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.
bump
Ansel, Ansel, Ansel.
True libertarians got infiltrated by rabid liberals. What we see calling itself a Libertarian party is a very compromised organ. Actual root Libertarianism can be very copacetic with the bible, with an "our only king is Jesus" tenet.
I was speaking of the libertarians on this thread, and at FR.
Libertarianism is the politics of Sodom and Gomorrah, a place full of liberals and libertarians, and very short on social conservatives.
Well if you want statist social conservatives you will find none in the libertarians.
If you want BIBLE faithful people, you’ll find a LOT and you will also find they do not appreciate the blasphemy from you.
LOL, the libertarians are not famous for being bible believing, social conservative, Christians.
Believe me, that is not what they are known for.
You really do need to talk with your doctor. Your meds simply do not work.
I am NOT talking about passing more laws; that’s YOUR solution to each and every “problem,” not mine. I am talking about simply repealing laws that have no legitimate place in a free society.
A religious sacrament of Holy Matrimony plus a civil contract would fit most anyone’s needs. Churches in general would set the definition and standards couples must meet and agree to live by to be married. Someone not desiring that could get a civil union contract or just live together. SOCIETY (not government) would wind up being the proper enforcement mechanism for marriage. And that is as it SHOULD be!!!
You have begged the question because “social conservative” in your eyes means lobbying for sterner and sterner STATE laws no matter how spectacular the fail (as in the “drug war.”) Christian Libertarians say wait, let’s call on the gospel to get people to control themselves!
You are a broken record... remember that old vinyl and diamond technology?
This group of Sarvis voters is more like the John Anderson or Lowell Weicker or Lincoln Chafee voter than the standard issue small government (or no government?) libertarian.
Liberal Republicans (or the kind of people who used to be liberal Republicans), maybe with a dash of the Jerry Brown Dennis Kucinich anti-establishment voter among the young.
As a Bible-believing, born-again, servant of the One True Living God, I am highly offended at your vile and totally false characterization of me and of MANY LIKE ME!
Perhaps the mods could have a chat with you before you REALLY cross the line.
So you want to first repeal all marriage/divorce/custody laws in America, creating a situation unknown in American history, and impossible for government to function in, since they have to haves rules and laws determining their actions in many cases involving relationships, as in the military and immigration, etc.
So that is just childish nonsense.
Second you want to make any and all religions in charge of marriage and divorce for their members, and presumably, ex-members.
Which instantly creates polygamy and gay marriage, and whatever all the kooky religions can come up with.
Why are you obsessed with something that can’t be done, will never be done, and shouldn’t be done anyway?
Why is this immature playing around, more important than fighting the left’s and the libertarian’s gay agenda through actual politics, which is what this conservative site is about?
Are you guys thinking that America is going to become a Catholic theocracy or something?
I remember voting for John Anderson in the 1980 primary election. I voted for Ronald Reagan in the general election and naturally in the 1984 primary and general election
LOL, the libertarians are not famous for being bible believing, social conservative, Christians.
Perhaps you should reexamine your social politics and look into just what libertarians are rightfully known for, they are not known for being religious, in fact just the opposite.
“”Americans who identify with the Tea Party are more likely to identify with the Christian Right than to hold views consistent with a libertarian philosophy, according to a new report by the Public Religion Research Institute.””
“”Libertarians are composed of a disproportionately high number of white mainline Protestants (27%) and religiously unaffiliated Americans (27%). Only about 1-in-10 (11%) libertarians identify as Catholic””
Demographics do not define biblical faithfulness. As Jesus himself said, when He returns will He find faith on the earth? I think He’s going to have to look real hard to find any in you. He’ll say your idol was the state.
And as for this endless LOLling of yours, lay off that laughing gas. It can give you cancer of the conscience.
Only you could promote the libertarians and their anti-God agenda, in the name of Jesus and “biblical faithfulness”.
If you cherish a baby who is sick, does that mean you are cherishing the germs with which it is sick?
And anyhow, lay off those ad-hominems. This is getting way beyond “a few bruises between freepers.” Were I a moderator I would give you a stern warning about that right now.
I was dead serious in that description of your posting, it is religious ravings trying to sell an anti-God political movement, as the pro-God political movement.
Sodom and Gomorrah already had all the libertarians and liberals it could use, what it needed, was some social conservatives, the kind you mock.
>> Marriage is a sacrament of the CHURCH.
Agreed. The govt doesn’t belong in the affairs of marriage.
While I prefer the intended outcome of DOMA, it’s obvious that the level of law DOMA represents is extremely dangerous (in the wrong hands.)
The govt is too damn large and overbearing. It’s so damn large that even the concept of small libertarianism is far from what it was years ago.
Then you are calling for something different from what ever existed in the United States of America, and you better be including Mosques, and all religions and cults in your description, as silly as it is to waste time on this bizarre fantasy, that seems to leave out the non-religious, and doesn't account for divorce, and leaving a religion.
The foggy feelgood philosophy is no doubt a factor for what some aptly describe as Liberal-tarians. And yes, some humility would serve them well.
My focus concerns small libertarianism which is in contrast to statism — degrees of enforcement.
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.