Libertarians in 2008
In the past few elections, it has been said that the most influential voting block has been evangelical Christians. Even in 2006, if the evangelicals had voted in larger numbers, the Republicans would have probably not lost by quite as much, and could very well have held on to the Senate.
There is a small, but growing, population of voters who have been generally disorganized and somewhat silent in the past. Your humble blog author is part of that group, and although we may never hold the clout that organized evangelical voters may hold, we could very well be one of the many deciding factors in the 2008 Presidential election.
Who are we? Libertarians, and we’re growing. More and more people are admitting their inner libertarian (not to be confused with librarian), and more and more we are demanding that our politicians listen to us.
Andrew Sullivan has this post over at his blog, and the numbers are amazing. Many libertarians voted democrat in the last election, a very large portion:
It was much more significant in the 2006 elections than the white evangelical vote. In 2006, a full 36 percent of self-described libertarians voted Democrat – easily the biggest share of that vote that the Dems have had in recent times.
You see, George W. Bush, a President that I have been moderately happy with especially on matters of national security (one of the few roles I’m willing to allow the government to occupy on a large scale) and the war on terrorism. President Bush has also been somewhat progressive in terms of privatization of certain government programs, although the primarily neoconservative and liberal congress would have nothing of it.
In general, the libertarian move away from Christianist big government Republicanism has been intense these past six years of Bush. In 2000, Bush won 72 percent of the libetarian vote; in 2004, he won 59 percent. In 2002, the Republican advantage over Democrats among libertarians in the Congressional elections was 47 percent. By 2006, the gap had narrowed to 23 percent.
You see, for whatever reason (I assume absolute power, controlling the White House and both houses of congress), the Republicans have placed themselves in a position of government growth. Consequently, that position has given the Democrats a tremendous opportunity to take the opposite position to court the libertarian vote. Even though the Democrats have no more intention on shrinking the government, it seems that we libertarians have fallen for it, as evidenced by the 2006 mid-term elections.
But all is not lost. Democrats now have control of both houses of congress, and are already betraying their criticisms of Republican spending by responding with new spending of their own. Government interference in issues like the minimum wage increase will certainly be a wakeup call for libertarians around the country.
Don’t be fooled, my fellow libertarians, Democrats are not your friends, but the Republicans aren’t necessarily either. Although we do live in a 2 party world, keep in mind that the Republican primary will be heated. Find that “small government” candidate who can get things done in Washington and throw your support behind him. It’s the only way we can ever get back to a country truly ruled by the people.
[tags]politics, libertarian, libertarianism, president, 2008, election[/tags]
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically each day to your feed reader. If you don't have a feed reader, you can always have these articles delivered to your email inbox every day. Click here to sign up.
Trackbacks & Pingbacks
Comments
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
I can certainly respect the libertarian position. I certainly have more in common with them than with neoconservatives, and I believe many libertarians have more in common with -me- (a strong, if unconventional, liberal) than they do with the neocons.
The way I see it, libertarians and liberals generally desire the same ends but propose very different means for reaching them. Or rather, we share the same general set of goals but greatly disagree on which goals are more important. Libertarians approach these goals from a conservative viewpoint, while liberals approach them (duh) from a liberal viewpoint. We both believe in the freedom and rights of every individual and supporting the little man. We both oppose more government intrusion into people’s lives. But here we part ways. Libertarians view (obviously I am making a very generalized statement here) any government involvement in individual lives as intrusion. They believe that capitalism is a system that, left to its own devices, will generally work out well for people, on average, and that people should be free to make their own decisions about how they spend their money or how they pay for healthcare. Liberals, on the other hand, believe that capitalism will leave many people behind and that these people often simply do not have the ability to succeed in a world where the odds may be stacked high against them. We bleeding heart liberals (how in the FRACK did ‘bleeding heart’ become an insult, anyway?) believe these people need and deserve help, and the government is the institution best suited to do so. Libertarians charge that liberals would, in attempting their socialist utopia, bring about a welfare state with a failed economy, rampant inflation and climbing deficit, a point I must admit is very very far from being without merit.
But surely such basic necessities as healthcare should be available to everyone? Consider Bush’s ‘personal accounts’ proposal for social security reform. A person with a million dollar yearly salary can obviously put far more into such an account over the years than a person making $30,000 yearly. Yet when both retire, doesn’t the middle-class person need a certain minimum amount as a basic living wage?
For those who argue against socialization of any systems, consider this: we are *already* socialized to a very large degree; our public schools, for instance. Is anyone willing to argue that a parent making $30,000 yearly should have to pay the same amount in absolute dollars to send their child to public school as a parent earning $1 million yearly? If not, why should healthcare be any different? Why should people on radically different salaries pay an equal *percentage* of their income to finance roads or schools or the military, but have to pay an equal amount of *dollars* for healthcare or food or retirement? We all have the same equal needs as human beings, but by the nature of our society, we are not able to equally satisfy those needs.
I agree with much you have to say. Yes, many libertarians have been turned off to Bush these last few years.
However, we will fail in the future if we blame it all on Bush. We must face the fact that the American electorate has become more anti-libertarian in recent years.
Where’s the Tax Cut movement? What happened to the Gun Rights movement? And look at all the smoking bans, now even in bars.
Americans want a Nanny-State. And until we libertarians recognize that and deal with it, we will continue to suffer many losses.
I blame mostly the Policy Wankers in the libertarian movement; Cato, Reason Magazine, other Think Tanks, et.al. They’ve failed miserably cause their pointy-headed Ivory Tower philosophizing doesn’t reasonate AT ALL with Joe Sixpack.
Until libertarians learn to be more Regular Joes, we’re not going to make any progress.
That’s why Wayne Root’s candidacy for President on the Libertarian ticket for 2008 may be a winner! His sports background can attract Joe Sixpack.
Eric Dondero, CEO
http://www.mainstreamlibertarian.com
How can you be “moderately happy” with the job Bush has done, yet be a Libertarian? Bush has not followed any of the party rules of the Libs. He’s invading our privacy constantly, and ignoring the constitution at will. Libs want the people to control the country, without much governing. The less governing the better.
George,
True enough. We believe that freedom works. We also believe that big government doesn’t work, especially in terms of attempting to regulate “fairness”.
I’m not a huge fan of Bill O’Reilly’s, but you just summed up part of his thesis definition of secular progressive.
Indeed.
They are. The difference in our positions is that you believe that it’s the governments responsibility to take my money away from me, and spend it to make sure someone who doesn’t have healthcare/retirement/income can have a life relatively close to mine, all without my consent or willingness. I call it forced charity.
Sure, but is it my responsibility to pay for it without consent? Do you think it’s right for the government to take my money and give it to someone else? Wouldn’t it be better to let me choose if I want to contribute to someone else’s way of life?
Hmmm. The libertarian in me says yes. But the pragmatist in me says no. There is a grey line there, since I do believe it’s society’s responsibility to take care of it’s children, while infringing in family autonomy as little as possible. On the fence, but certainly not the same thing as a universal healthcare system or government run retirement redistribution.
That’s why I’m for a consumption tax (flat tax) which liberals hate. Neal Boortz has a great book on the subject.
Heathcare is a beast. It’s sentimental, but it simply cannot be done at the government level. I’ll write a story on it this week.
Eric,
I hate to admit that you’re right, but I believe that you are. I don’t think that my friend George (comment above) is in favor of a Nanny state, but many of his peers are. The poor want to be rich, but would rather not work as hard as the rich had to work. It’s human nature. Hopefully, there will be a few people still around that remember that individual responsibility trumps socialism any day. I’d rather have a system that tramples on the unfortunate few, than a system that topples our economy completely.
Alex,
Moderately meaning “somewhat”. Bush has pushed privatization, is a champion for an all volunteer military, is for school choice, is anti-gun control, has resisted social healthcare, plus there’s something to be said of leadership qualities. I’m unhappy with some things as well, some of which you mentioned.
Bush is a neoconservative, no doubt. But he’s not completely abandoned the principles of liberty. Yeah, I’m moderately happy with him, especially considering the alternative (Gore or Kerry — talk about government growth!)
“They are. The difference in our positions is that you believe that it’s the governments responsibility to take my money away from me, and spend it to make sure someone who doesn’t have healthcare/retirement/income can have a life relatively close to mine, all without my consent or willingness. I call it forced charity.”
If it were the case that all, or even most, people who are poor(er) were poor(er) because they simply didn’t work as hard or weren’t as skilled or well educated, I would completely agree with you. But as it stands, our capitalist system simply defeats the efforts of many who simply don’t have the opportunities to rise, no matter how hard they work.
Why is it forced charity to take money away from you to pay for healthcare for the less fortunate, but it’s ok to take money away from you to pay for the less fortunates’ children to go to school?
I’ll adress more points later, but I’ve got to catch the bus.
George,
Perhaps you know more people than I do, but I can’t think of a single person that I know who is poor because of bad luck. Every poor person I know is poor simply because of their own bad decisions. On top of that, there are countless stories of people working their way out of poverty. It can, has, and will continue to be done in America.
There was a time, way back when, when a generation would sacrifice their own well-being for the sake of their children. The great thing about America is that if a person wants a better life for themselves or their children, they can have it. Perhaps not immediately, and perhaps not in a single generation, but give it time. It works!
Like I said, I’m on the fence when it comes to government education. I suppose it could be argued that if we have a responsibility to the children for education, then we also have a responsibility to them for healthcare. Like I said, still on the fence.
“Perhaps you know more people than I do, but I can’t think of a single person that I know who is poor because of bad luck. Every poor person I know is poor simply because of their own bad decisions. On top of that, there are countless stories of people working their way out of poverty. It can, has, and will continue to be done in America.”
I’m not disputing that it happens (btw, how do you do that fancy quote thing?) But yes, there is bad luck. There are also all kinds of circumstances that prevent a person from climbing the economic ladder. The argument could be made that educated, middle-class white folks have every opportunity to make it as successful as they want, but that simply isn’t the case below a certain rung on the ladder. Again, there are still stories of individuals pulling themselves out of grinding poverty. But the reason we even hear these stories is because these individuals’ accomplishments are so difficult and so rare. The poorest of the poor are trapped in what amounts to a negative feedback loop. Industry puts their waste dumps in poor neighborhoods, so the residents get health problems, can’t afford the medical bills, and stay poor. Cities give unequal funding to poor neighborhoods, so poor kids get poor educations and have no motive to succeed. In his book Amazing Grace (which I HIGHLY recommend), Jonathon Kozol describes an elementary school in NYC, where the boy with top marks in his grade dreams of being a sanitation worker. He can’t comprehend becoming a doctor or a lawyer, the idea of even being comfortably middle-class is alien to him, because no one ever told him it was even possible. It generates a loop wherein a poor kid doesn’t get a good education and never sees opportunities, so HIS kids get poor educations, so THEIR kids get poor educations. The cycle can be damn near impossible to break. Why do you think the miniscule few who ever do break it are celebrated as heroes? It’s certainly not because their accomplishments are common.
George,
Just wrap the text you want to quote in:
<blockquote>
</blockquote>
tags. I wish the comment box had buttons to do stuff like that. Oh well.
Yes, it’s difficult. The stories are rare because it’s difficult. I’m not pretending that it’s not. But it’s not the government’s job to make it easy. It’s not the government’s job to level the playing field.
The libertarian position is that difficult != impossible. I personally believe that if a person works hard (yes, more than 40 hours/week possibly) and is not lazy or feels entitled, they have a 99.9% chance of success in the USA.
Again, I know some people in difficult economic positions. There’s nothing about their situation that wasn’t caused by their own laziness or bad decisions. I understand that some people have bad luck, but in America, they have an overwhelming chance to see better days.
Success’s worst enemies are apathy, laziness, and entitlement. Get rid of those, and you can climb that ladder. Keep them, and you’ve all but sealed your own poverty.
Again, it’s all about the debate over personal responsibility versus social burden.