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.
You gave government the power to “license” marriage for tax breaks and legal reasons.
Now you complain that the gay Left, overwhelmingly Democrat, is using it to force the law to recognize them as “equal” under the law.
And this is the libertarians fault because they feel it should have been left up to your Religion and never part of government in the first place?
Again, you are barking up the wrong tree here.
“Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it...”
Agreed.
Agreed-I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again-I would like to see the federal government out of the business of regulating everything other than what the Constitution allows-period, no exceptions. I guess the thought of all that freedom (and the personal responsibility that goes with it) is just too scary for too many folks...
The Constitutionalists are our friends, but they take votes against conservative Republicans. Our only path to political power is to retake the Republican Party. When someone like Cuccinelli faces the likes of McAuliffe, third parties like the libertarians only end up helping the statist win. Did they really think Cuccinelli was going to ban contraception and force women to bear children from rapes?!?! Even if Ken Cuccinelli believed in those things, he wasn’t going to be elected king.
I can understand not voting for Republicans who are Democrats in all but party affiliation, but that’s not the issue. The issue is libertarians who refuse to vote for good, small government conservatives, thereby helping far worse statists get elected. It’s politically foolish to refuse to back a guy who will give you 80% of what you want so that a guy who wants 80% of what you oppose gets elected!
“Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it...”
Agreed.
Sorry for the double tap.
Amazing the hostility for the ‘kook’ 2-4% I see here. Gee, maybe if the GOP ran on a message (and track record) based on the Constitution they’d win more elections.
Last time I can remember the GOP having the whole of D.C. what did they repeal? *crickets*....Dept. abolished? *crickets* Debt paid? *crickets*. Nope, We all got No Child Left Behind, expansion of Medicaid (care? who cares), TSA, NSA, etc. etc. etc.
Even now, facing the ‘14 and ‘16 elections, what is the word from ‘on high’?? Amnesty, ‘fixing’ healthcare, ‘fixing’ the tax system, etc. Sure sounds (C) to me to want to cast in with that lot. Hummm, why would ANY (L) give them another chance??
Instead, it’s the ‘fringe’ (L), whom run on re: A1S8 (and sure, there are some planks *I* don’t support), that get the hot-potato (as if those votes were the (R) to begin). Yeah, THAT makes a whole hell of a lot of sense.
Might want to clean up in-house before looking to the other parties for blame. I can easily presume this to be another (L) bashing thread while Rome burns, while getting a generous posting of (C) ‘moral superiority’.
Instead, all should ‘joining hands’ on those similarities to bring things back where they should. Unfortunately, to many, that’s too much crow/pride/ego.
/soap box off
[ 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. ]
The whole world could be one communists country minus a tiny isolated stone age level of development island in the pacific that is capaitalist because they trade beads for food between the two tribes who live on the island and they would blame the isolated island for all their own failings...
Communism is that bankrupt...
How many who voted for Sarvis were big government RINO’s?
I’ve been saying the same things since I started posting here back in early 1999.
Same dance. Same steps. To the same music...
I have observed that conservatives reject libertarians for a host of reasons but mostly because they lack Christ like purity
No. You’re wrong. You’re only describing a faction of the Republican Party, the so called neo-cons. There are plenty of conservative Republicans who want to stop being the world’s police, too.
Libertarians need to decide what’s more important to them and then choose the path that is most likely to result in political success. That path, I humbly submit, lies in helping small government conservatives seize control of the Republican Party from the GOPe.
[ You gave government the power to “license” marriage for tax breaks and legal reasons. ]
Speaking of tax breaks, ias it any wonder that LBJ was insturmental in setting up the 5013C that has been used as a “lever of power” to ply churches and religious institutions to become tools of the state message....
We need to storm the control room and start breaking the levers off at the base....
“A libertarian would be an idiot to support gay marriage, because the disaster of such families will produce children raised as wards of the State.”
And, Gay Marriage is nothing more than a stalking horse for attacking religious freedom. A principled libertarian would not support that.
Yes, yes it is.
All forms of isms and utopian societies would be the same way
Another reason Libertarians do not like conservatives being they are as crazy as the Left.
Amen...
Nor would I support excluding religious expression from the public square the way the militant Atheists are doing.
The public square should be INCLUSIVE, not EXCLUSIVE.
In your private dealings, let your Faith be your guide.
John Stossel is about the only libertarian I like
I have observed that conservatives reject libertarians for a host of reasons but mostly because they lack Christ like purity
Which is sad because I would rather have libertarian neighbors surrounding me because they are less likely to complain to the city about the length of my grass.... And IF they do I have FAR more recourse to call them a Damned Hypocrite than I do if my Neigbor is a Liberal “Control Freak Statist”
Because the Control Freak Statist neighbor is at least being true to their own idealology when they prance over to my lawn with their grass ruler, measure it, and then tattle to the city government about how evil I am because my grass is 1/8th of an inch too long...
Yep. The “leave me alone” libertarians are not a majority, the whacked out Libertopians are the ones pushing that “movement”
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.