Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Politics

Optimism About the New Libertarian Age

Brian Doherty | 7.5.2012 4:23 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Interesting and very long Associated Press story, via the Alton Telegraph, in which I'm quoted, that takes a very optimistic view of the prospects of a resurgence of libertarian thought in the Republican Party and American politics and culture in general. While the specifics the author cites are true enough, from Ron Paulite takeovers of various state Republican Parties to an inchoate sense of weariness with pointless nannyism, I vacillate myself in how much hope I place on them.

That said, some highlights:

In its annual governance survey conducted last fall, Gallup found that a record-high 81 percent of Americans were dissatisfied with the way the country was being governed. There were increases, too, in the responses to questions that gauge a more libertarian-view of governance: A record 49 percent said they believed government posed "an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens"; 57 percent believed the federal government had too much power; and 56 percent said they would be willing to pay less in taxes and accept fewer services (a position advocated during the campaign by Paul).

But do we really need numbers to confirm the strong libertarian-like streak running through the nation of late? Instead, just look to the rise of the tea party with its smaller-government, "back-off" mantra. Or take in some of the signs posted along U.S. roads these days, like this one outside of Wickenburg, Ariz.: "Choose Freedom. Stop Obamacare." Or consider the backlash after New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg proposed banning large servings of sugary sodas.

The libertarian message is especially attractive to younger Americans who are war-weary, socially liberal and skeptical of government interference in their lives. They've grown up paying into Medicare and Social Security but hearing - endlessly - that they're unlikely to receive the benefits of those programs. They see many government initiatives as unnecessary evils, and believe social issues such as abortion and gay marriage are matters of personal choice not political debate.

Many pondered why Ron Paul, at 76 years old, attracted throngs of 20-somethings to his rallies and, according to exit polls, consistently won the 18-29 age bracket early in primary season in states such as New Hampshire and Iowa.  

Twenty-six-year-old Alexander McCobin has a response for that: "This is the most libertarian generation that's ever existed, and it's because libertarianism is just correct."

Four years ago, McCobin co-founded the group Students For Liberty, which now has some 780 affiliates…

In a 2010 paper, Cato concluded that libertarians "are increasingly a swing vote … a bigger share of the electorate than the much discussed 'soccer moms' of the 1990s or 'NASCAR dads' of the early 2000s, and bigger than many of the micro-targeted groups pursued by political strategists in the 2004 and 2008 elections."

Many of these voters would describe themselves as independents, a group that both candidates desperately need in order to win, said Samples. The libertarian view of limited government and free market economics usually pushes these voters toward Republican candidates, even if their social views are more in line with the Democratic Party.

But as the Cato study pointed out, such voters are not firmly committed to either of the two major parties…

….this is neither a passing fad nor a "Ron Paul phenomenon" that will fade once he's gone from the scene. [Nevada Paul supporters and GOP activists Carl and Richard Bunce] see hope in other up-and-coming libertarian-leaning Republicans: Justin Amash, a Michigan congressman seeking re-election whom Reason magazine christened "the next Ron Paul"; Kurt Bills, a Minnesota state representative who is running for U.S. Senate; and, of course, Rand Paul.

"Everything we've done up to this point is based on ideas. … It carries on well past Congressman Paul," said Carl Bunce. "Hopefully we'll start to bring more voters to bear into the Republican Party - all those apathetic voters that were like myself."

When that happens, he said, "our ideas of liberty and freedom will persist."

For more on the general trends this story discusses, see both my new book Ron Paul's Revolution: The Man and the Movement He Inspired and the out-in-paperback classic by my Reason colleagues Matt Welch and Nick Gillespie, The Declaration of Independents: How Libertarian Politics Can Fix What's Wrong with America.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: California Voters to Gov. Brown: Stop Yanking Us Around

Brian Doherty is a senior editor at Reason and author of Ron Paul's Revolution: The Man and the Movement He Inspired (Broadside Books).

PoliticsLibertarian History/PhilosophyRon PaulLibertarianism
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (71)

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.

  1. Res Publica Americana   13 years ago

    OT: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....re=related

    Am I the only one who sees absolutely nothing wrong with what that guy's doing?

    1. The Hammer   13 years ago

      No youtube at work. What's he doing, so I can be properly informed in my outrage?

      1. Randian   13 years ago

        The links to YouTube need to stop. There is nothing worthwhile in news stories and other topics of interest that cannot be expressed in text, and text is faster to load and faster to read and digest.

        1. CE   13 years ago

          +100

        2. Res Publica Americana   13 years ago

          Yeah, or not.

          1. Randian   13 years ago

            *shrug*. I'm not going to spend 10 minutes watching a video of Dr. Phil when a two-line piece of text would have sufficed to communicate the point.

            1. Res Publica Americana   13 years ago

              Which is why clicking on links posted on the Internet is voluntary. God bless free will.

              1. Randian   13 years ago

                Let's get all recursive on this shit and say that my complaints about your videos is also voluntary and comports with "free will". And your complaining about my complaining blah blah blah.

                Bottom line: text is more efficient. Videos, unless you have to actually see something to understand it, are a waste of time.

                1. Res Publica Americana   13 years ago

                  I don't recall complaining, but sure.

                  Here's a video to lighten the mood:

                  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyMXYE_50Ts

        3. Tulpa the White   13 years ago

          Would you prefer that he post nothing at all?

          1. Randian   13 years ago

            Probably. Especially if he's going to endorse PUAs.

          2. Res Publica Americana   13 years ago

            Well, unless you live on Easter Island, Flash and a connection fast enough to load a video aren't too rare these days, so I think I'll just go ahead and continue linking videos.

    2. Hugh Akston   13 years ago

      PUAs are douchebags.

      1. Randian   13 years ago

        Oh, yeah, we didn't need a video to tell us this eternal truth.

      2. Auric Demonocles   13 years ago

        Once he talked about purposely having scruff I knew to give up on him possibly redeeming it. That shit is retarded. Either grow a beard or shave it off.

        1. Coeus   13 years ago

          Fuck that. It's like male makeup. Hides unsightly skin discolorations.

          1. Auric Demonocles   13 years ago

            Then grow an actual beard.

            1. Coeus   13 years ago

              Easier said than done when you have to regularly wear a gas-mask.

            2. The Hammer   13 years ago

              You only do that if you're a decorated general with a heart of gold.

    3. Randian   13 years ago

      Am I the only one who sees absolutely nothing wrong with what that guy's doing?

      Going around sticking it to as many women as possible is definitely the height of maturity and class. Bragging about it doubles up on the Supreme Coolness.

      1. Res Publica Americana   13 years ago

        If he and his dates are having fun, that's all that matters.

        1. Randian   13 years ago

          Adulterers are probably "having fun" too.

          1. Res Publica Americana   13 years ago

            You're not seriously equating guys whose goal is to charm and fuck as many women as they can with adulterers, are you? Because that would be silly.

            1. Coeus   13 years ago

              Shhh. You'll disrupt his dry-dicked sense of self righteousness.

              1. Randian   13 years ago

                *yawn* yeah, an anti-libertine approach is so popular around here that it must be self-righteousness that is driving me.

                PUAs and their enablers are so predictable: anybody who doesn't immediately endorse their behavior is an old prude and they're just fun young guys like, doing their thing, man.

                No one is interested in your trite, post-modern relativistic morality.

                1. Res Publica Americana   13 years ago

                  PUAs and their enablers are so predictable: anybody who doesn't immediately endorse their behavior is an old prude and they're just fun young guys like, doing their thing, man.

                  ------------------

                  I didn't say you were a prude, or that you had to endorse them. I just don't see anything wrong with a guy and a girl-times-132 getting together for some action.

                  "No one is interested in your trite, post-modern relativistic morality."

                  You just jumped the shark. Congratulations.

                  1. Randian   13 years ago

                    You just jumped the shark. Congratulations.

                    I'm just having fun, RPA! Doesn't that make everything I do and/or so permissible and free of judgment? I could have sworn you just said that.

                    1. Res Publica Americana   13 years ago

                      I could have sworn you just said that.

                      ----------

                      You'd be lying if you did that.

                    2. Randian   13 years ago

                      If he and his dates are having fun, that's all that matters.

                      What mean then?

                    3. Res Publica Americana   13 years ago

                      It means I don't see anything to judge (or anything impermissible) about Johnny fucking his way through city.

                    4. Randian   13 years ago

                      It means I don't see anything to judge (or anything impermissible) about Johnny fucking his way through city.

                      You're actually judging it as "good" because "everyone is having fun", which is not a very good moral metric.

                      The idea that people are mere playthings is called sociopathy and is not a healthy outlook. Treating people as means to an end is for utilitarians and nihilists.

                    5. Res Publica Americana   13 years ago

                      What the fuck are you talking about?

                      "You're actually judging it as "good" because "everyone is having fun", which is not a very good moral metric."

                      I'm not judging it as positive or negative, only that there's nothing wrong with it. And I was referring to the particular acts he's responsible for. "Everyone is having fun" is obviously not the way I judge actual immorality.

                      "The idea that people are mere playthings is called sociopathy and is not a healthy outlook. Treating people as means to an end is for utilitarians and nihilists."

                      How the shit is this at all relevant or applicable to this guy? He meets women that then consensually get into his bed, and that's it. Where's the inference that people are at all devalued? "Mere playthings"? Where's this coming from?

                  2. Randian   13 years ago

                    I didn't say you were a prude, or that you had to endorse them. I just don't see anything wrong with a guy and a girl-times-132 getting together for some action.

                    I was talking to Coeus, who seems to think I'm "dry dicked", as if I'm in the mood to get into an Angry Young Man/Fratdouche argument with him about who gets the most [insert thing Fratboys never get here]

                    1. Coeus   13 years ago

                      I was talking to Coeus, who seems to think I'm "dry dicked", as if I'm in the mood to get into an Angry Young Man/Fratdouche argument with him about who gets the most [insert thing Fratboys never get here]

                      I'm eager to hear another explanation.

                    2. Randian   13 years ago

                      I'm eager to hear another explanation.

                      How about, "I think PUAs and their enablers are d-bags". Rather than take that at face value, of course, you choose to attack and/or invent motives.

                      See, now you have a neat little rhetorical set-up, don't you? If I continue to tell you you're wrong, that just provides further evidence that you're right. Any evidence that comes your way just proves your invented thesis.

                      Watch, I can do it too: "Coeus's defense of PUAs is because he worships them because he's sad, lonely, and has a tiny dick".

                      There, now anything you say will reinforce that completely made-up POV.

                    3. Coeus   13 years ago

                      How about, "I think PUAs and their enablers are d-bags". Rather than take that at face value, of course, you choose to attack and/or invent motives.

                      Why? If you never give a reason, we have to infer the most likely one, don't we?

                      There, now anything you say will reinforce that completely made-up POV.

                      Really? Not much imagination in you, is there?

                      How about this:
                      I hate people who talk shit about PUAs through a moralistic lens where they stupidly equate it with adultery. Because I hate people who don't use logic.

                    4. Randian   13 years ago

                      Why? If you never give a reason, we have to infer the most likely one, don't we?

                      No more than I have to give a reason as to why hipsters are d-bags, or why envirotards are d-bags, or religious nutjobs are nutjobs. They just are.

                    5. Coeus   13 years ago

                      No more than I have to give a reason as to why hipsters are d-bags, or why envirotards are d-bags, or religious nutjobs are nutjobs. They just are.

                      And we would assume the most common reasons for that hatred. Hipsters - hated for cultural accouterments of "ironic" styling. "Envirotards" - hated for wanting government solutions to invented or grossly exaggerated problems. "Religous nutjobs" - hated for holding viewpoints contrary to evidence and wanting them enforced on the general populace.

                      You are fine with those inferences, yes? Well, newsflash, most PUA hate comes from the fact that they have more sex than average. Since you're not a "religious nutjob", we have to assume that the hatred of more sex comes from the only other logical reason, jealousy.

                      We would not have to assume this if you would give another reason, something you seem oddly resistant to doing.

                2. The Hammer   13 years ago

                  What's a PUA?

                  1. Res Publica Americana   13 years ago

                    Pick-up artist.

            2. Randian   13 years ago

              You're not seriously equating guys whose goal is to charm and fuck as many women as they can with adulterers, are you? Because that would be silly.

              What does it say about him that he has to brag about his behavior on national television? My guess? He's fast on the trigger.

              1. Res Publica Americana   13 years ago

                I don't know anything about the guy. That wasn't the point. The point was that labeling someone a chauvinist with a bloated ego for successfully bagging lots of dates is fucking retarded.

                1. Randian   13 years ago

                  The point was that labeling someone a chauvinist with a bloated ego for successfully bagging lots of dates is fucking retarded.

                  The part that gets one labeled that is bragging about it on national television. You have to be a serious attention whore to get to that level. I bet the guy wrote into Dr. Phil himself to get on television just to brag. He's pathetic.

                  1. Res Publica Americana   13 years ago

                    The part that gets one labeled that is bragging about it on national television.

                    -------------

                    Not according to the show.

                  2. Coeus   13 years ago

                    The part that gets one labeled that is bragging about it on national television. You have to be a serious attention whore to get to that level. I bet the guy wrote into Dr. Phil himself to get on television just to brag. He's pathetic.

                    It's all part of the same schtick. Fame, no matter how stupidly it is achieved, gets him more ass.

                    Don't hate the player, hate the game. If it makes you feel any better, know that most players hate the game as well.

                    1. Cytotoxic   13 years ago

                      Randian is right PUAs are douchebags RPA stop dodging Randians points.

                    2. Coeus   13 years ago

                      Randian is right PUAs are douchebags

                      Actually, Randian never said that. Hugh did. And he's right. Acting like a douchbag is kinda a big part of PUA. It's the moralistic judgments which are stupid, like equating it with adultery.

    4. Suthenboy   13 years ago

      That depends on what you mean by 'wrong'.
      Once upon a time I behaved that way, but I do not any longer, nor do I encourage anyone else to.
      There are lots of things 'wrong' with behaving that way, but no, there should be no legal sanctions.
      Of course it is a TV show so it has to be over the top. If I had to put money on it, I would bet its fiction.

      1. Auric Demonocles   13 years ago

        Who said anything about legality? What are you, dunphy?

      2. Coeus   13 years ago

        Once upon a time I behaved that way,but I do not any longer, nor do I encourage anyone else to.

        I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that magical change in thinking occurred around the same time you got old enough to see the over 35 crowd as dating material.

        1. The Hammer   13 years ago

          When was the over 35 crowd not dating material? When we were in college cougars were one of the ultimate goals.

          1. Coeus   13 years ago

            When was the over 35 crowd not dating material? When we were in college cougars were one of the ultimate goals.

            That's just because until Junior year, college age pussy was mostly off the table. Believe me, I was in that same crowd. We were deluding ourselves.

            1. The Hammer   13 years ago

              College age pussy was never off the table. "What's your major; that's so interesting, what led you to that; what are you going to do when you finish school?" were enough to get you laid through your first couple of years. Older women, if just because of the smaller ratio of hot ones to the general population, seemed more exotic and sexy. Plus, they had nicer places to go than dorm rooms or college houses, and were always very impressed when you could go more than twice in a night. And you usually got a nice breakfast or brunch out of it. I don't think we were deluding ourselves at all; it was a pretty sweet deal.

              1. Coeus   13 years ago

                College age pussy was never off the table. "What's your major; that's so interesting, what led you to that; what are you going to do when you finish school?" were enough to get you laid through your first couple of years.

                Then you were either one of the 10% who got regular teen-age ass before Junior year, or you had a vastly different college experience than I did. It's dry bones now for the first two years of college for a large majority of males. Hypergamous impulses are increasing at a geometric rate now that social-shaming has mostly gone by the wayside. It's both good and bad. It means that for the first couple of years, freshman girls are off the table, but it also means that saying "Hi, I'm a Junior/Senior" is all you need for seduction for the last 2.

                1. The Hammer   13 years ago

                  I went to a private college with a lot of girls from Catholic high schools, which probably helped.

  2. Auric Demonocles   13 years ago

    Is this book new enough to have alt-text?

  3. Hugh Akston   13 years ago

    If there is hope [wrote Winston] it lies in the proles.

    If there is hope [wrote the AP] it lies in the Republicans.

  4. CE   13 years ago

    The immediate future is not so bright -- continued record spending, record borrowing, and record deficits as far as the eye can see, followed by an economic collapse, followed by a political one. After that, some of the autonomous regions that rebuild may be considerably more libertarian than what we have now. Of course, some of them will be worse.

    1. fish   13 years ago

      Libertarian because we are too broke to afford anything else!

  5. JerseyPatriot   13 years ago

    Reason has called 8 of the last 0 Libertarian Golden Ages.

    1. Voros McCracken   13 years ago

      Yeah the problem is that binary politics has proven unbelievably effective. If you can get people to loathe the other side (Sarah Palin is an excellent example), binary politics allows you to scoop up massive amounts of votes despite not being a particularly good alternative yourself.

      Your never going to convince someone to vote libertarian unless they think they could win. Otherwise they'll simply vote against the party they hate. And no one's ever going to think libertarians can win until you convince more people to vote for them. Catch 22.

      1. Pro Libertate   13 years ago

        That's some catch!

        1. Voros McCracken   13 years ago

          It's the best there is.

      2. Brandybuck   13 years ago

        The catch is that you need to offer something to the voters to get them to vote for you. Which principled libertarians will not do.

        But it's more than that, you also need to promise to do stuff to other people. Like arrest "illegals", or bomb Arabs, or tax the rich, or force fatties to diet, or something. People want carrots for themselves and sticks for their neighbors.

        We need a radical change in social mores before the average voter would consider cutting back on their consumption of coercion. It's changing in some areas (marijuana) but remains as gluttonous as even in others (cocaine, heroin, etc.).

        1. Voros McCracken   13 years ago

          The only thing you can offer Republicans that matters to them is that you can beat Obama. I think we learned that in the primary.

          And the only thing that mattered to Democrats in 2004 was that you could beat the evil Bush. Hence John Kerry, war hero.

          Everything else is small potatoes. And libertarians can't offer either at the moment.

  6. James Otis   13 years ago

    Optimistic libertarians?
    Good one!
    No, seriously, that cracked me up.

    1. Mr. FIFY   13 years ago

      I am... I'm optimistic that we are fucked if either Team has ultimate power.

      /loophole

  7. Fluffy   13 years ago

    I'm just having fun, RPA! Doesn't that make everything I do and/or so permissible and free of judgment? I could have sworn you just said that.

    The reason this is ridiculous:

    You are equating your outrage that two (or more - or a lot more) other people who aren't you are having fun with RPA being annoyed at you being a dick directly to him.

    You are saying, "Well, if you think people who want to fuck each other should be allowed to, that means you also have to think I can take a shit on your head. Because those two things both consist of a lack of moral judgment." And that would be fucking stupid.

    1. Randian   13 years ago

      I wasn't outraged that they were 'having fun', so that doesn't hold water as a criticism. I said that PUAs are no-class losers, and RPA said "well, they're just having fun and that's all that matters". Well, no, actually, that is not all that matters.

  8. GettiYetti   13 years ago

    Well they do seem to know whats going on? I mean like really.

    http://www.Privacy-Peeps.tk

  9. Drake   13 years ago

    The New Libertarian Age - is that some kind of alternative universe? Please tell me how to get there, because this one sucks.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Maryland's New 3 Percent Tax Will Chill the State's Emerging Tech Sector

Tosin Akintola | 7.6.2025 6:30 AM

Conflicts and Contrasts Make Jerusalem Endlessly Fascinating

Jacob Sullum | From the August/September 2025 issue

In Defense of the Tourist Trap: Why Following the Crowd Might Be the Smartest Way To Travel

Christian Britschgi | From the August/September 2025 issue

69 Percent of Americans Say American Dream Is Not Dead

Autumn Billings | 7.4.2025 8:30 AM

With Environmental Regulatory Reform, California Gov. Gavin Newsom Finally Does Something Substantial

Steven Greenhut | 7.4.2025 7:30 AM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!