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.
So? Reagan sure did not consider himself libertarian, he was very clear that he was a conservative, even when he was campaigning to win the libertarian support in his 1975 interview with libertarians, he made nice with an opening statement on economics and commonality, and then proceeded to gently distance himself from them and their liberal aspects.
The best year that the libertarians have ever had, was when they ran to defeat Reagan in 1980.
“...and has to emphasize its social liberalism to appeal to the broader American public...”
Its “Social Liberalism” is why I despise the Libertarian (Libertine) Party as much as I do the “Demoncrats.”
Then what are you complaining about, anyone can do that if they want, some religions even have polygamy and gay marriage, anyone can call whatever they want to, "marriage", so why do you want to impose something on the rest of us?
Libs here often claim Reagan was a lib or that he supported libertarianism by taking one sentence out of context from a speech in 1975. I always challenge them to post the full context. They don’t.
In an interview with Chuck Todd, Sarvis said he would be hesitant to cut taxes, he was unsure as to how he might reduce spending, and he was open expanding Virginia's Medicaid program.
In an interview with the Virginia Prosperity Project, Sarvis expressed his enthusiasm for increasing gasoline taxes, and for a "vehicle-miles-driven tax." The latter would require government black boxes be installed in all vehicles and report actual driving patters back to the state.
If that is libertarian, I am a monkey's uncle.
As for "fellow libertarians", given many self-described libertarians are nothing more than squishy moderates who are afraid to call themselves Democrats or Republicans, I am not surprised he garnered that support.
Sarvis was pure libertarian on drugs, abortion and the homosexual issues, and we have to assume, many other libertarian issues, that is why he was so successful with his fellow libertarians.
Sarvis was the nominee of the libertarians because he was the man they supported, if you had a few personal disagreements with him, so be it, but you can’t make him a non-libertarian, we don’t even know if you are a Virginia libertarian, or even a member of his party.
I must be a Heinleinitarian...I apparently don`t hate enough to be a conservative.
I agree-it is a civil contract you get at the courthouse, and while it likely makes for an easier job for lawyers if there is a divorce, that is a civil matter, too...
Since most religions consider marriage a sacrament/sacred rite, I don’t see the problem of marriage being performed by the priest/pastor/rabbi, etc of the couple’s religion, whatever that might be.
The military requires a civil marriage license/contract for spousal benefits-otherwise, MrT5 and I would not have gotten one.
The same is true at any level. We need libertarian/conservative cooperation at every level to defeat this statist evolution.
Do you spout off there about what a bunch of Godless socialist commie child-abusing fags they are?
Because that is what you do here.
I hope they kick your crazy rude old butt out of there.
You are right. Same was true in 2012 when the RNC voted isolate Ron Paul followers and tea partiers. Essentially saying ‘screw you, we will win without you’. They lost and will never be inclusive. They would rather have control of a losing effort than share power in a winning effort.
Well, they sure got that liberal math working for them.
Well said.
The disagreements on libertarians should dissipate with the very basic understanding that libertarianism is essentially in opposition to statism, and it’s liberalism that is at odds with conservatism. These differences are supported by definitions.
Unfortunately, we have FRiends that insist on conflating the idiotic Libertarian Party platform with the clinical, non-moral principles of libertarianism. The mindless effort is counterproductive to the conservative cause.
I’ve said that one isn’t a libertarian alone. Assuming the individual is not an android, he must have some moral compass that either points towards liberalism or conservatism. The same can be said for the statist. The liberal leaning statist is the Leftist; the depraved control-freak that we see in the Marxists destroying the Country.
The Libertarian Party is largely operated and populated by liberals. No self-respecting libertarian should be part of it.
My kind? What does the TEA Party have to do with this?
And yeah... You disgust me too. Bigger government RINO’s like you leave a stench...
In my freedom, liberty, and personal responsibility based world... I would have married my Wife as per the dictates of our Religion.
What you do with your life is none of my concern.
Impose what? I don't WANT the gays using your government laws to over-right my Religions accepted practices.
Go f**k up your own religion. Leave mine alone.
Then what are you complaining about?
If people can already call whatever they want “marriage”, then why are you raving on about marriage, to the rest of us?
Bingo.
Once you put that into the governments hands, you are subject to whatever arbitrary edicts those in governmental power choose to decree.
I don't want the same a-holes that can't run a Constitutional Republic messing with my religion. Period.
This is as clear cut a case of "free for me, but not for thee" from the Religious Right as ever has existed. They WANT Big Government to protect THEIR idea of "moral law", never stopping to think that some where down the line someone else might use those same laws and stare decicis to royally mess with their religious freedoms.
Which is exactly what we are seeing today with gay marriage. Absent crap laws existing in government, most gays would still be in the closet.
Thanks for nothing...
Look, I know you are a lost cause already, but do try to keep up with the flow of conversation.
YOU ARE EXACTLY CORRECT!
Many years ago I was a staunch, card carrying, Libertarian.
It did not take long to realize that drug legalization was the most important thing on their political agenda.
Yep, the first plank on their political concerns was the legalization of drugs....code word for marijuana. When that was accomplished THEN they would actually start to do something about our other freedoms and liberties.....but the legalization of drugs came first.
“let’s legalize dope and then we will look at other things that need to be changed.....but first let’s take care of that” was their single most important factor.
I believed in most of the other points (other than open borders) but found that the importance of drug legalization was far more important than anything set before them.
I quit the party in disgust in 1996.
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.