpening its policy prescriptions while becoming more inclusive, but that doesn’t mean the philosophy is meaningless or is standing at the sidelines.
Let’s have a look at some numbers of the people who call themselves “libertarian.” A few weeks ago, a think tank called the Public Religion Research Institute released a big data report on those who describe themselves as “libertarian.” There are some big consistencies; for example, 96 percent oppose Obamacare. But what is most striking is that a majority (39 percent) consider themselves “moderates”—not conservatives or liberals.
To be sure, this report notes that most libertarians are registered Republicans (45 percent). However, more libertarians are independent (35 percent), third party (15 percent), or Democrats (five percent) when combined. It is a misinterpretation of libertarian values to assume that all would vastly prefer Republican candidates. If we were just looking at party affiliation, Republican libertarians do not represent even half of the libertarian demographic.
So when Hunter exclaims that McCain would have been better than Obama, or Cuccinelli better than Sarvis or McAuliffe, he is speaking for himself, not for all libertarians. To ask libertarians to vote Republican reinforces only one purity test: Hunters’ own. Hunter seems to think that free markets is all libertarianism is about, and he’s happy to snuggle into bed with conservatism. Libertarians are the wrong audience for his kind of policy prescriptions.
The Libertarian Party needs to build its base with young people as well. These folks are the people who have the time and energy to canvass. Above anything else, they are at the core of what will guarantee a future for the Libertarian Party of tomorrow.
Know what libertarian young people like? The young guns of the Tea Party, and even Ron Paul. No one can expect them to get behind the elders who insult their heroes as “wacko birds.” The Libertarian Party is smart to try to include Millennials as much as possible, even if celebrities popular with Millennials ignorantly give themselves the “libertarian” title, like Bill Maher (who really considers him a libertarian anyway?). In fact, I think one of the most important people teaching Millennials to question government is a self-identified liberal: Jon Stewart. We can’t give and take away the libertarian title, so we should take the positive publicity and use it to our advantage.
Millennials are, as a whole, especially socially liberal, but the rest of America is following. A majority of Americans favor legalizing marijuana. More than half of the country supports gay marriage. An additional bulk want there to be a way for illegal immigrants to stay in this country. Like it or not, social issues are the best way to attract new people to the Libertarian Party, especially if they’re young. Sure, prostitution and raw milk might not be the top of everyone’s agenda, but these ideas reach far more people than free-market fundamentalism. What is best for the Libertarian Party is to advertise how mainstream it could be. If the Libertarian Party seems more blue, that’s because it’s a reaction to what Americans prioritize.
So what’s happening here? Libertarianism is rebranding itself to be more inclusive. Now more than ever, it is accepting of LGBT people, encourages women to have a voice, and has different social media groups targeted to different minorities. Inclusivity is the best way for libertarianism to grow. Hunter’s exclusivity will only be the death of libertarianism in America.
But what of all of our think tanks and libertarian blogs and magazines? Changing hearts and minds does not happen overnight, but there are still successes everywhere. The Competitive Enterprise Institute was fundamental in blocking food labeling measures in Washington. Nick Gillespie seems to have a new editorial in a major newspaper every day. The Institute for Justice and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education fight for fiscal and civil liberties and have regular wins. Libertarians are far from doing nothing.
If anyone should be compromising on their ideals, it should be people like Hunter. He does not have the authority to determine what is and isn’t best for liberty. Libertarians are happy to leave that to individuals to decide for themselves.
“Know what libertarian young people like?”
Drugs
AKA left-wing libertarian. I don’t know how many times history has demonstrated that you cannot have real freedom without responsibility. If people cannot discipline themselves, then the police will do it for them. That is inevitable.
If people choose to be gay, let them do it off privately somewhere, not impose it on everyone down to kindergarteners.
If people want unlimited rights to abortion, let them . . . No, sorry, there is no right to kill or enslave people because they are convenient. And, contrary to what they say, it’s the same statist Democrats who supported slavery who now support baby killing and euthanasia of the old and inconvenient.
That’s not freedom. Or, if you like, it’s freedom for me, but not for thee.
Libertarianism by its intentions that are well documented, is not conservative...
It makes noises, and faces towards conservatism, but it is from the indications that it has its back into the political pundulum swing to the liberal side of that swing...
People call both sides of this political landscape as extremist, and uncompramising...
Well, I happen to believe Libertarianism is weak, much like tepid water that is neither refreshing, or desirable...
Just my opinion...
A libertarian would be an idiot to support gay marriage, because the disaster of such families will produce children raised as wards of the State.
With libertarian candidates we lose 2 to 4% of the vote against the socialist in addition to the percentage we lose to fraud. Now they appear to be working in conjunction with the democrats.
That is properly a State function of police powers.
/johnny
Life will not be pleasant under the McAuliffe regime.
Libertarians have a built in self destructive bomb. They don’t believe in governement hence they believe inopen borders. They help turn this country into a third world society and the Dem’s buy off the new voters and we have a socialist country. Make sense? If you think this makes sense then go ahead and vote Libertarian.
The token libertarian on the Seattle Times said he almost voted for a self-proclaimed socialist for mayor because she represented an alternative to mainstream Seattle liberalism. But she almost won her race (and still might, after all votes are counted), so how far out of the Seattle mainstream was she? With “libertarians” voting for socialists, who needs liberals?
Fortunately, the Virginia legislature is still mostly conservative and the governor in Virginia isn’t very powerful.
Not only do we lose 2-4% but look at the people who were defeated by Libertarians. Namely Mia Love, Allen West, Vernon Parker, Jesse Kelly, Rehberg in Montana, Mourdock in Indiana. Some how it is only the real conservatives that seem to lose because of the Libertarians and their friends the Constitutionalists.
The main thing about libertarianism that appeals to me is its neo-isolationism, its reluctance to get America involved in foreign wars and nation-building.
libertopians are not for any kind of responsibility, they are for license not liberty.
Libertarians are like the NFLs “Mr. Irrelevant.
They get to be attention whores for one day.
They can’t win elections.
They think 95% of Republicans need to come to their 5%.
Then they go DramaQueen and prove they aren’t part of the conservative Republican coalition and assist Democrat Socialists.
Derek Hunter nailed it. You can tell from Rachel's overly emotional defensiveness and completely clueless definition of 'libertarianism' ...
Libertarianism is rebranding itself to be more inclusive. Now more than ever, it is accepting of LGBT people, encourages women to have a voice, and has different social media groups targeted to different minorities. Inclusivity is the best way for libertarianism to grow.
... that Hunter is directly over the target ....
'libertarianism lost its meaning' ping.
The libertopians will happily support the commies for legalized Soma, I mean drugs.
Seems today people that call themselves conservative are into conserving money and promoting war while American citizens play second fiddle to the world. Restore America, bring back the exported jobs and end role as world troop supplier.
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.