Tea Parties: Sign of Libertarian Resurgence?

Hotshot political numbers maven Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com thinks the numbers indicate yes:

The best benchmark I've been able to come up with for libertarianism is the amount of contributions to Ron Paul's 2008 presidential campaign. Fundraising data has the advantage of being extremely clean and comprehensive -- all contributions of at least $200 are reported to the FEC and itemized by their location…..

We have New Hampshire, we have Texas (where Paul is from) and we have a whole bunch of states in the Mountain West. Per capita, Paul raised about twice as much money in the West as he did in other parts of the country. In New Hampshire, he raised about three times above the national average….

Now then, which states had the most tea party attendance?….As measured on a per capita basis, eight of the top ten states for Tea Party attendance were West of the Mississippi. Five of the top ten -- Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Wyoming -- overlap with the best Ron Paul fundraising states.

Matt Welch and Nick Gillespie from Reason magazine's December 2008 issue on why we may be entering a new libertarian moment, tea parties aside. My profile of the Ron Paul movement from Reason magazine's February 2008 issue,

Comments

[SugarFree]

Ooh! Ooh! Let me get it out of the way!

"Where were the tax protestors during the 8 years of debt for the Iraq War run up by the Bushitler regime?"

[Bingo]

Would there be any Tea Parties if McCain had been elected?

[JLM]

"Resurgence" suggests that we had a serious level of influence sometime in the past.

[Pro Libertate]

JLM,

We did--230 and some odd years ago

[Xeones]

"Resurgence" suggests that we had a serious level of influence sometime in the past.

If you count the Founding Fathers, it's more or less sort of accurate.

[Xeones]

Dammit, Pro L!

"Eleven-score and ten odd years ago..."

[JLM]

If you look at it that way, I would sooner call it a rebirth.

[crimethink]

Wyoming, Alaska, and Idaho are the 40th, 47th, and 50th most populous states, respectively. So you can probably prove a lot of utter silliness by looking at per capita numbers.

[crimethink]

screwed up the order...that should be 50th, 47th, and 40th...

[crimethink]

ie, going by the per capita numbers, 10 people attending a tea party in Cheyenne is equivalent to 720 doing so in Los Angeles.

[Brandybuck]

Would there be any Tea Parties if McCain had been elected?

Yes. But not nearly so many of them. Republicans are best when they're bruised, beaten and out of power.

[shecky]

Just wait for the Tea Party to be dominated by fundamentalists, gold bugs, Stormfront, and assorted wackos in three-cornered hats.

Then again, does anyone really have to wait?

[Joshua Holmes]

The libertarian moment will last until someone actually puts forth a proposal for cutting spending. That dries up support for small government right quick, leaving us one-percenters.

[Warty]

Republicans are best when they're bruised, beaten and out of power.

I see you were browsing kink.com's fine fare this weekend.

[Bluto]

"Eleven-score and ten odd years ago..."

Or as Johnny Carson once quipped, Four scored snd seven came close.

[David T]

"If you count the Founding Fathers, it's more or less sort of accurate."

Wasn't it the *Anti-*Federalists who were "more or less sort of" libertarian?

[Fist of Etiquette]

There will be no Libertarian anything until you find a way for politicians to pad their resumes/wallets with the phrase, "There is no good public sector solution for that problem."

[Elemenope]

Your assignment is to write the following phrase: "The founding fathers were not libertarians.", until it sinks in there.

The founding fathers were not libertarians.
The founding fathers were not libertarians.
The founding fathers were not libertarians.
The founding fathers were not liberta...

[Fist of Etiquette]

That's right; the Founding Fathers were community organizers.

[robc]

Wasn't it the *Anti-*Federalists who were "more or less sort of" libertarian?

You saying Patrick Henry wasnt a founding father?

[robc]

lmnop,

Some of them were.

Some of them werent.

[jtuf]

As always, when membership swells we need to rebouble our education efforts to bring the newbies up to speed.

[Elemenope]

robc, try this.

The founding fathers who won most of the arguments and then designed and implemented the actual government were not libertarian. Some of the radical revolutionaries who were hangers-on at the time of the drafting of the Constitution who contributed fuck-all to how things actually played out were libertarians. Should these dissenters be called "founding fathers"? Perhaps a more apt term would be "founding funny uncles".

James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, George Washington: not libertarians.

Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, George Mason: possibly libertarians.

Thomas Jefferson: In fucking France when the important shit went down.

[High Every Body]

Are they still tea parties or is tha Freeper Teabagging thing catching on?

[Nick]

Madison wrote the Bill of Rights. Was he libertarian? Depends on what year we're talking about. Hell, he wrote the Constitution and there are times in his life you would look at his opinion and say he's not even a Constitutionalist.

[High Every Body]

LMNOP,

Keep preaching the Hope and Change brother!

[Pro Libertate]

By today's standards, the Founding Fathers were closer to being libertarians than they were to being anything else.

[Darryl Schmitz]

And with little thanks to Reason, which has had a track record of treating Ron Paul's presidential candidacy as a laughable spectacle.

[Nick]

lmnop, what's your libertarian litmus test? How high a % does one have to pass to be so labeled? 80%? 99%? 100%?

[Fist of Etiquette]

It was all a trick anyway. Libertarians don't take assignments.

[High Every Body]

And with little thanks to Reason, which has had a track record of treating Ron Paul's presidential candidacy as a laughable spectacle.

How could they do otherwise while they were promoting Obama and the rest of the Democrats?

BTW, Paul was not the Libertarian party candidate last year.

[creech]

I didn't see any V for Vendetta characters this year at tea-parties. And one wonders why DHS would think some people with RP bumper stickers just might morph into domestic terrorists?
jtuf, the LP isn't into "education" these days. So some other grassroots organization will have to do it. Are you willing to entrust libertarian education to CFL?

[Atheist Hell]

The founding fathers were secularist.

And Panthiest and atheist.

And Dr. Paul ran on the Republican ticket.Not LIB. FYI. ( hence why I have to change my party back to Lib)

[Craig]

Wyoming, Alaska, and Idaho are the 40th, 47th, and 50th most populous states, respectively. So you can probably prove a lot of utter silliness by looking at per capita numbers.

You aren't good at statistics, are you?

[P Brooks]

By today's standards, the Founding Fathers were closer to being libertarians than they were to being anything else.

By today's standards, JFK could be the LP candidate.

Not that I necessarily have a problem with that...

[Elemenope]

lmnop, what's your libertarian litmus test? How high a % does one have to pass to be so labeled? 80%? 99%? 100%?

There is no litmus test. It is especially problematic when talking about people who lived and died before the ideology ever existed, but I tend to think that anyone who would look at you like you were fucking crazy after elucidating the consequences of libertarian is, um, not a libertarian. I personally think, and anyone can stop me here, that an argument against nation funding of the post office or against legislation of social mores would have really left most of them scratching their heads in astonishment at their interlocutor's insanity.

To be clear, I think that in these ways, the founding fathers were *wrong*, prisoners of their times and the ideas then available. But to call them "libertarians" really does violence to the meaning of that term. Keep in mind (everyone here seems to conveniently forget) that the "founding fathers" who drafted the Constitution were doing so to dissolve an inherently *more* "libertarian" state, the Confederation.

And do I really need to bring up slavery? Anyone who supported slavery, or even tolerated its continued existence, cannot be a libertarian by any tortured sense of the term. (There's your "litmus test", I guess.)

[Solana]

Uh, maybe I'm missing something but... how can you be both "panthiest (sic) and athiest?"

[Anonymous]

Solana, there were more than one of them.

Elemenope, legislating social mores doesn't seem like a big deal in a tiny, mostly homogenous country.

[Elemenope]

Uh, maybe I'm missing something but... how can you be both "panthiest (sic) and athiest?"

He's talking about a group, *some of which* were Atheists, and *some of which* were pantheists. (Which incidentally, is not true; you'd be awfully hard-pressed to find a pantheist, and Atheists did not, as a rule, admit such back then. Most were Deists.)

[Orange Line Special]

JLM writes: "Resurgence" suggests that we had a serious level of influence sometime in the past.

They did. Unfortunately, it was all just a dream they had while passed out after that year's LP convention, which was held in Room 327 of the Pascagoula Holiday Inn.

Meanwhile, here's my extensive coverage of the tea parties.

I'm very unsympathetic to the real goals of their various leaders, the other attendees are some degree of mean-spirited useful idiots, and they're doing it all wrong. They don't have the brainpower or grasp of reality to realize that they don't have the numbers. No amount of period costumes or teabagearrings will ever get them more than 1% of the U.S. population. Frankly, aside from various types of cults I've rarely seen more delusional people.

[Elemenope]

Elemenope, legislating social mores doesn't seem like a big deal in a tiny, mostly homogenous country.

True. My point only was, it sort of disqualifies them from assuming the mantle of "libertarian".

[Solana]

And do I really need to bring up slavery? Anyone who supported slavery, or even tolerated its continued existence, cannot be a libertarian by any tortured sense of the term.

Not for nothing, but loads of the founders were against slavery, from Franklin and Adams to Jefferson (who paradoxically had about as many comments centered on slavery's repulsive, unacceptable nature in his Notes on Virginia as he did on the many inherent flaws of the black man? also, before you beat me to it: dude had slaves).

Still, El, I see where you're coming from. While I think libertarianism stems from the tradition of the founders, and is closer than any breathing political philosophy today, the founders were largely not libertarian. They were certainly "liberal," though, in the sense that almost every poster on this board is a "liberal," excepting the liberal Tony, of course.

[Elemenope]

Solana,

I feel much more comfortable calling them "classical liberals" or something like that. It would be more honest, because it references the actual ideas they had in mind and studied when they put the shit in motion.

[Solana]

El, I'm taking it back.

[Elemenope]

El, I'm taking it back.

Er, why? Locke, Rousseau, Hobbes, Hume, Smith...these were the guys they were reading and were influenced by. They are, as a group, known as "classical liberals".

[alan]

Where were the tax protestors during the 8 years of debt for the Iraq War run up by the Bushitler regime?

I know you put it out there for the purposes of humor, but it is such a deliciously provocative quote, I'd like to take a crack at it.

And where were you, lefty, Kerry&Quiche* lovers? Smelling up the streets wasting time with protest signs in your hands, and supporting candidates whose greatest desire is to wage war on our domestic economy** to a far more damaging extent than the misdirected Bush foreign policy? Some altenative you give us there, chaps.

* Mmmm, I love quiche.

** Looks like Bush's picks Paulson and Bernanke wanted in on that action too.

[alan]

kudos to LMNOP, making some good points there.

Libertarianism is an extension of classical liberalism, of course, and more consistent with the underlying philosophy than the founders were for reasons often due to historical necessities.

[AA]

The real problem is not in the level of interest in Libertarian ideals -- there's plenty of that, imo.

The problem is that there isn't an organizational structure in place to DO anything with it.

[engineer]

"They were certainly 'liberal,' though, in the sense that almost every poster on this board is a 'liberal,' excepting the liberal Tony, of course."

Tony is a liberal in much the same way as Robespierre was a liberal.

[engineer]

Unfortunately, I don't think that there is any libertarian movement afoot. The masses want their bread, circuses, and pork, and they aren't particular about how they get it.

Studying for finals makes me morose.

[Elemenope]

The real problem is not in the level of interest in Libertarian ideals -- there's plenty of that, imo.

The problem is that there isn't an organizational structure in place to DO anything with it.

Nah. The real problem is people hate paying taxes and hate seeing the government do stuff they disapprove of. Frustrated and/or disenfranchised people are always more amenable to an ideology that seeks to de-fang the powers-that-be. Don't mistake that for actually believing they want that to always be the case. That's how the GOP has been able to maintain the illusion they give a shit about libertarian ideas all these years; when times are hard for them, they put on their libertarian clothes and fight the "man" in the name of freedom.

Libertarianism fueled by ressentiment is about as true a belief as Christianity fueled by attrition.

[Solana]

Er, why? Locke, Rousseau, Hobbes, Hume, Smith...these were the guys they were reading and were influenced by. They are, as a group, known as "classical liberals".

Because language is important. More specifically, the latin root "liber" is very important.

The better question is, why are those philosophers no longer known as liberals?

Also, uh, Rousseau is a stretch, buddy, and Hobbes was a monarchist. Even by today's warped standards, that isn't liberal.

[Elemenope]

Hobbes is usually cited as a proto-liberal, as he (along with Spinoza) was a key player in the foundation of social contract theory; IIRC von Hayek was perfectly comfortable calling Hobbes a classical liberal. And being a monarchist was not incompatible with liberalism, either then or now. Rousseau was solidly within the French tradition of classical liberalism and is in no way a stretch.

The better question is, why are those philosophers no longer known as liberals?

Since when?

Because language is important.

I agree, but when talking about the word "liberal", I'm ready to say that ship has fucking sailed.

[engineer]

What solana said.

Rousseau wouldn't probably be considered a liberal in the modern sense, provided his misogyny was ignored.

[engineer]

Should have been "WOULD be considered a liberal in the modern sense".

Dang, I just can't read today.

[engineer]

And Hobbes' Leviathan was the great philosophical justification of absolutism.

[Elemenope]

Rousseau wouldn't probably be considered a liberal in the modern sense, provided his misogyny was ignored.

That's great, but that's not what the conversation is about. We aren't talking about whether they'd be called liberals in the modern sense, we're talking about whether they'd be called liberals in the classic sense.

[R C Dean]

I think we can all agree that the once-great term "liberal" has been ruined by overuse. Its time to replace it. I propose the modern usage of the term be replaced as follows:

"liberal" = statist scum (n); authoritarian (adj.).

Thus, the statement that "The President, known for his liberal leanings, reached out to his liberal supporters" would be more accurately rendered as "The President, known for his authoritarian leanings, reached out to his statist scum supporters." I think that's much better. Thoughts?

[Answer to Headline]

No.

[duster]

RC Dean:

You only got it half right. Give the same speil for 'conservative' and you've nailed it.

[engineer]

R C Dean,
Peronally I think that "liberal", "neocon", "religious right", "fascist", "Nazi", and "communist" have all been so severely overused as to be meaningless. And they're coming for the world "libertarian" too. As proof, I urge to look at the self-proclaimed "left-libertarians" and "libertarian socialists".

[robc]

lmnop,

In fucking France when the important shit went down.

here is where you fucked it up...the FFs are the 1776 guys, not the 1787 guys.

[robc]

Madison also vetoed a highway/canal bill because that was not a federal function. While more federalist than libertarian, good enough for me. I would like to see any fucker in DC veto a highway bill.

[MlR]

"Where were the tax protestors during the 8 years of debt for the Iraq War run up by the Bushitler regime?"

You mean the bare fraction of the money that's been spent/promised in the past six months?

[Mr. Chartreuse]

Madison also vetoed a highway/canal bill because that was not a federal function. While more federalist than libertarian, good enough for me. I would like to see any fucker in DC veto a highway bill.

Another plus is that He also authored the Virginia Resolution. which said that the Alien and Sedition Acts were unconstitutional and the state legislatures could ignore the laws (BTW how the hell did the Alien and Sedition Acts pass so quick after the Constitution was passed).

[Elemenope]

here is where you fucked it up...the FFs are the 1776 guys, not the 1787 guys.

Ben Franklin was in France when *that* shit went down. So, either way, the definition excludes at least one person who otherwise is considered an FF.

Resort to intersubjective definitions leads to wiki, and wiki sez: The Founding Fathers of the United States were the political leaders who signed the Declaration of Independence or otherwise participated in the American Revolution as leaders of the Patriots, or who participated in drafting the United States Constitution eleven years later.

Now, some people make a distinction between the larger group, the FF, and a smaller subgroup, the Framers, who were involved with that shit in 1787 too. But they are not mutually exclusive groups.

[G]

Would there be any Tea Parties if McCain had been elected?

YES!!! For the precise reasons we could not stomach to vote for him. He wouldn't have been as bad as Obama, no way, but much worse than Bush.

[juris imprudent]

OLS sez Frankly, aside from various types of cults I've rarely seen more delusional people.

You must not spend much time looking in the mirror.

engineer sez Unfortunately, I don't think that there is any libertarian movement afoot.

Libertarians, the party of the future: yesterday, today and tomorrow.

and The masses want their bread, circuses, and pork, and they aren't particular about how they get it.

Sourdough and some good bacon get my vote. But no circuses, because circuses have clowns and clowns are too close to mimes.

[P. Faith]

Labels....

They belong on containers, not people.

Individual freedom is the core foundation of this country. Whether it was actually practiced at the time of inception is not debatable, it simply was not the case. (i.e.-slavery, indentured servitude, etc.)

Everyone argues about what they want, and once they get a few other people to jump on their bandwagon, they could care less about individual freedom.

A simple offering of my 24 karats....

[Ebeneezer Scrooge]

Matt Welch and Nick Gillespie from Reason magazine's December 2008 issue on why we may be entering a new libertarian moment

I remember that one. I also remembered that some libertarians definitely favor the use of hallucinatory drugs. But,

There will be no Libertarian anything until you find a way for politicians to pad their resumes/wallets with the phrase, "There is no good public sector solution for that problem."

There is at least one sober soul amongst us.

[Stephen]

Since when does Reason support Ron?? Reason magazine made fun of us Ron Paul supporters.

[Hazel Meade]

Just wait for the Tea Party to be dominated by fundamentalists, gold bugs, Stormfront, and assorted wackos in three-cornered hats.

I'm joining the three-cornered hat faction. We'll team up with the gold bugs and create a schism.

[Ebeneezer Scrooge]

Libertarians will re surge soon after they emerge. They shall stage the most amazing resurgent divergence of opinion the world has ever seen.

Sadly, the world will not notice because it will have no impact on anything that actually matters.....

[robc]

Ben Franklin was in France when *that* shit went down.

No he wasnt. He signed the DoI. He was in Philly that summer.

[robc]

lmnop,

Jefferson
Adams
Franklin
Sherman
Livingston

That was the committee assigned to write the DoI. Would ahve been tough for Franklin to be a committee member from Paris.

[Eric Dondero]

The best benchmark for the success of the libertarian movement and growing influence was John McCain picking one of the Nation's three most libertarian Governors for VP in late 2008: Sarah Palin.

As insiders in the McCain campaign now admit, she was picked to appeal to a "libertarian" (Glen Beck-ish) type audience for her limited government views.

But that's one news story Reason completely missed. Poor reporting, or just bias against libertarian Republicans will never know?

Brian??

[dhex]

"The best benchmark for the success of the libertarian movement and growing influence was John McCain picking one of the Nation's three most libertarian Governors for VP in late 2008: Sarah Palin."

it's been months now and we get it, donderlolz. you beat off to palin. we all know that now. thanks to you we have to find some kind of brain sanitizer. way to go, chief.

[wizard of oz books]

With many new announcement about the wizard of oz movies in the news, you might want to consider starting to obtain Wizard of Oz book series either as collectible or investment at RareOzBooks.com.

[wizard of oz books]

With many new announcement about the wizard of oz movies in the news, you might want to consider starting to obtain Wizard of Oz book series either as collectible or investment at RareOzBooks.com.

[wizard of oz books]

With many new announcement about the wizard of oz movies in the news, you might want to consider starting to obtain Wizard of Oz book series either as collectible or investment at RareOzBooks.com.