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.
Yup. Plenty of facts to demonstrate Sarvis was a plant.
Whose votes did he "steal"?
The people a democratic appeal would have appealed to aren't Conservative, and, depending on how you define "libertarian" (an incredibly wide range of philosophies, predominantly united by the desire to have less government, but sweeping the full spectrum otherwise), the likely outcome is that most of the votes cast for the candidate were not going to the Republican under any circumstances.
You can't have it both ways. You can't complain the guy was a Democrat (Liberal) shill (just listen to him!) AND that he stole votes from the Republican.
I’m late to the thread, and have only made it to the 80’s, post wise. Thanks for the heads up!
You ignored the post, you and anyone else, any cult, any church, any religion, any mosque, any group, can make up it’s own rules for marriage already, and always could, so what is your complaint, that it isn’t the law, isn’t legal?
Sarvis was a pretty good libertarian, pro-gay, pro-drugs, pro-abortion, it is why the libertarians nominated him.
There is no question that the libertarians nominated a libertarian, and then voted for him as libertarians.
Pray, which libertarians are demanding this imposition of the homosexual agenda on your church? On any church, for that matter?
Libertarians are against imposing on anyone, especially by government decree or judicial fiat.
I think you have the homosexuals and Liberals confused with libertarians--either that or the people you have been listening to who claim to be libertarian aren't.
If you are reading this thread then you notice that libertarians are all over the board, all silly, but just spewing out nonsense, with one thing in common, they share a fantasy of an America that has no legal definition of marriage, nor that it be limited to a man and woman, or to two people, or limited in any way, except for the guy who is calling for a Catholic theocracy.
Sure there is. Maybe not right away, but it will happen.
Power Corrupts.
Look at the steadfast and ongoing resistance of the GOP, the howling of every COngressman and woman on Capitol Hill for investigations and the arrest of those responsible for the most blatantly corrupt administration in this nation's history.
OOps. Nevermind. The silence is deafening.
Only a small few have dared make any noise at all.
Besides, if they are really Conservatives, there wouldn't be a Big government.
The problem is too damned much power concentrated in the hands of a relative few, reaching into your light sockets, your toilet tank, deciding if you can fill in a hole in your yard, snooping on your phone calls and commerce, the evil isn't who controls the BIG GOVERNMENT, it is that is is BIG at all.
As a practical matter, that may be difficult for some, but I'd prefer it to having the Government redefine marriage and impose its definition on the churches, which is where we are headed.
The matter has already been removed from the States, in that homosexuals in the armed services who "marry" and return to states which do not sanction such unions will still get spousal benefits, even though the State does not recognize homosexual marriage.
That imposition comes only from government, not from a church.
The government is not protecting "marriage" but imposing alien concepts on those who have more traditional morals.
We grew up, we (as our parents insisted) became responsible for our actions, and now the government seeks to invade every aspect of our lives, from when we mow the lawn to what light bulbs we use to how many gallons our toilet flushes, to what we (supposedly) have to accept in those we associate with--right down to that association in the workplace.
The one unifying concept I see here is that libertarians (and I agree with this) want less government.
The whole phrase "Big Government Conservative" is an oxymoron.
The battle is between statists and those who want small government, and that crosses other lines. Moral statists are just as dangerous as liberal ones, imho. Either will sift your trash for an excuse to divest you of your freedom.
Same way you would deal with any other contract in the .mil. As for divorce, some religions don't allow for that or have their own rules. For the Catholics, you needed special dispensation for it.
As for the political question, it should be put to the people as, "Do you want the same people who run the DMV and can't build a website controlling who can get married?"
Not that you care...
IOW, "You can be free as long as we control you."
In your chains, you are free.
Kind of a sick, twisted individual. Aren't you.
Oh... Breaking a law they aren’t supposed to have the power to make in the first place.
Quaking in my boots over here. You have surely shown me the error of my ways.
Can I be like you as I move into my dotage?
Funny that some of these folks would rather argue to retain that bigger government control and still try and pass themselves off as political "conservatives".
Seems the only thing they are trying to "conserve" is the RINO's hold on their share of the government pie.
(thinking to myself: how could this comment be misread as referring to libertarians?! very sensitive and defensive.)
Wow, even with a friend ... who agrees intellectually ...
but for some stupid reason took all this personally.
You're on to something there. It is quite clear that (l)ibertarians identify personally with the 'term' (even if its definition is very muddy).
These people have a childish streak, ...
I submit this thread as Exhibit A.
IMHO, (l)ibertarians and conservatives need to bury the hatchet and get unified for the survival of the country. There is room for agreement over core principles beyond just the obvious fiscal ones, to include the social and national defense legs of the Ronald Reagan conservative stool. Another post coming regarding the "Golden Triangle of Freedom" ......
When it seems that people are being blamed for things which are not their fault, yes, I am "sensitive". I despise injustice, regardless of whom it is perpetrated against.
In this case, I misunderstood your comment.
"Liberty" is the root word of libertarian; and it is something we ALL want. Liberty = FReedom. Sustainable Freedom is completely DEPENDENT upon a government that is restricted in its actions by morality, and yes, religion.
John Adams famously articulated this essential element in the foundation of our Republic ...
Os Guiness expanded upon this truth by defining what he called the three elements of the "The Golden Triangle of Freedom" ...
FREEDOM requires ... FAITH requires ... VIRTUE requires ... (and around and around again)
So ... supporting the fundamental social, moral and 'religious' matters are actually essential to our liberty and freedom. They cannot be moderated away or you will not retain the virtue necessary in a society to keep your government in check by vital moral bounds.
Face it libertarians, in order to achieve and sustain the freedom you cherish, you must also support the social conservative leg of our shared stool.
Since you can already do what you want, call what you want marriage, practice any religion you want, polygamous Islam, Satan Worship, gay churches, Catholic, what is your complaint?
Do you want to make it the law? or what?
I don’t want the gays/Muzzies/Pastafarians using your marriage licensing laws to over-write my religions marriage customs.
Doesn’t seem like too much to ask, and yet... Here you are.
Yes they are, and they are doing far worse, aside from childishly taking the real political battle into fantasy and distracting freerepublic away from the political fight, they are calling for the end of marriage, or the concept that anything and everything is marriage.
In America, religion is infinitely diverse, Islamic polygamy, gay churches, satan temples, Mormon traditionalists, anything and everything.
Since you can already do whatever you want in your religion in regards to marriage, then do it, quit fighting to make it the law, leave the government out of it.
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.