why the orphaning of libertarians, seems a reasonable question

[alan]

February 2, 2006


Libertarian Orphans
by David Boaz

David Boaz is executive vice president of the Cato Institute.

The Gallup Poll's annual survey on government found that 27% of Americans are conservative; 24% are liberal, up sharply because the poll was taken after Katrina, which boosted support for the proposition that "government should do more to solve our country's problems." Gallup also found -- this year as in others -- that 20% are neither liberal nor conservative but libertarian, opposing the use of government either to "promote traditional values" or to "do too many things that should be left to individuals and businesses." Another 20% are "populist" (supporting government action in both areas), with 10% undefined. Libertarian support, spread across demographic groups, is strongest among well-educated voters.

So where are the libertarians in politics and the media? Since the Clinton impeachment and the Florida recount, there's been a polarization: Congressmen and TV pundits define themselves as red/blue, pro-/anti-Bush, partisan Democrat/Republican, and take rigid liberal/conservative positions on Iraq, tax cuts, Social Security reform, gay marriage, abortion. But polls tell us that Americans aren't quite so partisan.

With big-government conservatives spending money like Imelda Marcos in a shoe store, and big-government liberals supporting the Patriot Act, even pro-government populists are represented in D.C. It's the libertarian voters who are orphans. Democrats stand like a wall against tax cuts and Social Security privatization. Republicans want to ban abortion, gay marriage and "Happy Holidays." It's not just Congress -- in Virginia's recent elections, all the Democrats were tax-hikers and all the Republicans were religious rightists. What's a libertarian to do?

The worst aspect of all this is the oracles who appear on TV. You'd think they'd be thoughtful, independent. Yet they're as partisan as the pols. The typical cable show brings viewers two guests, a liberal and a conservative. You can count on conservative writers to defend everything President Bush does, and on liberal editors to denounce the GOP -- no matter what.

Of course, it could be that most Americans are, in fact, liberals and conservatives. Maybe Gallup is wrong, every year. But the exit polls on election day 2004 offer some confirmation. According to those polls, 17 million voted for John Kerry but did not think the government should do more to solve the country's problems. And 28 million Bush voters support either gay marriage or civil unions. That's 45 million who don't fit the polarized model. They seem to have broadly libertarian attitudes. In fact, it's no secret that libertarian voters make up a chunk of America. But you'd never know it from watching TV -- or listening to our elected politicians.

This article appeared in the Wall Street Journal on January 31, 2006.

 

[MeekAndMild]

So where are the libertarians in politics and the media?

They are off the radar screen because they don't make a significant coordinated coalition. Heinlein likened them to cats and often asked the rhetorical question, "Have you ever tried to herd cats?"

 

[Redworm]

Why is that? What keeps the most freedom oriented party from actually being organized? I originally thought the Libertarians were the best party to vote for but after hearing some of the things on this forum I'm not so sure. They do seem strategically inefficient and I have no idea what could be done to solve that.

I do believe, however, that the idea many conservatives have of "Let's just try to bring the Republicans to a moderate area" won't work because the religious right isn't going to let go of their beliefs and shouldn't be expected to. I still think have a party like the Libertarians is the best solution; I refuse to vote for any politician that:

1. Wants to take guns away.
2. Wants me to pay for people who can work but chose not to.
3. Supports the war on drugs in any form.
4. Wants to tell me who I can or cannot marry.

etc etc etc

The only thing about Libertarians that doesn't jive with me is their ideas on the economy but in all honesty Economics in high school made my nose bleed and smoke billow out of my ears.

 

[Mikeyboy]

The libertarians need to flush out all the wackos out of the party and become a serious 3rd party. I thing the republican are going to shift too far right and the democrats are already shifting too far left. The USA needs a good 3rd party to bring everything back to normal and to stop the gridlock and corruption in Washington.

 

[invention_45]

I think M&M has the idea.

Republicans, in general, have picked key areas in which they seem to want to tell us what to do. (No drugs, little sex, go to church).

Democrats, in general, have picked key areas in which they seem to want to tell us what to do. (Don't have guns, affirmative action, environmental restrictions).

There's a lot of overlap, but they're both parties of big government with different twists.

But what they have in common is they're about control. To have an organization, especially a big organization, you need some controllers and a lot of sheep.

The party that touts minimal control is the Libertarian party. Well, minimal control means "I don't want you telling me what to do". That means that getting a leadership/followership system going is fairly difficult, what with everybody being of the mind that he likes his independence.

So you end up with a group that is very hard to organize. Like cats.

You can be sure that every Libertarian has his own pet issue or issues. One might want to be free of any tax that supports an able non-worker, but at the same time has a very controlling attitude regarding abortion. Another might want to be free to do any drug he wants, but at the same time has a very controlling attitude regarding guns.

Add these people into the mix and it's even harder to find common ground and organize.

I suspect both the Republican and Democratic parties know this and therefore don't fear a takeover by the Libertarian party any time soon.

 

[pdkflyguy]

Libertarian In Disguise

Well, I am a Libertarian by belief, but I do have to say that I am one of those Libertarians that isn't helping us get organized. I think we have to be realistic, and say that our two-party system will be around for a while (though probably not in its current form). American History has taught us that the two-party system will always dominate our political system, but that parties can come and go in a generation. Let's not forget those other parties, outside of the republican/democrat world that have dominated our system: The Whigs, The Bull-Moose Party, The Do-Nothings, just to name a few. The ideas from these parties never fully went away, they simply melded into the ideas of another party in which they had common interest, and both parties evolved. I happen to vote Republican in the Presidential Races, as well as most other executive races. Mainly, I want to make sure that my vote isn't "wasted" by voting for a candidate that cannot win. In local elections, however, like school boards, and mayoral races, and county commissioners, I vote my conscience, and my libertarian ideals, because then they have their best chance of making an actual difference. Besides, Republicans want smaller, less powerful governement, so that's good enough for me.

 

[Rebar]

The libertarian party squandered its opportunity to be a real player in politics. Rather then concentrating on local/state elections, it just had to tilt at windmills by running presidential candidates. 30+ years later, all it has to show is a bare handful of state reps, and not one state senator, elected.

Anyone with any sense left the party after the disasterous Badnarik campaign. They've even had to reduce the membership dues to zero to hide the plummiting rolls. The only ones left are the die-hards and the loonys.

If you're a libertarian, and want to actually accomplish something, join the republicans and work from within to change their direction. The loony-left did that to the democratic party, and now (for better or worse) are running the show.

 

[Eghad]

The libertarians have some good ideas....but the roadmap on how they plan on getting there is fuzzy and ill defined.

 

[Pointer]

What's a libertarian to do?

I think they need a face lift...
They should change the name of their party to Constitutionalists

BUT, as long as they are stuck in the middle they handicap themselves and the conservatives are left to go it alone as well.

I believe if they would caucus and join forces with the conservatives they would double their numbers...

I would support them... if they didn't present themselves as "kookie" fringe floaters. Also those who already think of themselves as Contitutionalists would probably shift to the new party strengthening it even more...

It would also bring in the Tax Reformers because they would feel they could actually get some "representation" from this new alliance.

It worked for the Liberals... they said they were Democrats when they were actually commicrats...

Congressman Ron Dellums (Oakland, Kalifornica) tried to get the ignorant voters to elect him as the Black Panther Party representative... he failed.

He then tried to run as the Socialist Party Candidate... he failed again.

He then ran as the Democrat Candidate... He won!... and he remained in, and retired (or died) from, the Congress after about 30 years of Liberal Commicrat affiliation.

The only way we can succeed is to PROTECT the US Constitution from the Liberals who believe it to be archaic and out of step with what they think of as "Modern Humanist Philosophy".

 

[Redworm]

I believe if they would caucus and join forces with the conservatives they would double their numbers...

I don't see how that could happen.

The War on Drugs
The Issue: The suffering that drug misuse has brought about is deplorable; however, drug prohibition causes more harm than drugs themselves. The so-called "War on Drugs" is in reality a war against the American people, our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It is a grave threat to individual liberty, to domestic order and to peace in the world.

The Principle: Individuals should have the right to use drugs, whether for medical or recreational purposes, without fear of legal reprisals, but must be held legally responsible for the consequences of their actions only if they violate others' rights.

Solutions: Social involvement by individuals is essential to address the problem of substance misuse and abuse. Popular education and assistance groups are a better approach than prohibition, and we support the activities of private organizations as the best way to move forward on the issue.

Transitional Action: Repeal all laws establishing criminal or civil penalties for the use of drugs. Repeal laws that infringe upon individual rights to be secure in our persons, homes, and property as protected by the Fourth Amendment. Stop the use of "anti-crime" measures such as profiling or civil asset forfeiture that reduce the standard of proof historically borne by government in prosecutions. Stop prosecuting accused non-violent drug offenders, and pardon those previously convicted.

Freedom of Religion
Issue: Government routinely invades personal privacy rights based solely on individuals' religious beliefs. Arbitrary tax structures are designed to give aid to certain religions, and deny it to others.

Principle: We defend the rights of individuals to engage in (or abstain from) any religious activities that do not violate the rights of others.

Solution: In order to defend freedom, we advocate a strict separation of church and State. We oppose government actions that either aid or attack any religion. We oppose taxation of church property for the same reason that we oppose all taxation. We condemn the attempts by parents or any others -- via kidnappings or conservatorships -- to force children to conform to any religious views. Government harassment or obstruction of religious groups for their beliefs or non-violent activities must end.

Transitional Action: We call for an end to the harassment of churches by the Internal Revenue Service through threats to deny tax-exempt status to churches that refuse to disclose massive amounts of information about themselves.

Sexual Rights
The Issue: Government has presumed to decide acceptability over sexual practices in personal relationships, imposing a particular code of moral and social values and displacing personal choice in such matters.

The Principle: Adults have the right to private choice in consensual sexual activity.

Solutions: We advocate an end to all government attempts to dictate, prohibit, control or encourage any private lifestyle, living arrangement or contractual relationship.

Transitional Action: We would repeal existing laws and policies intended to condemn, affirm, encourage or deny sexual lifestyles, or any set of attitudes about such lifestyles.

Women's Rights and Abortion
The Issue: Recognizing that abortion is a very sensitive issue and that people, including libertarians, can hold good-faith views on both sides, we believe the government should be kept out of the question. We condemn state-funded and state-mandated abortions. It is particularly harsh to force someone who believes that abortion is murder to pay for another's abortion.

The Principle: We hold that individual rights should not be denied or abridged on the basis of sex. It is the right and obligation of the pregnant woman, not the state, to decide the desirability or appropriateness of prenatal testing, Caesarean births, fetal surgery, voluntary surrogacy arrangements and/or home births.

Solutions: We oppose all laws likely to impose restrictions on free choice and private property or to widen tyranny through reverse discrimination.

Transitional Action: We call for repeal of all laws discriminating against women, such as protective labor laws and marriage or divorce laws which deny the full rights of men and women.

Immigration
The Issue: We welcome all refugees to our country and condemn the efforts of U.S. officials to create a new "Berlin Wall" which would keep them captive. We condemn the U.S. government's policy of barring those refugees from our country and preventing Americans from assisting their passage to help them escape tyranny or improve their economic prospects.

The Principle: We hold that human rights should not be denied or abridged on the basis of nationality. Undocumented non-citizens should not be denied the fundamental freedom to labor and to move about unmolested. Furthermore, immigration must not be restricted for reasons of race, religion, political creed, age or sexual preference. We oppose government welfare and resettlement payments to non-citizens just as we oppose government welfare payments to all other persons.

Solutions: We condemn massive roundups of Hispanic Americans and others by the federal government in its hunt for individuals not possessing required government documents. We strongly oppose all measures that punish employers who hire undocumented workers. Such measures repress free enterprise, harass workers, and systematically discourage employers from hiring Hispanics.

Transitional Action: We call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally.

Libertarians hold to those beliefs as strongly as conservatives hold to theirs.

 

[Fal 4 Me]

So where are the libertarians in politics and the media?

It seems to me that the libertarians and populists have as much in common with Democrats as they do with Republicans. When we hear about these groups they are lumped into the larger "swing voters" or "undecideds" and only come out around election time. In truth these are the people who decide each election by biting the bullet and voting for the lesser of to evils, and in the past few decades more and more have been voting Republican.

 

[osufanboy]

As mentioned before, they're all over the map with no cohesion. Unfortunately you need to have $money$ to get elected. This metaphor is apt for this forum: if you spread out gunpowder and light it you get a fizzle. But when you concentrate it... Libertarians need to raise funds to get elected. When you're elected you become credible and can raise funds. So in order to get elected you need to funnel the money and energy on a few specific campaigns. The toughest route to getting elected is facing an incumbent. Incumbents almost ALWAYS win. Hence you focus on a few elections with NO incumbent running. Get them elected. They become the incumbent. repeat elsewhere. The Republicans have been planning and strategizing for 40 years. They looked ahead and planned for the future. The Dems never planned. Now look who has the majority?

Again, like herding cats. I'm afraid the Neocon Repubs are too organized. They'll be in power a long time.

The worst aspect of all this is the oracles who appear on TV. You'd think they'd be thoughtful, independent. Yet they're as partisan as the pols. The typical cable show brings viewers two guests, a liberal and a conservative. You can count on conservative writers to defend everything President Bush does, and on liberal editors to denounce the GOP -- no matter what.

 

[cma g21]

Rebar wrote:

The libertarian party squandered its opportunity to be a real player in politics. Rather then concentrating on local/state elections, it just had to tilt at windmills by running presidential candidates. 30+ years later, all it has to show is a bare handful of state reps, and not one state senator, elected.

+1, and it sometimes seems they'll never learn.

The Libertarians need to give up their expensive (and futile) Presidential campaigns until they can establish credibility by winning at the State and Congressional levels.

 

[Pointer]

must be held legally responsible for the consequences of their actions only if they violate others' rights.

"Ay... There's the rub!"

The liberals won't allow stiff punishments or harsh terms or mandatory sentencing, or restitution for victims, or.........

Held responsible? Never happen...

 

[Redworm]

Well then it's a damn good thing we're talking about libertarians and not liberals, right?

Justice for the Individual
We support restitution for the victim to the fullest degree possible at the expense of the criminal or wrongdoer. We oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of self-defense.

Justice for the Individual
The Issue: The present system of criminal law is based almost solely on punishment with little concern for the victim.

The Principle: The purpose of a justice system is to provide restitution to those suffering a loss at the expense of those who caused that loss. In the case of violent crimes, an additional purpose is to defend society from the continued threat of violence.

Solutions: We support the following:

a) restitution for the victim to the fullest degree possible at the expense of the criminal or wrongdoer;

b) an end to the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of self-defense; and

c.) an affirmation of the right of the victim to pardon the criminal or wrongdoer, barring threats to the victim for this purpose.

Transitional Action: End all "no-fault" insurance laws, which deprive the victim of the right to recover damages from those responsible in the case of injury. Affirm the right of the victim to pardon the criminal or wrongdoer, barring threats to the victim for this purpose. Change rape laws so that cohabitation will no longer be a defense against a charge of rape.

 

[pipoman]

The reason Libertarian movement has such a hard time is because it too is split fiscally. A lot of Libertarians are fiscally conservative (Boortz Libertarians) a lot are more Liberal.

I think the one issue which may launch the next third party, possibly the Libertarians is tax reform i.e. The Fair Tax or something like this. There is growing support for this type of change from both Dems and Repubs. The rub will be how the tax revenue is spent.

Herding cats is a good analogy to use for the Libertarians because of the fiscal differences between party members.

 

[RickD]

They are off the radar screen because they don't make a significant coordinated coalition.

They tend to eat their own young if they are not pretty enough (doctrinaire true believers) (I love saying "doctrinaire" because it means -- "A person inflexibly attached to a practice or theory without regard to its practicality.").

Case in point (I love saying "case in point")--

"The Nearly Famous" Barry Young is, was, and perhaps always will be, a #1 talk radio host at the #1 550KFYI in the fifth largest city in the country (Phoenix).

http://www.kfyi.com/pages/barry_young.html?feed=119587&article=359580

In the early 1990s he told people that he was a libertarian. But, every once in a while he would espouse the ocassional blaspheme, "we need a fence at the border," "a CCW permit is better than nothing," (or more recently "the Iraq war is a good thing, etc, etc."). Essentially, Barry was what I call (and call myself), a "conservo-libertarian." But I think he was actually a registered Libertarian at the time.

The State Chair of the Arizona Libertarian party, as well as other purists (not that there's anything wrong with that...) would call in, or bump into him at random speaking engagement and insist that he is (was) not a true libertarian. And they didn't do this just a little bit. They did it a lot. It was a concerted effort -- a campaign, because they saw this as an opportunity to get the message out. Even when not on the radio, the Big- L Libertarians would go so far as to make Barry-Bashing a topic at their confabs and newsletter articles.

Several months of this and Barry essentially said, "Ya know what? I'm not a Libertarian, and you guys are frickin' nuts" (direct quote).

Now, instead of having a big-tent ally in the media, they have a guy who probably once a week mentions the "fruitcakes in the state Libertarian Party."

Eating their Young, indeed.

Rick
I crack me up.

 

[GHT]

Libertarians are druggies.
Libertarians want the Mexicans to take over the SW and drag it down to their evil 3rd world level.

Why would any intelligent person follow these folks?

The people (educated) who consider themselves "libertarian" simply want the government to stop messing with them. As do I.

They are not going to give money to a bunch of druggies with no idea of what a country is.

Rebar as usual hits the nail on the head: fight from within the Republican party as the nutty left has done from within the Democratic (sic) party.


G

 

[JerryM]

The Libertarian Party is not in tune with the general public. I see them as approaching anarchy, and without a moral base except "I got a right to do as I please."

I do not believe it will ever be a viable party except as a protest. Voting LP is either wasting your vote, or getting a liberal elected.

Jerry

 

[RickD]

Libertarians are druggies.

That is a mischaracterization. Libertarians are for repeal of drug laws and dissolving the DEA (as well as FDA), just as we are for the repeal of gun laws and dissolving the BATF. One does not need to be a gun owner to want to repeal gun laws. And one does not have to be a druggie to want to repeal the stupid War on Some-Drugs.

The do tend to be for open borders, however. And there is certainly an anarchist-wing of the Libertarian party.

Rick