Libertarian Moment Update: "Wall Street is getting tired of funding socially conservative Republicans…"

The future clearly belongs to socially liberal, fiscally conservative candidates. Which means Dems and Reps have some growing up to do.


Via the Twitter feed of Mike Hewlett comes this Business Insider piece that rings true to all of those regular Americans who identify as socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Here's hedge fund billionaire Leon Cooperman quoted on a recent Wall Street Week episode:

"I tend to be more Republican in my views, but socially very liberal. I'm going to have trouble with any Republican that does not disavow a fixation with social issues," he said. 

"Republicans have to understand that because young people in our country are not grabbed by those issues."…

During the last presidential election, it looked like Wall Street might finally get the kind of Republican they were looking for — Mitt Romney.

For most of his career, Romney was known as a moderate technocrat.

But when he ran for president, Romney was forced to turn to entice the party base. He played up his conservative family values instead.

Many on Wall Street loved his private-equity/business background to be sure. They liked his ideas on foreign policy, even, but they weren't crazy about his sudden lurch to the right on issues like abortion.

More here.

Let's file this sort of comment under "no duh." As noted here just a few weeks back, social conservatives are losing steam, with Gallup finding for the first time ever a tie between those of us who identify as liberal and conservative on social issues. At the same time, more of us identify as fiscally conservative than liberal on economic issues. Similarly, a composite "libertarian index" dating back to the early 1990s finds record-high beliefs that the government should do less in both social and economic realms. A year ago, Reason's poll found that 53 percent of millennials would vote for a socially liberal and fiscally conservative candidate. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the future belongs to those who, to paraphrase Rand Paul, belong to a "live and let live" party that also learns how to balance its books.

It's not all sunshine and rainbows regarding hard-core libertarianism, for sure. As Business Insider's Linette Levin notes, Wall Street types would be pretty happy with someone like Mike Bloomberg, who is generally pro-business but also the poster boy for all sorts of nanny-state bullshit, ranging from soda, smoking, and trans fat bans to gun control to highly dubious green initiatives; add to that his patently stupid comments against pot legalization.

However, it's also worth keeping in mind that NYC money men Daniel Loeb and Cliff Asness (the latter a rock-ribbed Ayn Rand-digging libertarian) were responsible for the Empire State's legalization of gay marriage. Surely the GOP would pick up far more votes than it lost if its presidential candidates emphatically stated that many social concerns are simply not the province of the state and should be addressed through civil society rather than top-down mandates.

NEXT: Former DeMaio Aide Admits Fabricating Threats over Sexual Harassment Claims

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they 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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Yet the checks keep on coming for Chuck Schumer…

    1. And he wanted an added pound of flesh – a get-out-jail card – if you dare give up your US citizenship.

      You want to escape America? It will cost you 40%.

      1. Chuck’s bitch tits are a 99% composition of ex-pats money.

        1. You know who else wanted 40% exit tax?

          1. Iraq?

  2. The future clearly belongs to socially liberal, fiscally conservative candidates.

    Voters keep kicking that future down the road.

    1. It will arrive with your fusion reactor and flying electric car.

    2. And Michael Bloomberg defines what is meant by “social liberal”

      1. This times 1000. Reason is whistling in the dark to say otherwise. Wall Street isn’t your friend.

      2. Just remember, whenever “socially liberal” and “fiscal conservative” come into conflict, socially liberal wins every single time.

        Essentially, the “socially liberal/fiscal conservative” label may be a nice stated preference, but the revealed preference of those who claim it is “socially liberal”.

      3. Bloomberg defines Crony

      4. True. For the moment. But as John points out, “socially liberal” & “socially conservative” are unstable terms, because the “socially liberal” keep redefining themselves, moving the agenda.

        1. Not to mention how mean and heartless it is to be financially conservative. The thoughtlessly social liberals can’t square financial conservatism with their feelings of altruism (with someone else’s money).

    3. Only one minor problem: in real world experience, socially liberal and fiscally conservative are mutually exclusive concepts. Other than that it makes for a nice buzz phrase to drool into a martini at the upscale cocktail party.

  3. How about “Wall Street” stop funding politicians…period? They all end up over-regulating and disappointing. Can’t even stay bought.

    1. You don’t buy politicians with money – you lease them. To buy takes something a bit… different.

    2. Does a business have a choice anymore? You must pay off bureaucrats so they’ll leave you own.

      Just like La Cosa Nostra.

      1. Obozo Nostro

    3. That’s the comment I was looking for. Just try an experiment, Wall Street: turn off the ATM for both parties and see what happens. Or start funding issues, not candidates.

  4. Oh please. Wall Street doesn’t give a damn about social issues or young people. They will fund anyone who allows them to maintain their stranglehold on the economy. Citi, Goldman, etc throw their support behind the candidate they believe has the greatest chance of holding power.

    1. Just as those who rob Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul, those who do not rob Peter can always count on the support of Peter.

      But there are more Pauls than Peters in this world.

      1. Judging by judges there appears to be quite a contingent of Dicks.

  5. If you blinked, you missed your libertarian moment.

    I’d be truly surprised if 5% of the people who are going to vote in the next asshole even knew what “socially liberal, fiscally conservative” meant. Rs don’t vote for Ds and Ds don’t vote for Rs, period.

    1. Not to mention that Wall Street is easily the most cronyist part of the economy. That has received roughly $13 trillion (that’s roughly 150 years worth of food stamps) in subsidies/distortions over the last 8 years.

      My question is are they libertarian because they are ‘socially liberal and fiscally conservative’? Or because they quote Ayn Rand while living off the teat?

  6. If the Supreme Court drives a stake through the heart of the gay marriage issue, it may be the best thing that ever happened to the Republican Party.

  7. So are we supposed to hope that repubs/conservatives pander to Wall Street in order to get their money for elections? Or is the point to somehow gloat over the confirmation that uber-wealthy New Yorkers are socially liberal while folks in the flyover states aren’t?

    What exactly am I supposed to get out of this article?

  8. I’d sure like to know when we’re finally going to get some of that fiscal conservatism to go along with our social liberalism for once.

    It’s great that people can march in the gay pride parade and all, but we’re going bankrupt and many of our kids have no job prospects and no future.

    1. Never, as “social liberalism” is social progressivism not social libertarianism.

  9. The problem is that voters care about social issues in elections far more than they should. People vote for or against candidates often on single issues like abortion, but it is not just the right that is overly fixated here. Most liberals would never vote for a pro-life or anti-gay marriage candidate no matter how great they were. They will vote for people who say they are those things during a campaign, but only as long as everyone knows they are lying. The liars tend to win, and thus keep lying, so who’s fault is that?

    1. That’s true, largely because fiscal issues have become overwhelming, ungraspable. Once gov’t is taxing & spending so much, the amount gets to be a non-issue in people’s minds. Plus, they’ve gotten used to a lot of it on the state & national level (& not only in the USA) being seemingly on auto-pilot. Witness “social insurance” (SS in the US) & gov’t employee pensions. It’s so hard to resist, people turn their att’n to where it seems they might have an effect. Even within fiscal issues in the USA (maybe in other countries too), foreign aid gets a disproportionate amt. of att’n, for symbolic reasons.

      Similarly re foreign & military policy, it seems that once you’ve got the gunboats, it becomes mostly a matter of how, where, & when you’re going to use them, rather than whether. As many of you may know, I believe in utter ruthlessness when it comes to war, and I think that’s how people in general ought to think about it, i.e. that if you’re going to war, you should make it horrible, & never try to make it anything but horrible. Instead people seem to think about it as routine, humdrum, nothing to throw a fit about.

      1. Even within fiscal issues in the USA (maybe in other countries too), foreign aid gets a disproportionate amt. of att’n, for symbolic reasons.

        The problem is the people focusing on it don’t know enough to know those reasons are symbolic. They are too ignorant to know the real financial problems are entitlements.

  10. “However, it’s also worth keeping in mind that NYC money men Daniel Loeb and Cliff Asness (the latter a rock-ribbed Ayn Rand-digging libertarian) were responsible for the Empire State’s legalization of gay marriage.”

    Wow, that was a Libertarian Moment, wasn’t it?

    “Cynthia and Robert Gifford are caught in a same-sex nightmare. They’ve been forced to defend themselves against claims that they’re lesbian-hating homophobes.
    “We respect and care for everyone!” Cynthia Gifford told me. “We had an openly gay man working for us this past season,” she said.

    “”We’ve had a woman who’s transitioning to be a man. We don’t discriminate against anyone.”

    “But the government of the state of New York sees things differently. The Giffords, who own the bucolic Liberty Ridge Farm in upstate New York, were ordered to pay a total of $13,000 ? a $10,000 fine to the state and another $1,500 to each member of a lesbian couple to compensate them for “mental anguish.” All because the Giffords, devout Christians, refused to hold a same-sex wedding ceremony on the property on which they live, work and have raised a daughter, 17, and a son, 21.

    “This is scary,” Cynthia Gifford said. “It’s scary for all Americans.”…..heir-farm/

    *That’s* what Wall Street people mean by social liberalism.

  11. I think this is largely true, with one huge exception: immigration. The majority of Americans (Dems, Reps, or independents) want less of it. The only ones who want more are Democrat politiicans who want to elect a new people, some business types who want cheaper labor, leftists who a want more Third World U.S. (“End the white capitalist patriarchy!”), and doctrinaire libertarians who don’t see how “freedom of movement” can work against all other libertarian values.

    If libertarians could somehow keep the rest of their principles but be restrictionist on immigration, they would have far more support, and be more likely to get what they want in many other areas. Unfortunately, I don’t see a way to square that circle.

    One downside of Team thinking that people want their ideologies to be “consistent.” This means they will often take principles too far. But principles are abstract mental constructs that may not be perfect fits with reality in all instances. So when one conflicts with reality, people tend to dismiss the evidence of their senses rather than admit that part of their beliefs aren’t working.

    1. So. Who makes the list of ‘undesirables’?

      1. Too much of anyone is not a good idea. We certainly don’t need to further drive down the cost of unskilled labor, or further strain the welfare state with more poor people and refugees. I’ve also come to dislike the Silicon Valley love of H-1Bs, which often amount to indentured servants. We don’t need to turn the US multilingual by importing so many non-English speakers, and in what’s clearly going to be a generations-long cultural and religious conflict, it’s idiotic to allow immigration by more than some tiny number of Muslims.

    2. Actually I’ve noticed for about the entire time of the modern libertarian movement in the USA a wing of it that was restrictionist on immigr’n (& in some cases on int’l trade). You’d never notice in the rest of their views anything putting them at odds with libertarianism generally. This was true of, for instance, radio talk show hosts (David Brudnoy, Gene Burns, some lesser known), “patriot”/”sovereign”/”Constitutionist” types (who litigated pro se vs. gov’t a lot), & bikers.

  12. The only thing Wall Street cares about is the bottom line.

    “Libertarian moment?” What the fuck are you talking about, Nick? All levels of government (city, state, county, federal) are, to varying degrees, violating the constitution. Cops murder people with impunity. Counties steal people’s property. King Obama engages in illegal “kinetic actions.” Courts abdicate their responsibility to keep other branches in check. Kids get kidnapped by the State for the temerity of playing outside. The US still has the largest prison population in the world. Media companies get harassed for what their commentators print. Etc. fucking etc.

    Tell you what, Nick. Go try to pump your own gas in Oregon. Go ride a bike in Spokane without a helmet. Go smoke a joint in Louisiana. Go sell some loosies on the streets of New York City, then come and talk to me about your “Libertarian Moment.”

    Outside of gay marriage (I would consider marrying Warty to have access to his music collection) and marijuana, freedom is in retreat on all fronts.

    1. Yeah, I can’t wrap my head around using what Wall Street/New Yorkers deem socially ideal as a politician’s litmus test.

      Nor can I wrap my head around abortions-for-all and legal-recognition-of-gay-marriages-for-all as the do-or-die libertarian choices we must make. I can think of quite a few individual freedoms I rank higher than those two (including free drugs for all) and that would be much easier to rally the other 51% of Americans towards. Yeah, yeah, i hate the war on drugs too. But to dismiss the other half of the country as backwoods squares is just plain foolish and will never ever give you a libertarian moment. Why not appeal to those folks too Nick?

      1. “Why not appeal to those folks too Nick?”

        First he’ll have to overcome his sense of ritual pollution which he seems to feel at any contact with icky SoCons.

        1. This seems to be the case. And is why I’m disappointed in what I thought was a largely philosophical, rather than cultural, movement.

        2. Socons in cahoots with Progressives gave us Alcohol Prohibition.

      2. “Why not appeal to those folks too Nick?”

        They are losers. Libertarianism is a philosophy of winners.

    2. “Outside of gay marriage”

      If you are interested in Freedom, you might want to look into that a little more closely. Why is it that the gay movement (not just the marriage issue) have been unique in advancing Freedom in our society? I would have thought Libertarians (one of the least successful Freedom advancing movements) would pay more attention to how the gay movement has achieved its remarkable successes.

      1. Because that has not been about freedom, but equality. The gay rights movement does not really give a fig for freedom (which is why they are keen on forcing people to do business with them). Any expansion of freedom is incidental, it is not the goal.

        1. Equality? The gay marriage movement zoomed right past that stop when it started going after people’s livelihoods and getting the state to enforce its “protected class” status and privileges.

          As between the folks who own Liberty Ridge Farm and the lesbians who sicced the cops on them, who do you think is more equal?

          1. “started going after people’s livelihoods and getting the state to enforce its “protected class” status and privileges.”

            You are repeating the same idiocy as Mickey Rat. The state doesn’t need the gay movement or anyone else to egg it on to go after people. When Rights are granted, Enforcement is just around the corner.

            What’s odd here is that the only social movement to have recently advanced Freedom in society recently is excoriated in a so-called Libertarian forum.

          2. Equal access to largesse is important.

        2. “Because that has not been about freedom, but equality.”

          I disagree. It’s about the freedom to be yourself. I don’t think anyone in the gay movement believes that gayness equals straightness. The movement is defined by the disparity in sexual tastes, not their equality.

          “which is why they are keen on forcing people to do business with them”

          You are confusing the gay movement with the government. But you do have a point in there somewhere. Once a movement wins rights, the government must step in to protect them. With rights come responsibilities.

          “Any expansion of freedom is incidental, it is not the goal.”

          Something tells me you don’t think too highly of the gay movement. Is that why you resist studying their unique success in advancing Freedom?

          1. What he’s getting at, I think, is that the gay rights movement is not, for most of its adherents, driven by a desire for equality. It’s driven by an egocentrism, a desire to “get something for my people.”

            Hell, I’ve gotten a progressive to proudly admit he doesn’t care about equality so much as power for “his people.” Never forget: progressives don’t have principles.

            And as for the rest of the dumb masses? They really want to signal socially that they feel the right feelings about homosexuals. And that’s as far as it goes for most of them.

            1. You seem to be confusing gays and progressives. One is a sexual preference, the other is a political preference.

              I think gays typically want to live their life out of the closet without suffering for it too much. Like the ability to hold a job without be fired for being gay, for example. Maybe this is egocentric or unprincipled, you’d have to convince me though.

            2. Wait, stop. Everyone, STOP.

              Let’s be clear about the difference between legitimate civil rights issues and the jacking of those issues by leftists who want to control society by pulverizing it into competing special-interest groups.

        3. “Equality” needs to be in scare quotes there, but you’re absolutely right.

      2. One big difference: Hollywood has lots of gays, but not lots of libertarians.

        1. “Hollywood has lots of gays”

          Not all that many. Gays make up, what, 10% of the total population. That’s a far cry from 50% + 1. They’ve done very well despite that since the movement started in the late sixties.

          1. Gays are more like 2-3% of the overall population, but there is a much higher percentage in the entertainment industry, and some of them are very powerful and wealthy. (Not that there’s anything wrong with that.)

            1. “but there is a much higher percentage in the entertainment industry”

              So are Jews and Scientologists but I don’t see anyone claiming that these groups have advanced Freedom. Jews run a horrid little apartheid state in Israel and Scientologists are notorious for their cultish practices.

              1. Jews run the freest country in the region by far.

                1. You mean Arabs are allowed to buy homes in Jew-only settlements? That’s what you mean by Freedom?

                  1. mtrueman|6.15.15 @ 9:02PM|#
                    “You mean Arabs are allowed to buy homes in Jew-only settlements? That’s what you mean by Freedom?”
                    Trueman is not interested in facts; trueman lies. Nothing trueman posts is to be trusted.

              2. mtrueman|6.15.15 @ 3:34PM|#
                “[…]Jews run a horrid little apartheid state in Israel[…]”

                Keep in mind that trueman lies. Trueman lies whenever trueman wants to make an argument.
                Trueman is a liar and nothing trueman posts is worth shit.

              3. Re: apartheid State. Have you checked wit Saudi Arabia lately? Tried being gay there? Or try being gay in Gaza. It is a hanging offense.

                1. “Re: apartheid State. Have you checked wit Saudi Arabia lately?”

                  If trueman said to look east for the sun tomorrow morning, you would be well advised to keep an eye westward.
                  Trueman lies; that’s all trueman does.

                2. “Re: apartheid State.”

                  You don’t appear to disagree with me.

                  1. And Jews are welcome to visit Saudi Arabia.

          2. The gay population is no where near 10%. It’s closer to 1%. Not that it matters when it comes to these political issues, but it’s important not to overestimate the number of people we are talking about.

    3. What period of time are you looking over? You might have a case re the time since the turn of the century, but that’s a short period to be getting a good avg. over. If I look back over 20 or more yrs. I see freedom increasing quite significantly.

      Most of the bad things you mentioned either have not actually increased (or can’t be proven to have), or are merely new versions of things that’ve gone on in somewhat different formats for a long time. I get tired of listing all the increases in liberty that’ve occurred over the past 20, 50, or 100 yrs.

  13. It’s a mistake to assume that Wall Street players are right-leaning. Being rich people, they:
    * are targets of left-ish agitators, which is bad for business if the noise gets loud enough. Best to buy them off with donations.
    * are influential and subject to the temptation of all influential people to protect their rice bowl first
    * can rent-seek their way to profit, and have no reason to care about level playing fields.
    * can afford regulatory compliance, and benefit from it to the extent that it raises the barrier to entry for potential competitors.

    Masters of the universe are primarily interested in continuing to be masters of the universe, which is why they get along so well with politicians who are primarily interested in keeping their power. Libertarianism in no way supports that goal, so the masters of the universe are never going to break Libertarian.

    1. Not even man at arms?

      1. That statist embodiment of the military-industrial complex? Nah, if anyone I’d say Battlecat…

    2. Very true JTR. Many big corps depend on government contracts to enrich themselves. My experience in healthcare taught me that if you wanted to get filthy rich, you figured out a way to legally bilk Medicare or Medicaid through some absurd government healthcare program. No matter how conservative the employees and execs are at home, all big healthcare people become flaming libs when it comes to expanding or cutting federal healthcare.

    3. Also, they want to get invited to the “right” cocktail parties, and that’s not going to happen if they oppose gay marriage or anything that the “right” people (and their wives) believe.

    4. Libertarianism in no way supports that goal, so the masters of the universe are never going to break Libertarian.

      I guess we throw our lot in with Skeletor, then

  14. So billionaire donors telling Republicans how to vote is The Libertarian Moment these days?

  15. I think Nick missed an opportunity here to reiterate something he’s articulated in the past. Maybe his views have changed.

    I personally don’t think “Fiscally Conservative, Socially Liberal” is (or should be) the description of the Libertarian brand. Its a cliche formula that i think misleads people about what kind of politics represent the libertarian ideal.

    Because whether or not I have “socially liberal” or “socially conservative” views should be irrelevant = I don’t believe in making “social” things political at all

    I don’t want politicians who sell themselves based on having “the right” social views, or voters who want to impose these views on the rest of America.

    I want politicians who believe that what makes America great is the freedom we allow for people to live whatever kind of life they want.

    If those views are religious and conservative = more power to them. if they are secular and liberal = whoop de doo. Go for it. What I don’t want us anyone enforcing one group’s POV over the other. The implication that we “as a country” are moving in any direction is meaningless to me because I don’t give a shit about ‘the country’ as some homogenous totality, but rather the freedoms of the range of individuals within that mix.

    1. I disagree. I think it’s a fair approximation for quickly explaining libertarianism to someone who knows nothing about it.

      The only problem I have with it is that progs are no longer liberal…they are becoming full-on statist.

      1. “I think it’s a fair approximation for quickly explaining libertarianism to someone who knows nothing about it.”

        The problem is that it reduces the Nolan chart to a 1 dimensional “left/right” axis, and fails to communicate anything about “liberty”

        the underlying principle that fails to get communicated is the idea that some things should be beyond political control

        I could also quibble with the point about fiscal ‘conservatism’. I’d prefer to describe it as “sanity”

        1. I put it to you that (the stated) fiscal positions of Republicans (free markets) and the social positions of liberals (keep government out of my bedroom) are in support of personal liberty. Although, I do agree neither live up to their stated positions.

          It’s a good jumping off point.

        2. The trouble w “sanity” is that many would think of that similarly to fiscal policies that’ve been described as “sound”, “conservative”, “responsible”, or “prudent”, by which was meant minimizing borrowing by any means available, including raising taxes.

      2. I agree with Gilmore. The problem is that there are a whole bunch of people who think they are socially liberal because they support gay marriage and legal abortion but it never occurs to them that their support for gun control, food regulations and any number of hundreds of other nanny state regulations is not socially liberal by any reasonable definition of the term.

        To the extent most of the people who claim to be socially liberal actually are, it mostly relates to sex and maybe Pot and not much else. And that is a problem.

        1. I agree with Gilmore as well. It’s a good shorthand formulation, but only up to a point. It’s one thing to be “socially liberal” in the sense of “let gay people be gay.” But that has now shifted, and now “socially liberal” can mean “force that priest/baker/pizzamaker to serve at a gay wedding,” or “you must address me by my preferred pronoun (which we invented last week),” and all sorts of other illiberal crap.

          1. Because the Progs use the term as a political weapon. They are the creators and the aggressors in the culture war not the right. The Progs use the culture war as a way to avoid debating the merits of their position and to marginalize their opponents.

          2. The trouble w that is that in most of the advanced world by now they do let gay people be gay (or lesbian); it’s only the backward countries where that battle hasn’t been won.

            Meanwhile when it comes to drugs, about as far as most of the progs will get you is not jailing users.

            Aside from that, where will they get us, liberty-wise, starting w where things are & where they are? They’re no longer good on porn, even. They’ve even started to move to the wrong side re antisemitism (although they’re not against Semites) & anti-orientalism.

      3. Yeah, but the problem is that to a lot of people that winds up being translated into “liberal Republican” which isn’t at all correct. Or if it is, then just be a Republican and be done with it. The key difference between a libertarian and a conservative or a Progressive is the belief that all aggression is inherently immoral, and the natural consequence of that belief is that government aggression in the forms of things like taxation, regulation, etc. is immoral to varying degrees. There’s actually a fair bit of daylight between, “Government shouldn’t interfere with how people live their lives,” and “Government has no right to tell people how to live their lives.”

    2. Fiscally Conservative, Socially Liberal as a social signifier is deeply subversively damaging to libertarianism, IMO.

      As a social signifier, fiscal conservatism can mean “higher taxes”, if the fundamental goal is balancing the budget (which is generally what it means).

      As a social signifier, socially liberal is generally taken to mean support for proggy causes, most of which are deeply hostile to liberty.

      It is perfectly possible for someone who is a full-on statist to identify as socially liberal and fiscally conservative by calling for higher taxes and the continued expansion of the Total State into every aspect of your life (except, needless to say, your uterus). And by associating the libertarian brand with social signifiers that are hostile to libertarianism, you are damaging the libertarian brand.

  16. Surely the GOP would pick up far more votes than it lost if its presidential candidates emphatically stated that many social concerns are simply not the province of the state and should be addressed through civil society rather than top-down mandates.

    This isn’t even likely, much less sure. We shouldn’t kid ourselves.

  17. As noted here just a few weeks back, social conservatives are losing steam, with Gallup finding for the first time ever a tie between those of us who identify as liberal and conservative on social issues.

    Nick, you do mention the problem of defining “socially liberal” some paragraphs later, but it is still important to emphasize the fact that most people who are “socially liberal” tend to prefer social policies that seek to cocoon people from the vicissitudes of life, like our resident Marxian Tony would say, “Freedom means being free of want.” This would man that socially-liberal people will support policies that would steer people towards perfection. What, in essence, is that different from social conservatives who wants people to be virtuous?

    And another question: What if the social conservatives just want to be left alone? Why is it that when the topic of social conservatism is brought up, the assumption is always that they invariably are for interventionist social policies? Why is the assumption that the Socially-Liberal are NOT?

  18. “Republicans have to understand that because young people in our country are not grabbed by those issues.”…

    The young people are grabbed by “socially liberal” issues that the proggies have pushed for decades. When you mention “fiscally conservative” they know it means “less free shit”. The political left is one stop shopping for social liberalism and, free shit, so why would they bother with libertarians?

    1. And you tell me how anyone is ever “socially liberal” enough for them. As soon as the Progs win on a social issue and the other side folds, they just move onto something else. They create the culture war as a way to constantly marginalize the Right. Does Nick just not understand that?

      1. So, thanks to the negligence of their opponents, liberals control the terms of every debate by always demanding “more” while never defining “enough”. The predictable result is that they always get more, and it’s never enough.

        …Joseph Sobran

        1. Exactly that. What Libertarians should be doing is defining what society and government should look like and working towards that. They need to stop worrying about fitting anyone’s label.

          1. Yup. And that applies to non-cultural things as well. E.g. to a leftist, the problems of Baltimore are due to a lack of “investment in education” and inadequate government spending and meddling in the economy. The fact that they’ve had lots of that for generations is ignored or dismissed.

  19. First, the idea that Wall Street wants “fiscally conservative” candidates is laughable. Wait until they need another bailout and see how interested in fiscal conservativism they are then. Or have a candidate of either party question the wisdom of the Fed forever screwing savers and the middle class with easy money so stock and asset prices can forever inflate and see how “conservative” Wall Street is.

    What a joke. Beyond, that as Old Mexican points out above, “socially liberal” is a relative term. There is no objective definition of what set of views constitute socially liberal. So Progs just constantly move the bar. It used to be anyone who thought gays should be able to live openly was “socially liberal”. Then anyone who didn’t think the states should be forced to grant them marriage licenses is out of the “socially liberal” club. Now anyone who thinks that transvestites are anything but the greatest most courageous people on earth is out. And soon it will be something else. Progressives are using “socially liberal” as a way to slowly destroy our freedom and make us into the nasty and intolerant society they so long to create. And Nick is cheering them on.

    More culture wars and Wall Street bailouts. The Libertarian moment has arrived.

    1. Wait until they need another bailout and see how interested in fiscal conservativism (sic) they are then.

      Amen Brother.

    2. When I went out on some errands earlier I heard Rush saying the same thing.

      1. See!! I knew all of you Peanuts just take your marching others from Fat Rush!


  20. So…. libertarians have to get into bed with Wall Street – and by that I mean crony capitalism – to gain political power?

    Uhm… no thanks.

  21. Appeal to Bullshittery is not much of an argument.
    I stopped reading; did we get a quote from that flimflam artiste Leo Hindery? What about that babbling idjit Jack Welch?

  22. I fucking despise SoCons. But, as has been pointed out above, anybody who pretends “fiscal conservative” wins out over “socially liberal” in that self declared overlapping population of survey respondents is an idiot.

  23. OH SHIT! Another libertarian moment and I missed it again!

    1. wooosh!

  24. Plot the number of subpoenas received by Reason by decade. Tell me about that libertarian moment again.

  25. Surely the GOP would pick up far more votes than it lost if

    Those things are never sure.

    The trouble is that even the independents aren’t independent. They too have their clusters of opinion (& other clusters of social influence) which, even if they don’t appear at a given moment to align with a Team, make them subject to herding rather than independently weighing each issue of interest to them. You can never tell if some peccadillo will upset a few opinion leaders currently aligned or unaligned with a given Team who’ll then pull a bunch of folks with them according to affiliations you’d never have considered (membership in their church or club, fandom for some celeb, etc.)?& the opinion leaders aren’t all the professional “opinion leaders” you think of by that phrase; they can equally likely be anyone who gets temporary att’n for some reason.

  26. I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h? Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link… Try it, you won’t regret it!……

  27. Honestly, the candidates in the race that most identify as “social conservatives”, Huckabee and Santorum are polling terribly. The only reason any of the others even talk about it from my perspective is the media trying to elicit some sound bite with gotcha questions about attending ssm’s and whether they believe in evolution and whatnot. Don’t think it’s quite the fixation the guy’s making it out to be.

  28. Surely the GOP would pick up far more votes than it lost if its presidential candidates emphatically stated that many social concerns are simply not the province of the state and should be addressed through civil society rather than top-down mandates.

    Excellent summation and my new favorite campaign slogan. Perhaps a bit wordy but on point…
    “Not the province of the state”

  29. I clicked on the link hoping to a closer up view of the chick in the t-shirt, instead some old white guy pointing his finger.

    That is fraud! Where is Senator Warren when I need her?

    1. You’re hoping to see Fauxcahantus instead of some random white guy? What is wrong with you?

      1. No! The brunette with the “Legalize Reason” t-shirt

  30. One can not be fiscally conservative and socially liberal. The socially liberal wants the fiscally conservative to pay for idiot human rights programs. You mean socially libertarian, I’m sure !!

  31. Some have apparently forgotten what happens to fads like “free love” of the 70’s. Always
    some who are afraid to go against those who proclaim homo beavior the newest thing – been around for 40,000 years (as long as murder, incest, etc) and never made sense to those who
    don’t suffer from sexual mental illnesses. Look at the logic – it stinks. Always has, always will.

    1. Arthur, are you claiming that physical attraction to the same sex is ‘mental illness’?
      If so, I think you got lost on your way to Storm Front or some such.

  32. Hey – what’s up.
    I click on the hot chick pic and I get a tired old may pic

  33. That’s great, Nick. How does he feel about funding crony corporatists? Sounds like he’s half-way there. A step in the right direction. I’ll take.

  34. “Libertarian moment”, huh? That’s been happening for how long now? I mean, gay marriage is neat and stuff, but ya think maybe we should hold off on the bunting and the parades and such until, I don’t know, we don’t have the IRS enforcing mandatory health insurance, or maybe we’re not fiddling around half-assedly in the Middle East, or perhaps we’ve abolished the DHS and repealed the Patriot Act even?

    I mean, as a Redskins fan this puts me in mind of last season when a tight end would get a first down and celebrate at the friggin’ 42 because, hey, it’s a first down, and that’s progress! Nick’s like, “Oh boy, some millenials think gay marriage is the shit and maybe people shouldn’t go to prison for smoking pot sometimes! LIBERTARIAN MOMENT!!!”

  35. This is really funny, because Wall Street gives way more money to the dems than Republicans. The whole place is mostly white and liberal. The notion that Wall Street (outside of some libertarian leaning hedge fund managers, I suppose) is TIRED is a sponsoring socially conservative Republicans is….. is unlikely.

    Who was most excited about the Hillary Clinton campaign, even more than feminists? It’s Wall Street.

    The elite’s fixation of “social issues” is the height of hypocrisy. I shouldn’t even ask if they make money in countries in which abortions are TOTALLY illegal and women aren’t allowed to drive. Their leaked private emails reveal them to be racist little cretins. “Deportation” is the solution to illegal immigrants in Mexico and socialist European paradises.

    These people don’t care about social issues. They hate the construct of their ideological foes that exist in their minds. Which is why feminists are more outraged by “rape denialists” than the actual act of rape.

    You’re telling me these Wall Street guys will be 100% happy if their lily white daughters smoked pot all day and brought home a black boyfriend? Bullcrap.

  36. The left with the help of much of the “main stream media” is doing a wonderful job of lumping libertarians in with “extreme right wing conservatives”. It is sad to see how often Rand Paul and Ted Cruz are both referred to as Tea Party candidates. Libertarians still have a very long road ahead.

  37. If you don’t like baby murder, grow up!

  38. Michael Hihn|6.16.15 @ 9:33AM|#

    “On what authority do you (apparently) reject a woman’s equal, unalienable and/or God-Given right to Liberty?”

    On the authority of the unborn child’s God given right to life and liberty to be free from murderous assault. It is the most basic right which creates the basis/necessity for all other rights. No life means no possibility for liberty. To state they are precisely equal is intellectually disingenuous IMO. The loss of only one of those permanently negates the possibility of the other.

    What about quarantines, suspension of habeas corpus, martial law and curfews as denied and disparaged rights.

    1. He doesn’t understand (or like) NAP.

      You could make an argument that abortion doesn’t violate NAP; you’d be wrong, but you could make the argument. He won’t because he doesn’t think NAP is necessary to be a libertarian.

  39. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ??????

  40. Sir, you are a scholar and a gentleman! I salute you.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.