"Are Republicans turning into libertarians?"
That's the question posed by baseball/politics numbers-cruncher Nate Silver, atop a pile of anecdotes and polls.
Aside from all the this-year's-model economic stuff that you'd expect from a party that miraculously relocated some of its alleged principles at the precise moment it lost power, there were these notes I found interesting/promising:
-- Republican insiders are increasingly uncertain about whether gay marriage, which was such an important issue for the party over 2000-2004, is any longer a winning issue at all for them. Reaction to the Iowa Supreme Court decision was surprisingly muted in conservative circles. Meanwhile, at least one prominent Republican presidential candidate, Utah's John Huntsman, has come out in favor of civil unions (although not gay marriage itself).
-- If gay bashing is becoming less in vogue among Republicans, it's unclear which other cultural issues -- areas where Republicans sometimes favor bigger, more statist government -- might take its place. Yes, there's always abortion. But I'm surprised there hasn't been more anti-immigrant sentiment, as often happens when jobs are scarce; perhaps the Republicans' poor performance among Latino voters on November 4th might have scared them away from that issue. Marijuana legalization seems to be gaining some traction (although more among pundits than policymakers), but about half the conservative commentariat (see Glenn Beck, for instance, who calls himself a libertarian) seems to embrace it.
Silver's conclusion:
Maybe you see a pattern there and maybe you don't. But of the roughly four different pathways the Republicans could take in the post-Obama universe -- toward Ron Paulesque libertarianism, toward Sarah Palinesque cultural populism, toward Mike Huckabeesque big-government conservatism, or toward Olympia Snowesque moderation/ good-governmentism -- the libertarian side would seem to have had the best go of things in the First 100 Days.
I don't know if I see a pattern, but I do know that A) I'd be happy if it were true, B) there does seem to be some public-opinion tectonics underfoot on bailouts, marijuana, and gay marriage; and C) my expectation of national Republicans going libertarian even one hour past election day is roughly zero. Other thoughts?
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I was just reading that post too, and there does seem to be a more libertarian theme running through the Republican party recently. Maybe at the grassroots it's real, but where were these people when George Bush was expanding government horrifically? Ultimately,for the politicians, it seems to me that this is just a reactionary stance against Obama and losing power, not a genuine change of heart. They're saying all the right things, but for the wrong reasons. Which means once they get into power again, we're back to a big Government Republican party.
I won't get fooled again.
NO NO NO NO NO
GODDAMNIT NO!
Don't fall for it AGAIN. Republicans are loathsome belly-crawling shit-eating vermin. They change their tune when they want your help but will dry fuck you up the ass the first chance they get. How many times you gonna fall for that "I'm sorry honey, you know I'd never meant to hurt you" line?
FUCK THE REPUBLICANS
FUCK EM!
It is exactly like this. I call them moral high ground hypocrites
I voted for some republicans in the past, but ya know, I don't really care what they say anymore, I won't believe them.
Since I'm going to wind up with a spendthrift, wasteful, screw individual liberties, ever-growing federal government, I'm going to vote for democrats. At least they won't come with all the religious baggage.
Muted reaction? Not in Iowa. Maybe stuff like this will blow over, but this is typical of how the Republican politicians are reacting. I hope they're wrong about how opposing gay marriage will play, but that's not how they're betting.
Warren,
Well, let's not be hasty. Unless the LP or some other limited government party takes over as a major party--which isn't going to happen in the near term--the GOP is the only alternative we have to Democratic mania. If nothing else, I'd prefer a GOP-controlled Congress or a split Congress come 2010.
I don't trust any limited government rhetoric coming out of their mouths, either. If they win back all or part of Congress in 2010--which I think is very likely--then they can friggin' demonstrate their new principles by dismantling Leviathan.
Because same-sex marriage is the litmus test to being libertarian? No economic central planners are for SSM?
Ahhhh. I love the smell of desperation in the air.
I can call myself King of the World, it doesn't make me so.
Legalizing reefer is getting some traction. 2020 maybe.
Pro gay marriage will be majority thinking sooner than most expect. There's no rational reason to accept heterosexual unions and oppose homosexual ones.
I don't see any major party espousing libertarianism as a governing philosophy.
Ever.
But of the roughly four different pathways the Republicans could take in the post-Obama universe -- toward Ron Paulesque libertarianism, toward Sarah Palinesque cultural populism, toward Mike Huckabeesque big-government conservatism, or toward Olympia Snowesque moderation/ good-governmentism -- the libertarian side would seem to have had the best go of things in the First 100 Days.
Sure.
My money is still on the Freedom-is-Slavery wing of the Republican Party.
ROFLMAO.
Yeah, sure! We can trust them this time! Really! Lucy wouldn't pull the football away AGAIN!
Idiots. Yes, if you believe they will now become libertarian, hell or even real conservatives you are an idiot.
I don't sense anything coherent coming out of the GOP lately. As for an emerging libertarian streak among the populace? I think people still are all too happy to accept various forms of Government Cheese as long as someone else is paying for it. And I see little or no slackening in demand for the regulatory state. If anything, the "throw the bums in jail" mentality about financial institutions indicates the opposite.
"There's no rational reason to accept heterosexual unions and oppose homosexual ones."
Rational American Voters? surely you jest.
Yes, the GOP has rediscovered its principles just as it's lost power. And the Dems have forgotten their principles just as they've gained power. Against the war(s)? That's so 2007.
Republicans are loathsome belly-crawling shit-eating vermin.
You need to learn to express yourself!
From the evidence you give, I say the possibility is there that they are becoming cosmotarians.
What the GOP is now is the Spite Right - pseudocons who love to hate "liberals." They will mindlessly oppose whatever they perceive to be "the Left."
I'm with Warren. Until the religious right gets up and scream "to hell with the republican party", I aim to stay out. Those bastards and their neo-conservative kin ruined any sense of liberty the party may have had and until they're all dead and gone, tossing my hat back into the republican ring might as well be sidling up to Jerry Falwell, David Frum, et al. May they all rot in whatever hell they are destined for.
I, will, however, support any individual who loudly denounces the aforementioned and supports my policies of capitalism, freedom and rule of law regardless of what letter comes behind their name. I just don't expect them to win.
The fact is we libertarians don't do politics well because we won't compromise. If, for however brief a time, we are let into the GOP tent, the more pragmatic among us could eventually work their way into positions of power (depending on the makeup of the electorate in particular districts - e.g. like those where Ron Paul lives.) Someone has to do this dirty work or the GOP (or Dems for that matter) will not really and truly move in a libertarian direction until a good portion of the electorate does. So, the strategy for those libertarians who can stomach it may be to infiltrate the GOP while those who can't content themselves with trying to educate the electorate who, hopefully over time, start embracing semi-libertarian views that will cause the politicians to follow.
Palin fought in the governor primaries to support the right to privacy in Alaska's state constitution that protects small time marijuana users. Obama bragged in his presidential primary about his past personal marijuana use. I'm still keeping my registration Libertarian instead of Republican, but my gut tells me that a marijuana legalization bill will be signed by a Republican president, not a Democrat president.
The only use for the GOP is as opposition to the president, by controlling Congress. They cannot be trusted to have both branches of government, just as the Dems can't. They seem to go their closest to limited government when they have a Dem president to stymie, so the ideal (which still sucks total ass) is GOP Congress--maybe even just the House or Senate--and a Dem president. All the time.
"NO NO NO NO NO
GODDAMNIT NO!
Don't fall for it AGAIN. Republicans are loathsome belly-crawling shit-eating vermin. They change their tune when they want your help but will dry fuck you up the ass the first chance they get. How many times you gonna fall for that "I'm sorry honey, you know I'd never meant to hurt you" line?
FUCK THE REPUBLICANS
FUCK EM!"
BRAVO!!!
That was some damn good righteous indignation.
How about this: right after George W Peron and Dick Cheney appear on national television to apologize, and immediately afterward commit ritual suicide, on the steps of the Jefferson Memorial, I'll register as a Republican.
I think the libertarians have the best chance of taking over the Republicans in 30 years, and we're pissing it away by being puritans.
For one thing, the partisan hacks that make up the Sarah Palin crowd are no problem. They'll support whatever has an elephant stamp on it, including drug legalization. The only hard cases are the religious right, but the gay marriage issue is no longer a net vote getter.
Republicans plus drug legalization, minus gay marriage, and we're already in center-libertarian territory. Of course, the mainstream party isn't going to turn into a bunch of Rothbardian minarchists. The Democrats aren't exactly Leninists either. We'll still be on the extreme wing, but at least the axes will have rotated.
I vote for the Gridlock Party.
Creech, the LP sees the strategy of the Socialist Party as a role model. Socialist candidates did horribly in the ballot, but their campaign platform ended up getting passed by the major parties. Refusing to compromise on your long term goal is a bad career move in politics, but a good way to get laws passed.
Episiarch,
Exactly. Until, of course, I assume the throne and dispense libertarian policies to my subjects through the benevolent use of absolute power.
Before you object, the one government program I intend to implement--contrary to my libertarian principles--is a massive cloning project to provide each U.S. citizen with a Salma Hayek (or functional equivalent) clone. Delivered at the appropriate age, of course, and suitably programmed. Maybe we'll just make some androids, come to think of it. Mere details.
Fool me once Republicans, shame on - shame on you. Fool me - I won't get fooled again.
I think you can make a good argument that evangelicals are a declining force in American society--all that stuff about the "Fourth Great Awakening" and such. They seem to have less control over the GOP than in years past. Heck, John McCain certainly wasn't one of them, however many other faults he possessed.
For me, the critical test will be whether the GOP can abandon the various forms of big-government conservatism that crept into the party, especially the neo-cons and the 'compassionate conservative' crapola. That is far more important than the waning influence of the fire-and-brimstone crowd, even if not as good for stoking discussion.
It won't matter until either the GOP or the LP recruits somebody other than white males.
The fact is we libertarians don't do politics well because we won't compromise.
Compromise with what? Oh, its ok to ban gay marraige and infringe on a person's individual rights...if you respect the rights of corporations to creatively destroy each other? Or, its fine if you destroy impoverished people's homes to make way for fancy shopping centers...if you respect those now homeless people's rights to smoke up? At what point does compromising on the basic premise of libertarianism NOT make us look like opportunistic hypocrites? Better to be a tiny minority of sane thinkers than give up the high ground for a pittance here or there. The two parties are more interested in what the irrational vocalists are saying than the rational thoughtful individuals...or have you never been to a rally?
Pro gay marriage will be majority thinking sooner than most expect. There's no rational reason to accept heterosexual unions and oppose homosexual ones.
Um, other than because heterosexual unions have a social utility that homosexual ones don't?
How many cosmotarians ever got a passing grade in biology 101?
I don't see any major party espousing libertarianism as a governing philosophy.
Ever.
If libertarians in general are as oblivious to fundamental facts regarding the human condition as you are, that could only be a good thing!
It's over. Change in a small government direction won't happen in the U.S. through the existing political process. We'll just have to wait for the federal government to collapse, and then rebuild from the rubble, USSR-style.
John McCain certainly wasn't one of them
That didn't stop him from kissing John Hagee's ass, did it?
Not to be snarky but I don't think there is such a thing as a Rothbardian minarchist. Rothbardian anarchists on the other hand... 😉
"Before you object, the one government program I intend to implement--contrary to my libertarian principles--is a massive cloning project to provide each U.S. citizen with a Salma Hayek (or functional equivalent) clone. Delivered at the appropriate age, of course, and suitably programmed. Maybe we'll just make some androids, come to think of it. Mere details."
You've found my price.
What is thy bidding, my Master?
JP-
Well said. I second the vote for the Gridlock Party!
Um, other than because heterosexual unions have a social utility that homosexual ones don't?
Not to get off topic, but heterosexuals are allowed to get married for whatever damn reason they want. The social utility argument has no merits whatsoever, and is certainly not stronger than the equal rights argument.
Dude, fuck the Gridlock Party. Sign me up for the Robot Sex party.
It's over. Change in a small government direction won't happen in the U.S. through the existing political process. We'll just have to wait for the federal government to collapse, and then rebuild from the rubble, USSR-style.
Ding, Ding, Ding!! Tell him what he wins Johnny!
Lets just hope we do a better job! And lets hope its soon!
Republicans are always libertarians when out of power.
This is not news.
When they become libertarian while in the majority, I will be impressed.
Compromise with what?
Because as we all know libertarianism is the ONE rigid ideology that actually does have all the answers for all time, unlike all those others that claimed to.
Welcome back LMNOP. Good to see you posting again. I haven't always agreed with you but you're one of the posters who always makes me think.
Creech, the LP sees the strategy of the Socialist Party as a role model. Socialist candidates did horribly in the ballot, but their campaign platform ended up getting passed by the major parties. Refusing to compromise on your long term goal is a bad career move in politics, but a good way to get laws passed.
The socialists were able to harness the natural tendency of government to grow. Libertarians have to work against that tendency. A long-term strategy that relies on going along with an institutional imperative won't necessarily work if your goals are antithetical to that institutional imperative.
The fact is we libertarians don't do politics well because we won't compromise. If, for however brief a time, we are let into the GOP tent, the more pragmatic among us could eventually work their way into positions of power
And promptly cease to be libertarian. One little compromise to get elected, one more itsy-bitsy one to get on that committee, then you've got to keep your political nose clean to get some of your people in with the national party, then shovel some pork to the voters back home, then there's that chairmanship dangling in front of you, a few swapped votes...
Gimme a break. When, when, when are libertarians gonna finally learn that you can't get there from here, if "here" has anything to do with the GOP? Lucy and the football, indeed.
As I consolidate my rule, I'll remember you little people here at Hit & Run.
Aside from robotic sex slaves, I'll also be shipping non-libertarian minded folk to Greenland. I have a mind to create a little welfare state for them to enjoy.
Sure, jtuf, but did some socialists involve themselves in the Democratic and Republican parties in order to move them toward the eventual adoption of the Socialist platform? Or did they all stand there shouting that these new friendly major party types were insincere phonies (e.g. Glenn Beck) or infiltrators (e.g.Bob Barr)? Whether or not libertarians want to influence the GOP by working with them, or continuing to politic in the LP, strategically it isn't helpful to denigrate every libertarian glimmer that they give on one issue or another.
The post-2008 Republican strategy is clear: all torture, all the time.
It's too early to tell, but I'd like to think the party is taking a turn for the more libertarian. We'll see during the primaries.
Snowe is a worst case than Huckabee for me (though I hate Huckabee far more). If the Republicans take a turn for Snowe-style government, we'll effectively have one political party.
GreenLand hmmm? sounds real nice. lemme get my big map out.
W T F?
Not to get off topic, but heterosexuals are allowed to get married for whatever damn reason they want.
So what? Their reasons for getting married are irrelevant. The consequences of doing so are not.
The social utility argument has no merits whatsoever, and is certainly not stronger than the equal rights argument.
How many people here had same-sex parents? Raise your hands!
I hate to break this to you, but human beings managed to survive quite nicely for many millennia without any concept of rights, equal or otherwise. When you can tell me the same thing about heterosexuality, I might buy the proposition that equal rights trumps utility. Until then, I don't think so.
I will look for it if required. I remember seeing a piece (it may have been here) about McCain and his badmouthing Falwell and others in 2000. It showed him sucking up to them in 05 or 06 and realigning some of his ideals to theirs so he could get the nomination. IMO the GOP is still bending over willingly at the foot of the cross.
The whole anti-gay marriage thing will be part of the GOP's battle stance in 2012. I predict that they will rally The Church to try to win back D.C.
I have a set of college friends in their mid-twenties who were were reliable Republican voters up until November. So was I until a few years ago. They're pretty mainstream conservatives. I was pleasantly surprised that they managed to look past the "if you don't vote for McCain you're voting for a black communist Muslim" bullshit and see the man and his party for what they were: spineless sellouts who didn't deserve their vote. Some supported Paul in the primaries and in the general all voted Barr or wrote in funny names.
I'll be interested to see if they can quit the drug for good or the GOP manages to lure them back.
Do we seriously need to turn this into another gay marriage debate? The Republican Party potentially tilting libertarian is about 100,000 x more massive (even if it's only conjecture). And this is coming from a dude who may or may not one day marry another dude.
Fuck the republican party. I am tired of my ideas being associated with a bunch of reactionary warmongers.
Um, other than because heterosexual unions have a social utility that homosexual ones don't?
If the (rational) point is that marriage is all about making babies, I'd be happy to debate you sometime. That would be like hunting at the zoo.
Other people have said it and probably better than I, but does the Republican party really expect me to ever go back to them?
It's time for a new party. or get the Libertarians to actually come down from the mountain and work a practical methodology for governing from a Libertarian viewpoint with a pragmatic understanding that change is best incremental (People tend to reject the revolutionary and embrace the evolutionary) and to work to get the hearts and minds of the younger generation.
It takes a generation to build a party, but you have to take the steps to do it
Libertarians don't do well in politics because we don't, as a rule of thumb, have ambition for power. We want to create a space where no power exists. The very act of getting elected or running for office runs contrary to that. How do you run for office telling people you're not going to solve their problems or intervene in their troubles?
I hate to break this to you, but human beings managed to survive quite nicely for many millennia without any concept of rights, equal or otherwise. When you can tell me the same thing about heterosexuality, I might buy the proposition that equal rights trumps utility. Until then, I don't think so.
You're so right. If we allow gay people to marry, everyone will turn gay and stop procreating.
The only thing that stops most men from being raging homos is clearly the fact that homosexuality is brutally suppressed by the culture. Take that away and we'll all turn into fags and lesbians overnight.
Tell the GOP to get back to us when someone besides Ron Paul speaks out against perpetual war for perpetual peace.
How can the above possibly be true of about 1/3 of the US population?
Libertarian Republicans face a daunting problem: Their politicians, like most politicians, are self-interested whores.
And the easiest way for self-interested whores to profit is to use raw government patronage.
Liberals don't have half the problem because the majority of their program is raw patronage anyway.
"It's over. Change in a small government direction won't happen in the U.S. through the existing political process. We'll just have to wait for the federal government to collapse, and then rebuild from the rubble, USSR-style."
Yep, and we're more likely to get devastating chaos or Napoleon than libertopia as the result.
What do the Republicans deserve? Some Giuliani time. You did this to the country, and your asshole, piece of shit president and congress fought for the expansion of government powers that the current dick is using to push the country completely in the crapper. So FUCK YOU with a plunger, motherfuckers. Don't even bother with the rhetoric of freedom, you soil it with your fecal tongues.
Welcome back LMNOP. Good to see you posting again. I haven't always agreed with you but you're one of the posters who always makes me think.
Thanks, Kyle. My posts will be much more infrequent while I busy myself looking for a new job, but I still do peruse the comments when I have time. 🙂
I would rather take over the GOP and take my chances than vote for a 3rd party just to create "Senator Franken".
It's going to take an alliance between social conservatives and libertarians to wrestle power away from the socialists. Finding common ground is important.
Start with abortion. Social conservatives will oppose federal funding of abortion because abortion is wrong. Libertarians will oppose federal funding of abortion because federal funding is wrong.
WTF, run with what you've got.
the problem with the Repubs is that about half of them or more are Progressives and secretly love Obama's big Gov. programs. also, ppl are as against gay marriage and illegal immgration as ever, they're just tired and overwhelmed by the sheer scope and depth of the assualt on our freedoms and traditions by the current (and former) Administration.
if there is a Libertarian canidate on my ballot in 2010, I will vote for them. After years of voting for the Repubs i've had about enough.
It would be really nice if the GOP became America First Libertarian nationalists.
Libetarianism in one country. If you admire it, replicate it in your own country. I don't see it happening from the wholly owned asswhores in the GOP or Reason.com.
They continue to be Nick Gillespie style open border, so called "free" trade", we are the world, we are the children, internationalist Libertopians. The Nick Gillespie style destroyers of the American country, culture and people.
"I'm going to vote for democrats. At least they won't come with all the religious baggage."
Yea, let's be so afraid of a wing of the Repubs that makes a lot of noise but rarely gets their stuff enacted. On the other hand, let's suck up to Obama and his new libertarianism. You know, the one that turns the nation to socialism. Nothing odd about that at all, is there?
As other commentors noted, I was struck as well how suddenly social issues define libertarianism. I can be free market on everything on the planet but if I oppose abortion I'm a stinking statist.
Both examples explain why I grew to loathe what passes for libertarianism in this country. In its current state, it seems little better than the religious right. Subscribe 100% to my orthodoxy or I vote for somebody 1,000 times worse than you! I hope you enjoy your higher taxes and socialized medicine, the true values of libertarians everywhere.
Republicans and Democrats are exactly the same. Immediately upon assuming office they become members of the Permanent Incumbent party.
Any differences between the parties are merely advertising spin for the rubes.
Vote for Real Change.
Re-Elect Nobody!
Pat Buchanan - no libertarian - endorsed legalization of all drugs.
rrr;
You are right.
Internationalist libertopian whores like Gillespie masquarade as "libertarians".
They demand we flood America with tens of millions of third world welfare parasites and that we give these third world welfare parasites a "path" to a Democrat voter registration card.
Gillespie them bemoans the fact that his millions of welfare parasites voted for the party of welfare!!!
Not being a full fledged Libertine and more of a Burkean Conservative, my observation on the matter is that the GOP politicians are everything you accuse them of. Shit eating vermin, for the most part. The people making up the party, at the grassroots level, are definitely embracing purist conservatism's strong libertarian roots. They are another story all together.
I cannot say the LP will dominate the GOP, but if what is happening that I think is happening you sure as hell will have a major seat at the table on economic and small government issues.
On social issues, the great divide will remain.
Two out of three ain't bad. So you guys have to be willing to compromise if the far left is to be taken down.
The GOP and conservative grassroots are going to need you. I suggest you mobilize and help them find their way. They are receptive to your economic messages right now. Don't miss the boat on this, the consequences will be devastating.
Take care.
Fags AND lesbians?
I could see turning into a fag (it would be difficult but given the right incentives one can fake anything) but turning into a lesbian as well? Just the surgery alone is offputting. Not to mention the cost.
They may be talking a good game now, but Republicans proved their promises to be worthless after failing to hold up their end of the Contract with America back in 1994. So what are the alternatives? Here's a thought: every day the Constitution Party seems less and less an extreme one. Of course, if any Constitutionists or Libertarians managed to be elected without substantial change in the workings of the Special Interest State, what would prevent them from being corrupted into behaving the same as today's Republicans?
Millions of Gillespie encouraged turd world, uneducated, unskilled, welfare dependent "immigrants" voted for Obama. Gillespie wants to blame Obama's election on the 400 or 500 "libertarians" who voted for Obama.
Newsflash for Nick Gillespie; Welfare parasites vote for the party which promises to defend and expand programs for welfare parasites. DOH!
When you can tell me the same thing about heterosexuality, I might buy the proposition that equal rights trumps utility.
If homosexuality has no utility why does it exist in humans and other species?
And you know - homosexuals can procreate. Just not with each other.
Right now, Main Stream Republicans (MSR) are in a sorry state. They abandoned their principles of liberty and small government, and thus got their butts kicked twice in a row. The second time they got whopped by a Socialist in all but name, that's how bad it is.
The MSR are no more becoming libertarian than I'm growing a third arm. They're just noticing that there's a serious groundswell of small government libertarianism, IE traditional "Legacy" republican values. They're trying to ride the wave, and keep what power they have, or increase it.
What the MSR don't realize is that we hold them even more responsible than Democrats for the current mess. Big government liberals don't know any better. The MSR knew better, and made a conscious choice to betray us for cash or power.
I may vote Republican again, but there'd better be a damned good candidate. And I'll remember Reagan: Dovyon no provyon. Trust but Verify.
If they can't come up with an honest candidate, who'll reduce government, never do an earmark, I'll start voting for the Rabid Space Aardvark Party.
I just read a bunch of the comments...new to this site...and wow. People are soooo funny here. Gay marriage is opposed by a large percentage of Americans. Get over it. May change, may not.
Worrying about gay "rights" in the face of whether or not we work for the government 50 or 60% of the year is the silliest example of straightening the chairs of the titanic I have seen in a long time. Gay marriage is a trivial issue. Libertarians would be better off to drop this issue entirely and work on just the fiscal issues, because the gay issues turn off half your would be allies and appease a 1% population that hates you.
Legalization of drugs...same thing. I agree, lots of drugs should be legalized. But it is a small issue. If libertarians really care about freedom, the indentured servitude of all of us to the government is the clearest, most draconian invasion of freedom imaginable. The rest is insignificant. Why turn away potential allies over trivial issues?
Ideological purity is for religion and academics, not politics.
As soon as the "stimulus" (rape the people) package was passed everybody where I live was in line for a handout. We have the government policies we have because the people are greedy. We have the politicians we have because the people are greedy. The people don't realize their folly because the people are also ignorant. They think the government money comes from someone else. They don't care who the government steals it from as long as they get their cut.
Party affiliations are a distinction without a difference. Both parties appeal to the narcissistic western culture where everybody thinks they deserve a handout. We have become like a bunch of spoiled teenagers who have no idea where their meals come from. It will take a severe beating from reality before the people grow up. The political parties are the effect, not the cause.
Dear M. Simon.
If rape and murder have no utility, why do they exist in humans and other species?
"Are Republicans turning into libertarians?"
.. perhaps .. but I sure don't see many libertarians turning into Republicans ..
.. Hobbit
Just as interesting question:
Are Libertarians turning into Republicans?
The Libertarian Party is morphing into a harder-line version of the GOP, and that's a very welcome development.
Jimbobb, as if the Republicans didn't massively grow the government and debt pre-Obama?
What's the use of supporting a party that is not only huge-government, but also warmongering and civil-liberty destroying?
Let's see. If the Repubs dump the Christians for the Libertarians they can get, what, 25% of the vote?
Then we can have permanent nanny statism, gay marriage, abortion on demand, hate speech legislation, cap and trade and, oh yeah, no guns. Cool!
Ah, the Notorious Eric Dondero. I heard of you, and thought you were merely a myth.
"What's the use of supporting a party that is not only huge-government, but also warmongering and civil-liberty destroying?"
To avoid a party that's equally bad on civil liberties, and even-huger government?
Just throwin' out there.
"Libertarian nationalists."
The only term more contradictory than this is "libertarian socialist".
Libertarianism is a non-starter in American politics for the simple reason that most of the electorate have a track record of voting against it.
Only certain coalitions are possible, except under freaky one-off conditions, you can't combine, for ex, religious right anti-abortion activism with social liberal 'judicial supremacists' who believe that opposition to gay marriage is a sin. Likewise, you can't combine socialists and free-market liberatarians, again except for freaky instances.
The GOP cannot win as a libertarian party. If it tries, it'll not just lose, but lose catastropically. John McCain was a terrible candidate, but Rudy Giuilani would have been even worse, his social-issues positions would have alienated the entire South, and Obama would still have won the Northeast handily.
This is the underlying problem for the GOP leadership, at heart they are cultural 'light blues', but that part of the electorate that is prepared to vote GOP is cultural red. They oppose illegal immigration passionately, hate abortion, are adamantly nationalist, they certainly aren't liberatarians.
Likewise, the northeastern majority, contrary to fond wishes of many, is liberal, not libertarian. The theory that the GOP can win large swaths of votes outside the South by moving away from cultural conservatism simply is not supported by the data.
Bush Sr., Bob Dole, the Congress in 1998 and 2006, McCain in 2008, the GOP _loses_ when they 'moderate', try to appeal to the northeastern mindset (on social issues, which is what the media class mean when they insist the GOP must 'moderate').
The recent winners have been Nixon, Reagan, Bush in 2000, Congress in 2002 and 2004, Bush in 2004.
The electoral demographics of the United States are such that elections, for sincere libertarians, are always a choice of the lesser evil, a 'liberatarian majority' is a mathematical non-starter.
Yes. Yes we are. Not everyone who is/was a Republican was beholden to the religious right. Some of us were small government/fiscal conservatives that got sold out by Bush and his cronies. I came to the conclusion that neither party had my best interests in mind so I became a Libertarian.
You're right. There are no women in either group*, and definitely no blacks. :p goofball.
WTH are you talking about?
*actually, I'm registered as an Independent
I'm also not a woman. I think I put the asterisk in the wrong spot. :p
The last time the GOP pretended they were pseudo-libertarian was when Clinton was in power. Then he got a blowjob from an intern, they went crazy and proceeded to lose all credibility in congress once they got their guy in charge.
Evangelicals are really obnoxious but I think I hate neoconservatives even more.
Every time I consider voting GOP I discover their candidate is either a) a warmonger b) a gay bashing evangelical immigrant hater or c) a corporate shill. Sometimes you even get the hat trick. If I can find a GOP candidate that doesn't fall into those 3 categories they get my vote by default.
Being against gay marriage is the equivalent of "gay-bashing"?
Nate Silver, you are a dick.
"If homosexuality has no utility why does it exist in humans and other species?"
Are you suggesting that every genetic defect or developmental disorder has utility?
That's not quite how biology works.
Republicans are doing great things in Indiana to balance budgets and keep government small. The big government at the federal level is somewhat of a myth when you look at the actual numbers. As no surprise the numbers are crippling after 2006 when the democrats take over congress and with a new president surprise the spending spree continues. If the same pattern exists, don't you have to blame the people that are the same, not the ones that are gone. Oh no, that would be logic.
Most who bash Republicans have NO IDEA what they really stand for. They just blindly believe an old and tired stereotype. That's dumb and anathema to how informed and "tolerant" to how Liberals are SUPPOSED to be.
Republicans are NOT gay bashers. Nor are Conservatives. Small minded peeps can't wrap tiny brain around the fact that many Republicans and/or Conservatives do not like the re-definition of marriage yet still like gays just fine, thank you very much.
And as for it not being winning issue, many of the people in California (blacks and hispanics and other minorities) VOTED AGAINST PROP 8...and those peeps also voted for Captain ZerObama. So there!
Yeah, I notice many going to the Libertarian side. I'm gonna stay a Conservative and fight. I was once a Liberal and that side is just WRONG (and very sick and stupid). And I know 'cuz I was within the ranks. Many Republican/Conservative bashers have never been on that side so they are tragically misinformed.
I'M STICKING TO MY VALUES! PROUD TO BE CONSERVATIVE!
I have libertarian leanings for sure but man some of you guys come off as intolerant as Perez Hilton, Rev. Wright, or Jerry Falwell. I'm totally libertarian when it comes to the federal government and that's where you guys can make hay in the GOP. At the state/local level I want to leave it totally up to the peeps.
I see no problem with Cali having gay marriage, legal drugs, statist education, cap and trade, abortion on demand ect. so long as Florida can ban gay marriage, no weed, educational choice, zero enviro taxes, and ban abortion except in cases of threat to the mother. Let the peeps decide how they want to live just keep the feds out of it.
The oppressive fedzilla has screwed the country. Let the states experiment and we can learn what works best. Kill the fed and the federal government and you can create your own libertarian paradise in some state.
Well the lib party ideaology is closer to conservative ideology than the track record of republicans. if this is a serious trend things will get alot worse before they get better.
I truly doubt that Republicans are turning into Libertarians. Most Republicans actually really like the leviathan war state and the empire that it has accumulated. They really don't know much about libertarian principles, and when informed of such, are often appalled.
All one has to do is mention a couple of the core libertarian principles (ZAP, for example) on a Republican-dominated site to quickly learn of the vituperative nature of many Republicans. It is quite sad.
Next time, write about reality. Whenever the people vote on same-sex pseudo-marriage, the result is a foregone conclusion.
I'm a former Repub. and a future Libertarian - and like most of you at some point in your life, I've had an awakening. I've been shaken out of my comfort zone. I now see that freedom is the answer and the republican party has only ever increased the size of gov.
So have some hope, American is a slow moving beast and sometimes she has to do all the wrong things first but she eventually gets around to the right thing. DON'T BE SO CYNICAL!
None of the four paths cited by Silver are "conservative."
The conservative path would be a restoration of the balance between State and federal governments. Nix the "incorporation" nonsense and other idiotic paraconstitutional rulings that the federal courts have imposed; trim the power of Congress--like the good old days before the Commerce Clause was rendered moot; keep the powers of the executive in check when appropriate--as one example, stop allowing presidents to be legislators-in-chief, since that's the role of Congress.
In sum, let the States decide which of Silver's paths they wish to take, and stop letting the feds dictate State law without the authority to do so.
I'm a member of your 'religious right'. I vote. You can try it without me. Good luck.
"If homosexuality has no utility why does it exist in humans and other species?"
Are you suggesting that every genetic defect or developmental disorder has utility?
That's not quite how biology works.
Homosexuality is not a defect or disorder. It's a normal variation on sexuality that occurs in thousands of species in stable numbers.
Sexuality and evolution are much, much more complex than we used to think. I recommend reading some current science on the subject. It's fascinating.
John Dean, former Nixon staffer:
"As I was writing this closing section, an old friend from the Nixon White House called. Now retired, he is a lifelong Republican who told me that he voted for Bush and Cheney twice, because he knows them both personally. He asked how my new book was coming, and when I told him the title, he remarked, 'I'll say the government's broken.' After we discussed it, he asked how I planned to end the book, since the election was still a good distance away. I told him I was contemplating ending midsentence and immediately fading to black-the way HBO did in the final episode of The Sopranos-but that I would settle for a nice quote from him, on the record. He explained that he constantly has to bite his tongue, and the reason he does not speak out more is because one of his sons is in an important (nonpolitical) government post, and we both know that Republicans will seek revenge wherever they can find it. How about an off-the-record comment? I asked. That he agreed to.
'Just tell your readers that you have a source who knows a lot about the Republican Party from long experience, that he knows all the key movers and shakers, and he has a bit of advice. People should not vote for any Republican, because they're dangerous, dishonest, and self serving. While I once believed that Governor George Wallace had it right, that there was not a dime's worth of difference in the parties, that is no longer true. I have come to realize the Democrats really do care about people who most need help from government. Republicans care most about those who will only get richer because of government help. The government is truly broken, particularly in dealing with national security, and another four years, and heaven forbid not eight years, under the Republicans, and our grandchildren will have to build a new government, because the one we have will be unrecognizable and unworkable."
Anyone saying there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats are guilty of lazy thinking.
Ditto, Warren.
Only an idiot would trust any lying POS Republican to actually do what they promise. I threw hundreds of dollars down their rat hole every election until 2006.
The only reason Matt is pondering this question is because not a single one of these crooks has stood up and charted a clear path in ANY direction.
I want the GOP DEAD.
The ONLY thing that will save the GOP - and the country in general - is a move back towards strong conservatism, i.e. Ronald Reagan. You can like it or not, but that's the truth. And from the tenor of the posts here, I am assuming that most of you were not even born during the Reagan era. Your cynicism is frightening. "Libertarian" is just a word for "too lazy to take a stand on anything".
"I think you can make a good argument that evangelicals are a declining force in American society--all that stuff about the "Fourth Great Awakening" and such. They seem to have less control over the GOP than in years past. Heck, John McCain certainly wasn't one of them, however many other faults he possessed."
Yeah, and he got his ass handed to him, didn't he. The only reason he got the votes he got was because of Sarah Palin - a strong evangelical Christian.
Litmus test for republicans.
The best one I can think of is, are they in favor of abolishing the Federal Reserve and ending the state sanctioned monopoly on currency?
If they say that issuing currency and arresting competing currency issuers somehow helps the economy then they are idiots or thieves. It is a powerful monopoly that serves no purpose but to enrich the politically powerful at the expense of the politically weak.
Raoul has Gillespie and Reason pegged above.
As for MattW's blatherings, the easier explanation is that GOP leaders are even dumber than usual and keep wasting their time trying to create material for Hannity's show rather than doing things that are effective like truly discrediting their opponents in ways that their opponents' supporters can understand? Combine that with the MSM being even more aligned with those in power than usual, and what we're experiencing results.
In case anyone coming here from HotAir wants to see an effective way to oppose BHO - a way that's about a million times more effective than the tea parties - click here.
The question should be,"are Republicans turning into progressives?"
The question is 'is our Republicans learning?'
The answer is, no. They're becoming more insane with every passing day, feeding red meat to their gerrymandered constituents and ensuring a generation of defeat on the national level.
Tony, it's true-believer libertoonians who "are becoming more insane with each passing day."
I read the libertoonian prattle here in Reason's comment sections and discover that the purest of the pure libertoonians would sell out freedom in a heartbeat for pot and a pretend marriage to a fudge-packer. Those folks are sick and most of the rest of the liber-ranters here are even sicker for signing over their brains to the potted packing crowd.
Here's a free clue: Your neighbors and co-workers are those people you call "the Republicans" and "the Democrats." They don't like John Dean or Bill Moyers. Your neighbors aren't stupid either, they understand - even if they can't write research papers explaining it all - that without a common culture and commonly shared mores a free society soon disintegrates. Another clue (I'm feeling generous like libertarians don't): The more free the people in a country generally are, the louder the whining about the remaining restrictions on libertine behavior becomes.
I think that in order for many Republicans to become Libertarians, even the ones that are stuanchly fiscal conservatives, the Libertarian Party will have to adopt a foreign policy approach other than sticking the country's head in the sand
Don't kid yourself - Sarah Palin has a strong libertarian streak - it just doesn't match with how the main stream media want to paint her.
"I read the libertoonian prattle here in Reason's comment sections and discover that the purest of the pure libertoonians would sell out freedom in a heartbeat for pot and a pretend marriage to a fudge-packer."
These things are part of freedom, as is the right not to engage in them. Government regulation of drugs back in the 1900s-1910s was the nose of the camel making its way into the tent, which statists subsequently have used as a pretext to regulate anything they damn please.
" Another clue (I'm feeling generous like libertarians don't): The more free the people in a country generally are, the louder the whining about the remaining restrictions on libertine behavior becomes."
Is there anything else you'd like to pull straight out of your ass to-day?
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Social conservatism = hammer, nail, etc.
If we get another "Contract with America" promising economic libertarianism; can get get a contract with teeth this time? Maybe we can get one or two of the promised dozen points if it has some recourse should they give up on it again...