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.
LOL, you are the one fighting for the right for everyone to define marriage on their own, in any way that they want.
No one is forcing your religion to perform gay marriage or polygamous marriage, if they believe in that, then according you you fine, if they don’t, then they don’t.
You can already define marriage for yourself, as you choose, so what is your complaint?
Yeah? And how do you determine that? Will you sit him down now with a baseball bat?
The basic question, raised a dozen years ago by a better conservative than I, is, "Who do you have to be, to say 'should'?"
Social conservatives are "for" conserving the social mores that got us where we are today, viz., Judaeo-Christian mores. Don't believe me? Well, just look around -- where is Babylon today? Where is Nineveh?
Come Nineveh, come Tyre, the Jewish model has withstood the test of 36 centuries, and their former enslavers are all dust.
don’t you understand that using the state to destroy civil marriage is somehow leaving you alone?
lol
I don’t care if libertarians “marry” without a government paper, but why do they seek to deny others that?
Religions already can and do perform marriages for their members and practitioners.
What are you guys talking about?
That's just it... You can't any more. Because of your laws, the Gays are now getting to over-write what should be Religious in nature.
And that's your fault.
Yes. You. Personally. I'm blaming you.
Bump
Gay Democrats on the other hand... Would. And are.
That was going to happen anyway -- the people doing that are animals anyhow. They are scientific materialists by choice, because they want to live by pogrom and genocide, to remove all the social irritants in their environment, especially moral nags telling them "you shouldn't sexualize children" and "sodomy is an abomination".
They're coming for you no matter what the Religious Right does. Quit worrying about the Right.
Libertarians supporting gay marriage is ansel’s fault? okay.
:p
Social liberals should be more appalled by libertarians than social conservatives. Libertarians, on principal, oppose ALL welfare. Libertarians oppose Medicare and Social Security. A true libertarian even opposes zoning laws—want to smelt iron in you backyard? Have at it, but if you burn down my house in the process, you pay. A libertarian is more accurately described as an individualist—they are the polar opposite of not just collectivists but anyone who promotes a social contract.
Exactly.
I believe that dead corpse wants his church to run marriage in America and wants to impose his church law on us all.
>> [because of law], the Gays are now getting to over-write what should be Religious in nature.
Indeed!
- - - - -
Don’t be a statist!!!
No, NOT because of "his" laws -- which, I remind you, are the status quo since the Founding.
Because of amoral, genocidal Leftist maniacs and mouth-breathers blasting vast tranches of political sewer-money into politics the the multiple firehoses of PACs and bundlers, driving political whoredogs like Karl Rove nuts with avarice and the constant tickle of lush, long, green, fungible political money.
One of the cultish traits of libertarians, is their disconnect from reality.
Libertarianism of social liberalism and open borders, makes small government and ending welfare and social programs, impossible.
Social liberalism breeds, creates, and even imports, liberal, big government voters and democrats.
Libertarians believing liberals on the subject of homosexual "marriage" is the fault of TV news and the failure of American education to give kids the Kremlinological tools they'll need to interpret the newspapers of today and tomorrow.
Read between the lines, kids ..... the homosexuals in major Media are lying to you relentlessly.
>> Quit worrying about the Right.
The issue concerns the overbearing control of govt. The bureaucratic machine is large and dangerous regardless of who’s driving it.
A small, conservative government is what we want.
Ok... I don’t actually disagree with any of what you wrote in that post.
But I’m still blaming ansel because he’s kind of a troll and I don’t like him very much.
Believe in the Four Freedoms and the Constitution? Off to the death camps with you!
They don't believe liberals on the subject, they believe conservative arguments that it will destroy the institution of marriage, and this is why they support it.
You are mighty trusting of the Gaystapo and their pals in government. You think they'll be content with having their "marriages" performed by their own pastors? No way. They'll demand that the marriages be performed by your church, my church or any church they so desire (they already are doing this).
This is a fatal flaw in libertarianism. Similar to their isolationist foreign policy. If we don't 'bother them', they won't bother us. Unbelievably naive. And the consequences are severe. Permitting gay marriage would lead to the social equivalent of 9/11.
Therefore, conservatism must proactively oppose these forces.
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.