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.
Dead Corpse: “Libertarians advocate you clean up your own messes...”
I respect and agree with that, but most people do simply do not want to clean up their own messes. Those people vote in droves for Democrats.
Again, libertarians need to think things through and decide which path is most likely to lead to actual political success. You can stand on principle and see the statist Democrat get elected, or you can compromise on a small number of issues and elect someone who agrees with 80% of what you want.
Voting for third party candidates typically results in the election of far worse statists than what libertarians would have elected had they supported the conservative Republican.
If Cuccinelli had run for president in 2008, or 2012 then you would be correct, but since he didn’t you can’t compare these 2
I see the Libertarian Party as a gathering place for self-indulgent people who love the mechanics of the political process but are not allowed to play with the Big Boys in the other parties due to lack of gravitas or experience. Commitment to ideals or governing visions seems to be sadly lacking, and many LP candidates seem to be nothing more than third-string Democrats or Republicans, with ideologies to match.
The gap between the Libertarian Party and small "l" libertarians has never been greater.
Sorry for the double tap.
When dealing with any type of zombie, double tap is not a good idea... it is the law...
No, I just remember the 2010 tea party success. Taxed Enough Already. People sharing your position could stop chasing off potential allies. If America united on fiscal issues we just might save the Nation. Like we did in 2010.
But since there are no gays (Log Cabin Republicans) or pro choicers in the GOP, and not one republican thinks the WOD is worse than the disease, just keep attacking people you perceive as different from yourself.
I seek civil discourse. None here. Just name calling. Bye.
Dead Corpse: “There’s no such thing as a free lunch”.
But there is, and millions of Democrats vote for it. They either don’t care or don’t realize the bill will ultimately come due, but you completely miss the point. We’re getting hammered in the voting booth by people who want government to protect them from their mistakes. The safety net is a safety hammock, and these folks are very comfortable in it!
How in the world are you going to get a true libertarian elected against something like that? You’re outnumbered...badly. As a practical means to power, you really should decide which party, Democrat or Republican, best represents your views. That means compromise, but it’s compromise in a way that advances your cause.
BTW, I’m not talking about voting for GOPe moderate, aka big government, Republicans. I’m talking about libertarians backing those who should be their political bedfellows, aka conservatives.
This brand of "Libertarian" has no care in the world for the Republic or societal values and mores. Is there any reason not to expect this spoiled brat Millenial Generation, sipping on Pumpkin Spiced Lattes, in their white-rimmed Oakley sunglasses and skinny jeans/yoga pants, to be anything less than self-serving hipster douchebag Libertarians?
Get off the lawn!
Really? Marriage licenses go back about 700 years.
Sometime divorce lawyer, Thomas Jefferson bought a marriage license well before the United States even existed.
The federal government was making law regarding marriage from 1780 on, the Continental Congress, and then the Congress in 1794, 1798, 1802, and so forth.
SpeakerToAnimals: “...not one republican thinks the WOD is worse than the disease...”
BS!
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.
I am saying what they want to do. I hope they are never in power to do this. True conservatives did not do this and that is who libertarians help defeat.
Yup.
And sex with minors.
Pretty much guarantees there will never be any sort of alliance with conservatives.
You may not know that naturally, that conservative tea party was made up of mostly the religious and social conservative, although their focus was on economics, they were more religious than most Americans, and almost half, were no only religious, but identified as the "religious right".
Nice straw man. Without even mentioning faith, I reject libertarians for (directly from Rachel's article) ...
favoring legalizing marijuana;
supporting gay marriage;
wanting a way for illegal immigrants to stay in this country;
prioritizing prostitution and raw milk;
for being 'more blue', a reaction to what Americans prioritize (i.e. blown by the wind).
And also for using the same tired old false liberal class warfare rhetoric which divides the country ....
accepting of LGBT people,
encouraging women to have a voice,
using social media groups targeted (e.g. "pander to") to different minorities.
The label-making and only-my-social-issues-for-laws tone of some made me think of a Star Trek TOS episode I saw when I was in my teens-two men from opposing sides of a planetary war were white on one side and black on the other, but on opposite sides.
They would not stop the racial slurs and hatred, in spite of being the same species, and alike in everything but color. The fighting between the two races destroyed the whole civilization in a nuclear holocaust, but the two went back and continued chasing each other down just because each hated and blamed the other. What goes on here sometimes makes just about as much sense...
Don't leave them any other choice. Amazing how fast people clean up their act then...
Don't blame us...
Robert A. Heinlein, regarding politics and neighbors:
“Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.”
Those Derek Hunter articles nailed it. Click keyword libertarian and read them. Great stuff. He has put libs in their place, and they don’t like it.
Boo freaking hoo.
Hmm. Only five percent of libertarians are Democrats while 45% are Republican. This puts the lie to a popular meme around here.
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.