Reason Event: Libertarians and Conservatives: Can This Marriage Be Saved?

Tomorrow night, America's Future Foundation is hosting a roundtable forum titled "Conservatives and Libertarians: Can This Marriage Be Saved?"

More info:

During the Cold War era, conservatives and libertarians united around hostility toward communism and liberalism. The National Review's Frank Meyer called this union "fusionism," and argued that it wasn't just a marriage of convenience, but a union based on the deep compatibility of liberty and tradition. Increasingly, however, that ideological marriage has been punctuated by long, sustained spats: over war, gay marriage, stem-cell research, and a host of other issues. Just another rocky patch, or is it time for a divorce?

Arguing to keep the marriage together will be W. James Antle III of The American Conservative and Jeremy Lott of the Cato Institute. Amy Mitchell of The American Spectator and Nick Gillespie of Reason will take the side of divorce.

The event will take place on Wednesday, February 23rd, at the Fund for American Studies (1706 New Hampshire Ave. NW). Drinks will begin at 7:00 p.m., with dinner and discussion following at 7:30.

To RSVP and for more information, go here.

Comments

[Gary Gunnels]

Haven't we already established that the answer is no? 🙂

[SPD]

Gary, be careful... this could be a covenant marriage. We might be chained to these yahoos until 2008.

[bob]

Both the left and the right pay only lip service to freedom; the left believes in freedom as long as you aren't driving an SUV, carrying a gun, or researching sex differences. The right believes in freedom as long as you aren't getting high, being gay, or watching porn.

A pox on both their houses.

[SPD]

I hear you, bob. I hear you.

[crimethink]

Since both groups are mostly male, it was never a valid marriage to begin with.

[thoreau]

Instead of another round of "Is the GOP really the lesser evil?" let's approach this from a different perspective:

How much of a marriage has there ever been?

The hard-core libertarians have definitely tended to believe that the GOP is the lesser evil, and have frequently voted GOP. Many libertarian writers and scholars (but arguably not a majority) have been strong supporters of the GOP.

But the hard-core types are a tiny minority of the population. They don't have a lot to offer conservatives in terms of votes, campaign funds, or even a larger receptive audience for their writers (how many people read Reason? Of those, how many aren't already sympathetic?). So "marriage", with its implications of partnership, might not be a very good word to describe the relationship between conservatives and libertarians.

Now, if we commit heresy and extend the word "libertarian" (or at least "libertarian sympathizer") to encompass anybody whose political sympathies are economically conservative and socially liberal, we almost certainly have more than 1% of the population. And among that larger percentage (whatever size it might be) there is surely considerable support for conservatives, but I wouldn't be shocked if a significant number of them have frequently voted for Democrats because of a perceived advantage on social issues (and I will put emphasis on "perceived" if it makes everybody happy).

If that group's loyalties are somewhat more divided then the word "marriage" is even less appropriate.

So what we've got is a tiny hard-core that professes quite a bit of loyalty to conservatives (or at least bitter opposition to the left) and a somewhat larger camp of sympathizers with looser loyalties. Hardly the stuff of which marriage is made.

Forget about trying to keep close ties to the right. Don't bother going on what is quite possibly a fool's errand to forge ties with the left. And leave for another day the question of whether the LP can be redeemed. The tiny hard core needs to reach out to the sympathizers. Whether our future lies with the right, the left, the LP, or none of the above, that future will be more influential with greater numbers. Where those numbers should go is not entirely clear at this time.

Maybe those numbers will be large enough to get a marriage with the GOP and all of the equal say that goes with marriage. Maybe those numbers could be used to form a valuable "swing" faction that will vote LP (or perhaps even for a maverick Dem) if their demands are not met by the GOP. Or maybe those numbers will do something else entirely.

In any case, the most important relationship to consider is the one between hard-core libertarians and libertarian sympathizers. They are the ones whom the hard-core has the most affinity with.

[Mo]

They don't want us either. Just listen read Ramesh's points in NRO:

"Let me start off my response by saying that I think libertarians are right about the proper functions of the federal government 90 percent of the time. I would certainly like for there to be a lot fewer federal programs....

I think at this point we have quite a lot of evidence, however, that the social issues are net winners of votes and the size of government issues net losers.

--Republicans' biggest setbacks over the last decade occurred in 1995-96, when they were associated, fairly or unfairly, with anti-government extremism rather than social-conservative extremism--and particularly with hostility to Medicare.

--Bush seems to have strengthened the party partly by giving ground on the size-of-government issues but not on the moral ones.

--In 2004, which issue set was Bush most defensive about and which was he most aggressive about? During the debates, he seemed much happier to talk about abortion and even stem-cell research than about outsourcing, the minimum wage, or prescription drugs. I think his relative enthusiasm for these issues reflects basic political facts on the ground, not something specific to his philosophy or record.

--Over the last two presidential races, the Democrats have acted as though the social issues were more damaging to them than the economic ones, too.

When "swing voters" aren't just a media abstraction--when parties are actually competing for them--they don't turn out to be social liberals who want less spending. They are much more likely to be socially conservative union members and blue-collar hunters..."

It ain't about principles, but about winning election. The reason why socially liberal, fiscal conservative positions are net losers is that most libertarians are wedded to the right. The only way to see if they need us is to leave and actually effect elections. The problem is, it'll be a pain to get any concessions from Democrats. Who knows, maybe they'll be so desperate to win, that they actually will listen to libertarian proposals.

thoreau,
I think most libertarian sympathizers vote Republican because of gun issues, vestiges of small government issues, tax policy and affirmative action. Democrats really need to get their acts together on gun control if they want a prayer to gain libertarian votes. Frankly, I care less about the party and more about the issues. The communist party of the 30s was successful without winning a national election. How? By getting all of their policies enshrined as law. THAT is what we need to emulate (well, besides the whole commie thing).

[sage]

Mo:
"The communist party of the 30s was successful without winning a national election. How? By getting all of their policies enshrined as law."

Mo, could you please post a link to these policies? I've heard this before but would like to examine them for my own personal amusement. Thanks.

[Paul]

While I think its possible to keep this marriage, I strongly believe that a Libertarian/Conservative marriage would be the... gay marriage of politics.

[Andrew]

thoreau

OK So what do you want this larger group of libertarian-leaners to DO? In what ways would you wish them to develop?

Do you want them to splutter more about the War on Drugs? Do you want them to become more inflexibly wedded to a rigid ACLU-style preference on Seperation? Do you want them to campaign for Gay Marriage...as if that were somehow a "libertarian" cause?

Do you want them to ignore immigration reform, tort reform and privatization?

Do you want them to toughen' up and learn to tolerate crappy public schools, street crime and affirmative action?

And of course, you DO want them to renounce American world leadership, and vote themselves tax increases to keep up with runaway spending...right?

So you want these libertarian-leaners to become comfortable blue-staters, with a couple of Libertarian and liberal-Republican votes tossed in for laughs, whenever it wouldn't swing the election against a Democrat?

[Isaac Bartram]

the... gay marriage of politics.

Hmmm, let's see, the Rs are the Daddy party and the Ds are the Mommy party, what gender are libertarians.

[MrBungle]

I don't recall taking vows with the R's.

It must be a Common Law deal.

[clarityiniowa]

Andrew - Therein lies the rub - How do you get a small cadre of self-avowed rugged individualists to do ANYTHING in concert. The LP, various Free State projects, the fly in the Libertarian ointment is precisely that the entire movement (best described as Brownian motion, the seemingly random vibration of individual atoms) is by nature too nebulous to apply sufficient pressure in any one political direction.

[Henry]

To hell with this marriage--we're tired of being forcibly ass-raped by those "conservatives".

If you can conjure up Barry Goldwater, I'll reconsider, otherwise, fuck 'em.

[bob]

Henry for President!

[Eric II]

"The reason why socially liberal, fiscal conservative positions are net losers is that most libertarians are wedded to the right. The only way to see if they need us is to leave and actually effect elections."

True. But until the Libertarian Party digs itself out of the loony bin that the Brownes and Badnariks have ensconed it in, or some other third party emerges, this is unlikely to happen on a large scale.

While the Dems might prove willing in the future to support more libertarian positions on certain civil liberties and drug war issues, they're still much too wedded to constituencies that favor expanding the welfare state - and increasingly, to constituencies opposing free trade - to give much ground on economic matters. At least not until this country gets a major fiscal crisis.

[clarityiniowa]

Eric II - I am more hopeful than you are on this score. I think the Dems are going to find the only way to improve their fortunes is exactly by embracing more economic freedom, and couching it in terms of civil liberties. Right now they are in a bind trying to figure out how to support immigrant rights, for example, while keeping their traditional labor constituency. They are neatly boxing themselves into a corner where they will have to say "Hey, it's about all of us having the freedom to prosper."

As for free trade, remember NAFTA occurred on Clinton's watch, and has broad Democratic support. There are those of us who would be more sanguine with the concept of free trade, however, if it didn't involve taking advantage of the LACK of economic and personal freedom in trade partner countries such as China in order to be any advantage to the U.S.

[PintofStout]

Have we ever considered a three-way? That red-headed firecracker down the street has been looking our way.

No? Maybe it's time we saw other people.

[Mo]

sage,
Can't find it now and after a quick search couldn't find the link. I'm a tad reluctant to do an extensive search for "Communist Party" + platform on my company's netwrok, so I'll look it up when I get home.

[Fido Santorum]

Isaac Bartram: the libertarians are the beagles.

[sage]

Thanks Mo. I looked briefly (don't think I'll ever be called a commie), but did not want to spend too much time on it here.

[Comrade X]

My ability serves your need.

A 2004 People Before Profits Program

Living wage unionized jobs, health care, decent affordable housing, quality public education, racial equality, equality for women, a clean and peaceful environment, and civil liberties should all be basic human rights.

Tax cuts for the rich and limitless funds for war are bankrupting our government and making our nation less safe. A complete change in priorities is necessary to meet human needs, insure a certain future for the young generation and provide real security. No one should be forced into poverty in our wealthiest nation.

We offer the following People before Profits Program as a basis for movement-building. We support the many efforts of labor, community, civil rights, youth, peace and environment coalitions that move toward these goals.

JOBS AND ECONOMIC SECURITY

Almost 10 million workers are unemployed, 3 million more than when Bush took office. Millions more, including many youth, are stuck in low-wage, part-time jobs. Emergency action is needed to create good jobs.

Support the Employee Free Choice Act to allow workers to gain union representation without harassment or recrimination. Create living wage, union jobs with a massive program to rebuild the bridges, schools, water treatment plants, and parks of our nation, while sending funds to cities and states to fully staff education, childcare, health care and other peoples' needs.
Special measures for federal spending and job creation in the African American and Latino communities where jobless rates are up to twice as high because of overt and institutional racism. Expand aid and job creation in rural areas with disproportionately high unemployment. Protect family farmers with price supports and no curtailment of subsidies. Expand federal funding of youth jobs, vocational and apprenticeship programs and higher education especially geared toward low income and racially oppressed youth.
Raise the minimum wage to living wage standards taking into account cost of housing and other essentials. Provide adequate federal funding to cities and towns for first responders and emergency personnel.

HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE

Health Care for All

Over 43 million now have no health coverage, 4 million more than when Bush took office. The fake "Medicare reform" will not deliver prescription drugs, but will undermine the entire program. No one should be without healthcare.

Support the Medicare for All bill, HR 676, which provides full health coverage for everyone including prescription drugs. Allow bulk government purchase of prescription drugs and re-importation of drugs as an emergency measure. Curb price gouging by the pharmaceutical industry. Access to reproductive health care for young women. Expand funding for HIV/AIDS prevention programs.

Equal, Quality Public Education

The Bush administration eliminated $8 billion in funding to public education after creating new, costly mandates in the "No Child Left Behind" act, which undermines public education in favor of vouchers for some children to attend private or religious schools. Every child should have the best possible public education.

Guarantee full dedicated federal funding for quality, equal public education from pre-K through college. Enact the DREAM Act and Student Adjustment Act to increase access to education for immigrants. Increase Pell Grants. Repeal provisions that deny funds to students with drug convictions.

Social Safety Net

The Bush administration has slashed funding for human needs and privatized services. The social safety net should be expanded and secured.

Extend unemployment compensation to include entire time without a job. No privatization of Social Security or Medicare. Use the Social Security surplus to increase benefits instead of funding the Bush tax cuts and war in Iraq. Protect retirement funds. Restore and expand the social safety net for women and children and victims of economic dislocation. Emergency measures to end child poverty. Expand Section 8 and other affordable housing measures. Federal funding of construction and maintenance of housing for working class families.

END RACISM, DISCRIMINATION AND BIGOTRY FOR FULL EQUALITY

The gap in equality of health care, education and employment has widened for African Americans, Latinos, Native Americans and Asian-Pacific Islanders. Immigrants, women and gays have been targeted. Winning equality is a vital interest for all working people.

Enforce and expand affirmative action to end racism and achieve equality in jobs, housing, health care, education (including university admissions), and all areas of life.
Outlaw racial profiling. Enact federal hate crime legislation. Alternative sentencing for non-violent crimes. Abolish the death penalty.
Enact the SOLVE ACT (HR 4264/SB 238)to fulfill the goals of the Immigrant Workers Freedom Ride including a clear path to citizenship, equal rights on the job and civil liberties protections. End the wage gap for women. Equal pay for equal work. Reject efforts to repeal Roe V. Wade which would restrict women's reproductive rights. Reject the Bush proposed Marriage amendment to the Constitution which would prohibit gay marriages. End discrimination because of sexual orientation.

PEACE AND FOREIGN POLICY

End the United States unnecessary and illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq. Hundreds of young soldiers have been killed, and thousands wounded, along with many thousands of Iraqi civilians, while giant military contractors reap financial benefit.

Bring the troops home from Iraq. US out, UN in. Full funding for veterans benefits. Support HR 690 for a full investigation into prison abuses in Iraq, especially at Abu Ghraib. End the policy of pre-emptive war, war without end and world domination and occupation. Foreign policy based on cooperation and negotiations utilizing the United Nations. Stop procurement and testing of nuclear weapons. Stop deployment of nuclear weapons to outer space. End the harmful buildup of the military budget. Transfer funds to human needs. Repeal NAFTA and negotiate enforceable labor and environmental rights into the body of all new agreements. Support Department of Peace as cabinet level position. Remove military recruiters from public schools and campuses. Require parental agreement before students names are given to the military. End the policy of promoting regime change in Cuba, Venezuela and other countries. End support for repressive governments around the world.

PRESERVE AND PROTECT OUR ENVIRONMENT

The Bush administration's "Healthy Forests" and "Clear Skies" initiatives only further pollute land and water and deplete our natural resources. The environment should not be destroyed for profits.

Protect our natural resources. Repeal the Healthy Forests and Clear Skies acts. Prosecute corporate polluters. Develop renewable clean energy alternatives. Support the Apollo Project of labor and environment organizations to create environmentally friendly jobs in transportation and infrastructure. Enact energy price controls and public ownership with investment in renewable and sustainable energy. Ratify the Kyoto Treaty.

DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES

The large-scale disenfranchisement of African American voters and the stoppage of the vote count in Florida in 2000 was an assault on the integrity of the entire election. Extreme infringements to democratic rights have escalated during this administration. Democratic rights and civil liberties make our nation strong.

Repeal the USA Patriot Act, which limits constitutionally guaranteed rights to free speech and dissent. End appointments of right-wing, extremist judges to Federal Courts.
Funding for enforcement of the Voting Rights Act to ensure that no voters are denied their rights. Restoration of Voting Rights to ex-felons in every state. Same day voter registration to allow for the largest turnout. Pass the Voter Confidence And Increased Accessibility Act of 2003 to require a verifiable paper trail for every electronic voting machine. (HR 2239) Publically financed elections to take big money influence out of politics. Expand opportunities for minority candidates by replacing the ?winner take all? election system with Instant Runoff Voting and Proportional Representation which allow voters to rank candidates by choice and elect the candidate with the most overall support. End monopoly control and censorship of the media.

TAX THE RICH

The Bush administration tax cuts to the rich forced a budget deficit and severe funding cuts to states, cities and towns for human needs and services. A fair tax system can provide the resources for strong communities and healthy families.

Repeal Bush tax cuts for the rich. Restore tax rates on the rich and corporations to 1970 levels. Restore and increase federal funding for human needs. Enact a refundable child tax credit.

[Kirsten]

It wasn't a marriage. It was a live-in relationship, and now it's time to kick out the annoying roommates who take us for granted and refuse to pick up after themselves.

[Gene Berkman]

Can't we just be friends?

Clearly there must be an independent libertarian movement. At the same time, libertarians can cooperate with conservatives on some fiscal issues - such as opposing the Bush deficit, the Bush prescription drug program, and Bush's no child left behind act - while also seeking allies among liberals to oppose Bush's war and Bush's Patriot Act.

Libertarians have acted independently of conservatives since at least 1969, when some of us quit Young Americans for Freedom. But libertarian think tanks and magazines continue to receive support from conservatives. We should be thankful that, but not limit ourselves.

[TomInChicago]

You know, I read these comments and I wonder about people like yourselves. I consider myself a liberal, but I feel I have a libertarian streak in me (as do many of the liberal people I know). I read the characterization of liberals in the comments section of this and other threads and I wonder how many bogus generalizations you people are going to make and believe. You swallow the conservative talking points hook line and sinker.

Most liberals believe in civil liberties and civil rights.

Most liberals are leery of excessive police powers, infringements of due process, we are against secret trials and detentions, against torture...and on and on.

Liberals want open government, and no secrecy or closed door deals.

Liberals want equality and justice for all. (No liberals are against homosexuals getting married, democrats maybe, but then those are centrists )

Many MANY LIBERALS HATE FREE TRADE (I am one of them) We believe it hurts Americas working class while rewarding corporations and countries who don't have the same labor standards as we do.

Many liberals (although probably not most) don't believe in the current drug laws. (Many of us would like to see drugs legalized and regulated rather than outlawed and used as a tool of law enforcement).

There's more that I think we would agree upon but that is good enough for now.

Now where we differ, although I see the differences, I am surprised by the extremism of the libertarians.

We don't want to outlaw or take away guns. Most liberals just want guns regulated. (We hunt too!)
If you have to register a car, why not have to register your gun? I mean it is a deadly weapon. Shouldn't you be responsible and accountable for it? Shouldn't the police be able to know whose gun a bullet came from?? Or is that unreasonable ??

Most liberals dont want to ban handguns, but should you really be allowed to buy a limitless supply of them? Would it be that bad if a person could only buy one handgun a month? (or some kind of reasonable number that would prevent these middle men gun buyers)

But yet libertarians (and conservatives) scream bloody murder if ANY kind of regulation is put forth. Why ? Should everyone be walking around with concealed handguns?? Is that the version of america you envision?

Libertarians and Conservatives hate any kind of "entitlement" programs. Why ?? Shouldn't a government provide for their people? Isn't goverment supposed to take care of its citizens?
Should the poor just be allowed to die in the streets?? Or should they have to wait for a handout from a local church who only gives to those who accept Jesus Christ??? Are Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security and Welfare really such reprehensible programs?? Why ?
Shouldn't those born into poverty have the same health care as those who are born into fortune?? (I know that isnt the case, but that is the ideal we would like to reach) Does being poor mean that you don't deserve to eat 3 meals a day ? Or I guess the real question is do you believe that all people are poor simply because they are lazy good for nothing free loaders?? If not all, then most???

I mean I'm all for cutting waste, but many libertarians talk about ANY public spending as inherently wasteful.

Finally, I wanted to ask the following question. Do libertarians trust big business and big corporations more than the government? Do you believe that the general population is better served by letting corporations do as they wish without government oversight and regulations of things like pollution and waste controls, working / labor conditions, product safety, truth in advertising laws, etc. ??

And if the answer is yes, you do trust big business more, why ? What has corporate america shown you to deserve such faith?

Regards

[Isaac Bartram]

Fido Santorum

AArrff!!

(chuckle-snort)

[sage]

Hey TominChicago,

Speaking of bogus generalizations:

"But yet libertarians (and conservatives) scream bloody murder if ANY kind of regulation is put forth. "

"Or I guess the real question is do you believe that all people are poor simply because they are lazy good for nothing free loaders?? If not all, then most???"

I'm sorry, you were saying?

[MikeP]

Eric II writes:

"As for free trade, remember NAFTA occurred on Clinton's watch, and has broad Democratic support."

John Edwards more or less denounced NAFTA while campaigning for President. And Kerry, he of "Benedict Arnold CEOs" fame, picked him to be his veep anyway.

But does anyone think that Clinton wouldn't have wiped the floor with Bush in 2000 or in 2004? Bush would not have come close to beating Clinton.

The reason the Democrats lost those two elections is precisely that they distanced themselves from Clinton and Clinton's policies.

The Republicans did not win because they swung a socially conservative vote their way. They won because their bozo opponents were a scary Massachussetts liberal and a running mate whose political theme is "Two Americas"*.

I will grant that Clinton did not discover the light until he had his butt handed to him with HillaryCare and then got stomped by Gingrich and Co. But, for whatever reason, in the end he spoke to and drew the tolerant, moderate, soft-libertarian middle with roughly sensible policies.

(* If anyone's interested, I can go into why "Two Americas" -- even if you believe it -- is one of the dumbest platforms one can imagine.)

[clarityiniowa]

Tom, I feel your pain, but the fly in YOUR ointment is that so much of the liberal Democratic agenda depends on coercion. Taxation = economic coercion. Gun regulation = coercion of material possession and private property. Remember that all regulation, indeed, all government action, is based on force, for it is all backed up ultimately by either police or military power. Libertarians, first and foremost, are against the initiation of force.

You'll never get a Libertarian to argue for much in the way of gun control, taxation to fund extra-Constitutional spending, or a social safety net.

As to the "rights" to three hots, a cot, and a doc, let me turn the question back on you: Why, just because someone takes up space and sucks air, is he or she automatically entitled to ANY of the necessities or niceties of life at other people's expense? That's the Libertarian viewpoint in a nutshell. We all get what we need and want through voluntary exchange of value for value.

[Eric II]

"But does anyone think that Clinton wouldn't have wiped the floor with Bush in 2000 or in 2004? Bush would not have come close to beating Clinton."

I don't think it would be guaranteed, but, yeah, Clinton would've had a pretty good shot. That said, so would've Edwards (a character that's not too different from Clinton in a lot of ways) had he won the nomination.

Most polls had voters preferring Kerry over Bush on economic matters. It was the wooing/frightening of foreign policy hawks and (to a lesser extent) social conservatives, combined with Kerry's rented mule-level charisma, that won Bush the election.

[clarityiniowa]

Mike P. - The Republicans did not win because they swung a socially conservative vote their way. They won because their bozo opponents were a scary Massachussetts liberal and a running mate whose political theme is "Two Americas"*.

I'll go you one better. The question isn't "why did the Dems lose?" It's "Why didn't Bush win by a freaking landslide?"

A reasonably successful and victorious wartime president with Congress on his side and a supposed rightward social turn to support him? Bush shouldn't have had to PRETEND he won a mandate. If there was really any THERE there, there wouldn't be any question. They'd have CROWNED the SOB.

There are, I suspect, more of us fiscal conservative/social liberals whose views, in total, lie in or close to the Libertarian quadrant than hard-core Libertarians suspect. That's their market, if they can only sound reasonable enough to troll for it effectively. Being hardcore, though, they will continue to attempt to congeal the fog long enough to make the LP effective. Good luck.

[BrianTerrel]

"Many MANY LIBERALS HATE FREE TRADE (I am one of them) We believe it hurts Americas working class while rewarding corporations and countries who don't have the same labor standards as we do."

I think you put this in the wrong area.

Libertarians by and large are all for free trade.

[MikeP]

Eric II writes:
I don't think it would be guaranteed, but, yeah, Clinton would've had a pretty good shot. That said, so would've Edwards (a character that's not too different from Clinton in a lot of ways) had he won the nomination.

I think a case could be made that Edwards would have lost even worse than Kerry. His "Two Americas" is plainly a losing banner.

Even in his concession speech, Edwards still went on about how they would never stop fighting for the mill worker, etc: "We will keep marching toward that one America and we're not going to stop until we get there."

News flash for Mr. Edwards: While we may not yet be there, we are close enough to there that you can no longer run on that platform.

In the end, wealth is absolute. Telling the middle quintile income earners that they are worse off because the top quintile income earners increased their income by 16% while the median increased only by 11% simply doesn't work. It is plainly a lie, and it is plainly offensive to the middle class you are trying to call second class.

Running on class divisions clearly becomes a more tenuous strategy as general wealth increases. But, even worse, the number of people of voting age per household increases with household income: half the people in this country are in households in the top 40% of income. If you want half the people to vote for you, you need to draw your line between the two Americas at the 60th percentile!

Kerry and Edwards lost because they were perceived as scary liberals. Frankly, they _were_ scary liberals. They were rich white men telling the electorate that rich white men are in one America and all you other folks are in another. And the more people they could put in that other America, the more people they felt they could get the vote of.

Bill "the era of big government is over" Clinton would have beaten Bush handily. Especially now that Bush has shown himself to be the president of _huge_ government.

[clarityiniowa]

MikeP - Kerry and Edwards lost because they were perceived as scary liberals. Frankly, they _were_ scary liberals. They were rich white men telling the electorate that rich white men are in one America and all you other folks are in another. And the more people they could put in that other America, the more people they felt they could get the vote of.

The only fly in YOUR ointment is they didn't_lose_by_that_much. Bush came damn close to losing his ass to those scary liberals. You gotta ask yourself if YOU are the one offended by the class lingo used in the Democratic campaign, and you're just projecting that sentiment onto others. Frankly, I just didn't see it.

Bush's margins according to polling data had more to do with high turnout among religious voters than working class folk resenting Edwards' patronizing them.

[Eric II]

"News flash for Mr. Edwards: While we may not yet be there, we are close enough to there that you can no longer run on that platform."

Mencken's line about no one ever going broke underestimating the tastes of the American public comes to mind here :-).

Seriously, there's always an electoral give-and-take between those who will get turned off by such class-baiting/protectionist rhetorics, and those who will get sold on it. Back in 2000, coming off booms in the stock market, GDP, and employment levels, Gore's "the people versus the powerful" BS probably hurt him a little. But with the Dot.com bubble having burst, public attitudes towards the economy having soured, and growing concern over unemployment, Edwards' pandering routine probably would've worked in his favor, as much as I hate to say it.

This, along with his ability to connect to many of the rural/blue-collar voters turned off by the thought of voting for a pompous, blue-blooded Munster clone from the Bay State, would've given Edwards a pretty good chance to win.

[clarityiniowa]

Eric II -

A lot of folks seem to get off on pigeon-holing Kerry. My dad actually got to spend time with the man. Drove him all over western Iowa before the caucuses. He found him to be quite personable, practical-minded and intelligent. So did I, when I met him. Retail politics is a luxury we enjoy here that most voters don't, I guess. Too bad, though, as I think people would exercise their franchise more wisely were they given the kind of access to candidates we have in Iowa.

[Jason Ligon]

The problem is that we know we won't get everything we want from anybody, so we choose our hot buttons like everyone else.

If more libertarians care about redistribution than gay marriage, libertarians will look like Republicans. For me, I don't know how many things the Dems would have to do to compensate for how wrong they are on guns.

I've even tried to say to myself, 'well, what if the dems were right on taxation ... and social programs ... and they were pro growth ... and they were right on drugs? What then?" Even at that, I would be in absolute pain voting against the right of self defense. Then I realize that it is a non issue, because the Dems are wrong on all those things from my POV.

To be sure, I can easily imagine someone having a similar problem with Repubs if gay marriage were their big issue.

[clarityiniowa]

Jason - Guess what, gay marriage, apparently, IS their big issue, at least it's on their top five.

[Jason Ligon]

clarity:

You can see how that doesn't help me ...

[clarityiniowa]

Seriously, I have a problem with one-issue voters. Standing on principle is admirable, but someone with only ONE principle is making the perfect the enemy of the good.

I went to my local Democratic caucus last fall, and sat next to a lady who had no idea whom she was going to support, because she was pro-choice. Told her maybe she was in the wrong caucus, and she said, no, she could never support a Republican. I wished her good luck, and when they held the final preference caucusing of the night, she was still standing, all alone, in the "undecided" corner. I admired her standing for principle, but like you, Jason, it didn't help her any.

[BillyRay]

Ron Paul is the only true libertarian in congress and he just ran unopposed for his seat last Nov. His new district is very very conservative. Probably has more churches per sq mile than any place in Texas. Type of people Grunnels hates. So yes, there's still lots stuff libertarian and conservatives agee on!

[Gary Gunnels]

BillRay,

I don't hate religious people. Now, the ideas of religious people, that's another matter. 🙂

I'll note now that since you couldn't muster a single argument to rebut what I wrote in our discussion below you've now sunk to making up finctionalized opinions for me. Is this what I should expect from you in general?

[BillyRay]

Refute what Grunnels. You didn't have anything to refute. Blather yes

[BillyRay]

Gary's test about how he feels about religious people.

Pope Calls Gay Marriage Part of 'Ideology of Evil'

[Gary Gunnels]

BillyRay,

Sure. 🙂

Let's see, you could never ultimately justify your claim that gay marraige was a "sham"; indeed, in the end, you turned into a bit of an authoritarian by bitching about the free speech rights, etc. of individuals you happen to disagree with.

You made an erroneous claim about slave ownership rates in the American south.

You made an erroneous claim concerning the contents of de Tocqueville's Democracy in America.

Those are just three that come to mind at this moment.

[Gary Gunnels]

BillyRay,

The Pope is wrong of course. Doesn't mean I hate the Pope, it does mean I consider his position vile. Somehow you lack the critical thinking ability to understand the difference.

[Gary Gunnels]

BillyRay,

I say love the religionist, hate the religion. 🙂

[BillyRay]

Sorry Gary, but gay marriage is a sham for the simple reason there's no tradition for it. Straight marriage formed in the contex outside government. Usually in religious settings.

And I was right about slave owners and the good Prof was being a little dishonest. He used stats about families. Well that's nonsense. What about all those that didn't have families. See, very easy to juggle the numbers. But even the Dean of Civil War Historians, James McPherson wrote that only 2 percent of Confederate soldiers owned slaves. See, very easy to juggle the numbers.

Tocqueville did say that racism was much worse in states that had abandoned slavery or had never experience it.

[Gary Gunnels]

Re: The Texas Republican Party,

Keep in mind that their platform calls for the re-criminalization of adult consensual sodomy. Leaving aside the whole issue of marraige, how one reconciles that with being a libertarian I cannot say.

They also oppose custody of children by homosexuals, presumably even the offspring of a homosexual.

They oppose stem cell research.

They want public display of the Ten Commandments by themselves.

They want American English to be the government mandated language of the U.S.

They want to outlaw flag desecration.

They of course favor the prosecution of drug and pornography use.

The platform also openly calls all manner of discriminatory laws against homosexuals and would codify into law the Texas Republican Party's vile notions regarding homosexuality.

Here is the platform:

http://www.texasgop.org/library/RPTPlatform2004.pdf

Clearly there is some good in the document, but it continues such a large proportion of the bad that I could never support a Texas Republican who adopted this platform.

[BillyRay]

Here ya go Gary
Tocqueville wrote in Democracy in America (1945 Macmillan edition, p. 359): "[T]he prejudice of race appears to be stronger in the states that have abolished slavery than in those where it still exists; and nowhere is it so intolerant as in those states where servitude has never been known."

Gotta go eat. I shall return.

[Gary Gunnels]

BillyRay,

Sorry Gary, but gay marriage is a sham for the simple reason there's no tradition for it.

I see, so was the flying of airplanes a sham because no one flew airplanes before they were flown at Kittyhawk? Merely because something wasn't done in the past doesn't that its not OK to do it in the future. Indeed, if we were to follow your logic, we'd still have slaves in this country, women couldn't vote, all manner of technological change wouldn't have occurred, etc. Sorry, lame ass and fallacious arguments from tradition won't fly here. 🙂

And I was right about slave owners and the good Prof was being a little dishonest. He used stats about families.

Which is perfectly acceptable and indeed the most honest way to assess the overall impact of slavery on the society at large. Thus direct and indirect ownership bordered at any one time 50% of the white population. If your are either too dishonest or too stupid to realize that, well that's your problem.

Furthermore, as I noted, the average holding was 19-20 slaves; hardly the "elite" institution you tried to make it out to be. Note that in slaveholding societies like Jamaica, the average holding was in the hundreds. Historians of American slavery have noted for decades these consequences of these differences.

What about all those that didn't have families. See, very easy to juggle the numbers. But even the Dean of Civil War Historians, James McPherson wrote that only 2 percent of Confederate soldiers owned slaves. See, very easy to juggle the numbers.

The only person juggling numbers here is you of course. You are confusing to different populations of white people; soldiers and the immediate owners of slaves. Merely because only 2% of the population of soldiers owned slaves doesn't mean that they weren't the indirect (or really direct) beneficiaries of the slave society since they were as often or not the sons and nephews of slaveholders themselves.

Your logic goes something like this; a family owns four cars, but they are only in the name of the father; therefore, his wife and three children don't own the car and need not be considered as far as the cars are concerned. However, as any insurance agent will tell you, that's hogwash. Of course the wife and children are beneficiaries of the cars that are owned and likely use them just as the father does. The same is true of the slave system. A father might own the slaves, but his wife and children directly benefit from that ownership and the children can expect to either inherit these slaves upon the death of their parents or to receive a dowery created by the wealth that came from the blood and sweat of the slaves.

Tocqueville did say that racism was much worse in states that had abandoned slavery or had never experience it.

No he didn't. Furthermore, he was especially harsh in his criticism of the South and West for their treatment of Native Americans.

[Jason Ligon]

clarity:

It is my hypothesis that an overwhelming majority of voters are one issue voters. That is not to say that they only care about one issue, but that the thing that motivates them to become throw in with one party or another is really one issue. Hence the liberal support for a guy like Clinton. Nadine Strossen, I think it was, summed it up when she said, "What am I going to do, vote for the guys who want to make choice a crime?" The electoral system we have is exceptional at putting our single issues in front of us, as each coalition reminds us what will happen if the other guy wins.

Again, spelling out my reasons is an exercise I go through every time, but there are, from my position, very few appealing positions that the Dems actually own exclusively. They are right about equal protection applying to federal benefits of marraige. I like the position on medical research of stem cells, too, though this gets clouded by my dislike for federally funded research anyway. No question about it.

They are equally bad on the drug war, they are worse on social programs, they are worse on school choice, they are worse on economic growth, they are worse on trade, they are worse on affirmative action, and on and on.

[Gary Gunnels]

BillyRay,

You know, my Penguin copy doesn't speak to anything like that; it does have the following language though:

Southern Americans, who have no thought of ever mixing with Negroes, have forbidden teaching them to read or write under severe penalties. Unwilling to raise them to their level, they keep them as close to animals as possible. - pg. 424

[thoreau]

Jason-

I see your point, but I want to quibble on one point: On social programs, I don't think the Dems have improved, but I think that in the next few years the GOP might become just as bad, but in a different way.

Consider my objections to GOP plans for 2 massive spending programs:

Social Security: It starts off sounding good--divert that money to private accounts that will yield a higher rate of return. But there are hints that these accounts will be subject to heavy gov't control. If so, then how private will these accounts really be? It sounds more like an expansion of gov't to further regulate retirement savings. And am I the only person who doesn't like the idea of federal regulators controlling large blocs of stock?

School Choice: Sounds great--let the money be spent on private schools that have to compete for students. But as a proud product of Catholic education I am scared to death of what might happen if the gov't gets its claws into private k-12 education. Catholic schools might eventually become every bit as efficient as a subsidized farmer protected from foreign competition by heavy tariffs. And every bit as transparent and scrupulous as a Halliburton subsidiary with a no-bid/cost-plus contract.

The common theme is that, rather than trying to reduce the gov't's role in these massive social programs, they just want to direct some of that money in ways that certain members of their coalition find more appealing. And in the process they'll gain more control of society (private investment in the case of SS "reform", private schools in the case of "school choice").

Which is not to say that the Democrats are any better, but the GOP seems bound and determined to erase their advantage on these issues.

[Gary Gunnels]

BillyRay,

BTW, let's note right now, since you are invoking McPherson, that he views slavery as central to the war. If you are going to use a source, at least know that source completely disagrees with your stance.

Please see: James M. McPherson
, For Cause and Comrades: Why Men Fought in the Civil War

And lets note some hard numbers here. In 1860, there were approximately ~400,000 direct owners of slaves, that's out of a population of whites of 5 million. Now imagine that population - which would have been in large made of married men - with wives and children. You see very quickly that direct and indirect owners reach more than the 8% represented by the mere formal owners of slaves.

Husbands & Wives only (assuming that 90% are married): 15.2%

Husban, Wife & One Child: 23%

Husband, Wife and Two Children: 31%

Husband, Wife and Three Children: 39%

And this of course doesn't account for the common practice of adopting the child of a poor brother or sister so as to a foreman at the holding, nor does it speak to personnel employed by the holding, etc.

[Gary Gunnels]

Nor does it consider the merchants who didn't own slaves but directly profited from their existance. Indeed, slavery was so part and parcel of antebellum life that even the slightest suggestion of even voluntary abolition was met wit heated words and legislation; by censorship of the mails and physical attacks on speakers who dare came within the reach of the slavocracy.

[Mo]

Thanks MikeP, just what I was looking for.

[combustable]

How libertarians can support an administration whose main action was a $300 billion war of aggression based on false premises is beyond me. An administration that detains people in secret and gleefully uses torture.
This is the Republican Party.

[deron]

In regards to divorce...

I'm not entirely sure it's up to the libertarians. I am finding with increasing frequency that self described conservatives are down right hostile to libertarianism. This is entirely anecdotal, but it is an experience that I take into the voting booth and it does act as a filter when I hear a political speech.

Here's a question... Who was the ibertarian friendly candidate in the 2000 Republican primary? That's is the point in the process that libertarians need to pay attention.

[Eric the .5b]

Geeze, what sites linked in to Hit and Run? I think it's safe to say we somehow got a bumper crop of statists showing up to explain to us why we're utterly wrong and we should all vote for their party, no matter if we're foolish enough to disagree. 🙂

[hopeless]

If im not watching Fox News im playing Everquest II. If im not analyzing my latte im watching American Idol. If im not in an air-conditioned theater watching the latest remake of a seventies movie im downloading spyware infested porn. Whats that you say were at war? I'll check the sound bytes to see how I should feel and think later. Im too busy being entertained right now.

I dont believe a marraige is possible my fellow americans. both sides would be asking for a pre-nup.

[Gary Gunnels]

I just wish they would hurry up and have the fucking forum already. 🙂

[c]

I know! Because after tonight's forum, then no one will have to fret about whether libertarian ideals are getting a fair shake in today's conservative movement again. If only they'd have a forum about Iraq, gun control, the drug war, and whether Kerry would have been worse, then they could take down H&R altogether!

[clarityiniowa]

Jason - They are equally bad on the drug war, they are worse on social programs, they are worse on school choice, they are worse on economic growth, they are worse on trade, they are worse on affirmative action, and on and on.

Functionally, you may be correct. Philosophically, the Dems, in my opinion, are far closer to Libertarians in philosophy than the Republicans in their current right-wing, religionist form. Unfortunately for the Dems, equal opportunity, which is the natural outcome of a freer market, has translated into the EEOC, affirmative action programs, etc. The principle of economic opportunity, another symptom of freer economics, has translated into the social safety net. A measure of prosperity for all, another aspect of market forces, has morphed into Social Security and welfare.

Meanwhile, with regard to civil rights and liberties, the Dems are functionally much better, although it has been perverted into spoils systems of group rights, and whole-cloth innumerations of new rights out of thin air. Okay, they don't like guns, but neither does anybody who's been shot at, so they're not alone there.

Philosophically, the current crop of Republicans are all for a corporate religious state, while speaking the language of liberty and freedom. Freedom to do what? Conform? Sure, they want you to have your shotgun, but they want to legislate your family and sexual life. Freedom of thought and religion? Sure, as long as you're a Born Again Christian, or at least vote like one. They'd rather you not be able to sue for legitimate grievance if your doc's knife slips or a megaconglom cheats you.

Oh, yes, my friend, they're ALL about liberty and freedom.

Personally, I think the Democrats can be redeemed. At least their heart's in the right place, even though their heads are up their chutes. The Republican right-wing is just plain evil. I'm pretty sure if Kennedy were alive today, these guys'd figure out a way to gun him down.