Analysis of the latest Gallup Poll by the Cato Institute tends to indicate that a lot of us are at least sympathetic to libertarianism, more so than we may be to traditional conservatism and (especially) liberalism. Of course most people don’t know what libertarianism really means. I have enough trouble with liberal and conservative myself. But the Cato folks explain that Gallup put it this way: If you tell people that “libertarian” means “fiscally conservative and socially liberal,” 44 percent will accept the label.
Well, the answer to my headline question is then “No, we’re not.” But it may be that plurality of us now are. There is a message in this for the Republican Party: No Rick Santorums, please. Keep the government out of our pocket books and out of our bedrooms.
And there is a message (or a warning) to the Democratic Party as well: Barack Obama is manufacturing libertarians – not Democrats and certainly not liberals.
“Barack Obama is manufacturing libertarians – not Democrats and certainly not liberals.”
That is certainly good news and time will certainly tell, but…the kenspeckle part of that situation is…
Can the country handle a bitter battle between three fiercely entrenched parties or would that rip us even further apart when even less of the country has a voice?
Of course, we survived the whole embarrassing Ross Perot balderdash but, EIGHT years of BUBBA was no picnic!
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
As someone (I forget who) said, “The problem with being fiscally conservative and socially liberal, is that all those liberal social programs cost so damn much”. Therefore I would submit that there can be no such animal.
Libertarians favor minimal government. Social liberals favor very active and big government.
They may favor the same actions (such as less government in sex)it typically is for different reasons. For liberals it is to require all children to learn about gay sex and encourage gay sex, for libertarians it is for people to be able to do as they wish or not do as this wish.
Unfortunately, official Libertarians give libertarianism a bad name. At Reason and other libertarian sites drug legalization seems to be what really gets them excited not economic libertarianism. At the last Libertarian Party debate one of the topics of discussion was legalizing child pornography. Most are quite serious about allowing airplane passengers to carry guns on board!
If the Libertarian Party were made up of serious people – not self-conscious ‘rebels’ wearing marijuana t-shirts – they could probably get enough votes to be able to tip the balance between Reps and Dems and therefore their ideas would be taken seriously.
The “elite” wing of the Republican Party is smaller than the “non-elite” wing. When “elites” think it’s a good idea to ignore the other wing, they don’t fly. I know a lot of people are concerned about their own sex lives and have a great fear that they’ll be interfered with in some way. . . meanwhile, those same people do a whole lot of interfering in other’s whole lives!
Important point possibly being missed here: the “socially liberal” in this context means “permissive,” i.e., fewer restrictions on people’s behavior. I don’t think it means more government. For example: allowing abortions is a libertarian position while ObamaCare is not.
Can an aborted human being be a libertarian, or is that just reserved for humans who are born?
“socially liberal” in this context means “permissive,”
Is that what Gallup told people? If not, it’s hard to say what the survey respondents thought “socially liberal” means.
Even “permissive” is ambiguous. Does it mean there should be fewer restrictions on restaurant owners’ ability to decide who they want in their restaurants, or should the restaurant owners be permitted to impose fewer restrictions on their clientele? Is it more “permissive” to allow parents to teach their own moral standards to children, or to coerce money out of parents so the state education system can teach children a sexual morality that may be at odds with their parents’?
Watching this Obama crowd is a terrible experience. However, it is possible that we are in a position to roll back 100 years of leftism. Revolutionary right wing groups are forming everywhere even among the police and military.
I am right wing to the core and I believe the libertarian view point is not practical because there is no force to control the formation of monopolies. Antitrust mechanisms must be on hand and vigorously applied. This requires a small, but potent government.
Ron,
Apart from utilities, monopolies are the product of government force.
Only a government can forbid competition, after all.
Milton Friedman made this point decades ago.
My definition of a Conservative is a Practical Libertarian.
As in: You may agree in principle that you should be able legally to buy heroin in the grocery store and cocaine in the drugstore but you realize stepping over all of those bodies during your daily walk would be both annoying and potentially hazardous – and thus you are opposed to it.
By the way, you can legally buy cocaine in the drugstore if you have a prescription for it, really. And it’s about the same price as Tylenol. Generic Tylenol. On sale. And that’s part of the problem with drug legalization – they would be so cheap that the free market would offer no obstacle to use.
So you can be anti-free market or anti-drug legalization – take your pick – that’s practical libertarianism.
And Coisty #4: Yep! You have got it! The biggest problem that libertarianism has is that most of the “real” ones are freakin’ nuts.
L. Neil Smith, an SF author of some note in libertarian circles even wrote an article in the 1980′s entitled “How to be a libertarian and not have your friends think you are nuts.”