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.
I am with you. I am not a Ron Paul supporter, although I agree with him more than not. I do agree 100%, though. The party shenanigans at the convention basically told a whole group of potential Romney voters to screw off. Many did, and the result is an embarrassing loss. The party poobahs are either so arrogant, they thought they would win without Paul supporters and tepid tea party support, or they didn’t care about winning at all.
Do you want religion in charge or not, if you do, then that includes polygamy and gay marriage.
And since you can already do whatever you want in your religion in regards to marriage, why are your politics about forcing it to become the law, why not just do what you want, and leave the government out of it?
Is this how you guys keep conservatives at freerepublic tied up and try to stop political action towards a constitutional amendment protecting marriage, fighting ENDA, and fighting for DOMA, and electing pro-marriage, prolife, pro-God social conservatives?
I think that is becoming apparent and completely undeniable. The VA race should erase any doubt as we had Republican officials around the state go on tv supporting a scumbag McAullife and the national party mostly sit out.
The GOPe made the mistake of ignoring Governor Palin, not Ron Paul.
This is a lie. My "politics" aren't about forcing it to become law. The exact opposite. But, you know that. This is part of your little troll game.
Is this how you guys keep conservatives at freerepublic tied up...
No. This is how you troll libertarian threads to keep any meaningful discussion from occurring. You gotta protect your RINO/Nanny State/Bigger Government buddies after all.
And since you can already do whatever you want in your religion in regards to marriage, why are your politics about forcing it to become the law, why not just do what you want, and leave the government out of it?
Why can’t you answer that? People in America already marry without licenses, why can’t you? You don’t have to have a state sanctioned marriage.
Really. So... The law was changed when?
Oooh... That's right. It wasn't. You are just talking out your arse again.
So you want YOUR marriage to be recognized by the state, and government law.
That too. To beat an entrenched incumbent, it isn't 'either or' as far as I am concerned. They needed to do an all hands on deck and try to bring in every group to work together. They isolated Palin and conservative leaders. They shunned the Paul base. They changed the rules to both groups. It was a slow motion train-wreck as far I was concerned. I have never watched a convention and come out thinking 'meh' until last year. It was the ultimate over consultant-ized snooze fest. Even the McCain convention had some electric moments....Palin most of all. McCain even gave an inspired speech. in 2012, from the keynote to the governors to Rubio to Romney is was a bore.
Um... No. You haven’t been listening, have you. You are just posting random strings of words...
No, you post random words and nonsense, and contradict yourself completely every few posts.
Mormon traditionalists marry within their religion according to their religious law, and ignore the state, and do not attain licenses from the government, why can’t you and others do that?
yep, but too many of the young libtards just emphasize “license” and not true freedom…..
Um... Because you idiots have put laws in place that cause the police to come and arrest people who don't comply?
You really haven't been listening to yourself talk have you.
Where do the police arrest a man and woman, for living together, and claiming that they are married in the eyes of their religion?
Don’t be this stupid. It doesn’t even make you interesting as a troll.
If you aren’t lying or stupid, then justify your claim, where are couples being arrested?
Do you really think that we believe that you wanted a marriage license to avoid being arrested?
So yes, you are both lying and stupid.
Moving what goal posts, your ramblings and contradictions are impenetrable with reason, or any effort to find what your actual silly argument is.
You devote yourself to a childish fantasy of religion controlling marriage for everyone in America, yet even on that, you seem to vary from all religions in one post, to excluding the religions you don’t approve of, in another post, which is it?
You mock the idea of a legal definition of marriage, but then seem to argue for new marriage laws, or else you would just go your merry way and do the religious ceremonies that you go on about, just ignoring the government.
Now you want to pretend that you and others get a marriage license to avoid arrest, but can’t defend that bizarre claim.
Where does it say in the Constitution, or the 1St Amendment, that government gets to define those marriages for us?
Point to just ONE post by me where I state a new law is required. Take your time...
Now you want to pretend that you and others get a marriage license to avoid arrest, but can’t defend that bizarre claim.
Didn't click the Google search link did you... Dumbass.
In America, under our constitution and freedoms, no marriage isn’t religious, we don’t even legally recognize Islamic polygamy for instance.
Even the federal government has been defining marriage for it’s requirements, since 1780, without interruption.
If you aren’t insisting that new marriage law be created, then just do what you want and leave the rest of us alone, have whatever religious ceremony that you desire, just leave the “law” out of it, you don’t need a license.
A Google link page? wow, that is really defending your pretending that you and others obtain a license to avoid arrest.
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.