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.
The libertarians this author claims to represent are social liberals. Good luck with that! You cannot have small government is a society that’s largely made up of immoral people. Immoral people will inevitably vote for big government to save them from the ramifications of their mistakes. Doubt me? What’s the percentage of single moms who vote libertarian?
Libertarianism is a pipe dream! The closest America ever got to libertarianism was back at the founding when the country was sparsely populated. It’s a much smaller country now population wise, and it’s far more difficult to live as one pleases without interfering with the rights of others. Even if the libertarians themselves can live responsible lives without government guidance, there are many millions more who will never, ever vote to give up the big government that shields them from their mistakes.
Good point.
“I was under the impression that most Freepers are Constitutionalists. So that word must mean something different to you than it does to me.”
I was referring to the political party of the same name which regularly drains votes from our people to help Democrats squeak through. I was not referring to the spirit of strict construction of the consitution which myself, you and most people here agree with.
Agreed. Why would any self-described libertarian WANT the government involved in personal arrangements as intimate as marriage?
Runs extremely counter to that whole “smaller, less intrusive government” thing.
Thanks for the clarification.
That’s Democrats. Libertarians advocate you clean up your own messes...
If socially liberal libertarians think they’re going to win on a platform of drugs and porn, good luck. The Democrats already have a handle on immorality, and the resulting wrecks will never, ever vote for smaller government. The Democrats, of course, know this.
“Leftist Libertarians” want their cake of freedom and they wanna eat it too via freebies...
You cannot have BOTH...
Freedom is NOT inversely proportional to Responsibility.
If you want 100 units of freedom you MUST bear the weight of 100 units of Responsibility for YOURSELF. You cannot pawn off the Responsibility onto the masses because once you do that it destroys personal freedom...
Freedom IS the Inverse of Freebies....
The more Freebies, the less freedom one has....
You can't advocate for "freebies" as still call yourself a "libertarian" of any stripe. It violates one of the very principles of libertarianism... "There's no such thing as a free lunch".
Just how many libertarians were in power to implement this? How many libertarians voted for this as opposed to Democrats and Republicans?
Well lookie here. According to this the youngsters like Ted Cruz and Rand and Ron Paul. Perhaps there is not so wide a gulf between conservatives and libertarians after all. If all Americans unite on the fiscal issues we may yet survive as a Nation.
rbmillerjr: “Then they go DramaQueen and prove they aren’t part of the conservative Republican coalition and assist Democrat Socialists.”
Yep. Drugs, porn, abortion, sodomy, etc., are more important to the socially liberal libertarians than actually achieving smaller government. I’m sorry, but I think libertarians are like liberals in the sense they haven’t matured beyond childhood. “Don’t tell me what to do!” That’s a child talking, not a responsible adult who carefully weighs what is and isn’t possible and the ramifications of doing something in the real world.
Why do Libertopians support “gay marriage”?
In order to destroy the very concept of marriage of course.
It is the very opposite of everything they claim to be and to support. They can’t let us have a country where a man and woman can be married the old fashion way, why?
Because in their Utopian vision there would be no such thing as marriage or ‘family’ as we know it. or knew it. They probably see it the same way as they see the government. A government in microcosm.
Old fashion parents probably wouldn’t let their kids use drugs or sleep around, and this is anathema to long-term libertopianism.
Parents like that are to be ridiculed and mocked, shunned and isolated. Blamed for all the ills of society the same way socialists blame capitalists and such for the failings of their system.
As soon as you oppose “gay marriage” on a libertopian forum they descend with “bible thumper” and other name calling, even if you never mentioned anything Christian. They assume. They feverishly hate.
It becomes very clear that the “leave me alone” libertarians are far out-numbered in their movement by the Libertopians.
Young people lack wisdom due to a lack of experience.
Being led by “young people” is a sure fire way to crash and burn...
McCain, no. Cuccinelli, undeniably. If a group has 96 disapproval for Obamacare, Cuccinelli was the person they needed to back. He is one of THE national leaders against the law. Lumping all Republicans from McCain to Cuccinelli as one is not intellectually honest. If libertarians (or Libertarians) want to be politically relevant, they need to join and support Republican candidates who share their views. The Libertarian party will never pas s 10% in any election, so they are just acting as a spoiler for left wing Democrat candidates. Join in, push for libertarian-minded candidates in the party (just as Tea Partiers have been pushing for similar candidates), and pull Washington back in the right direction.
Conservatives are about a third of the GOP, libertarians make up a few percent.
Your compromise is to surrender to the Libertopian freakazoids?
How is that any different that the GOPe compromising by surrender?
And then there are folks who are all too willing to step in and treat everyone like children...
Like Nanny State RINO’s and paternalistic Democrats.
Big difference between “don’t tell me what to do” and “you have no Right to tell me what to do”.
Freedom. It’s messy some times and not all people are good at it. But compared to the alternative, it’s worth it.
Drugs, fags, and no rules.
[ Agreed. Why would any self-described libertarian WANT the government involved in personal arrangements as intimate as marriage?
Runs extremely counter to that whole “smaller, less intrusive government” thing. ]
Of course they squeal like little pigs about how supposed evil it is to want limited small government... And how the small government types are homophopbic....
Last time I checked Limited government lacks the tools to round people up and ship them into camps....
They want their large government stop “being hateful of people who are different”... but what happens when their lagre government starts telling them what to eat and where to live....
I would rather live in an environment where my neighbor hates my guts for how I live my life, but if they get elected to a public office cannot use the tools of government to harass me... and if they do they get booted out for abuse of power....
Liberals would rather live in an environment where they tell my neighbor not to hate me under penalty of law and regulation and are perfectly fine with this snowballing of power within governemnt until it is too late and they realize they have cut their own damned throats... because they are damned fools...
The “BLT Sammich” crowd had better wake up because they are always going to be a minority no matter how much they pervert the education systems and try to make the exception the norm becasuse in the process of trying to force their ways upon others using the tools of government and growing the tools of government it will by law of cyclical nature of history will turn on them and will be their own downfall. Because they are damned fools who don’t realize the Bullied will become bullies and they will eventually becomes extict when the Bullied majority gets sick and tired of their crap. The Bullied majority will have easy access to their recently installed levers of power....
It will not end well for them...
If they start pulling more of the Democrat vote, maybe that won’t be a bad thing.
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.