« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Whither the Libertarians?

Lots of Questions Today

By: dimondintherough (Diary)  |  November 20th, 2008 at 08:51 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

I read in the Libertarian magazine Reason, that Libertarians were expected to vote for Obama by a greater than 6-4 margin. When I worked on my first republican campaign in 1988 (JKFP) most of my colleagues were self described small government libertarians. It strikes me as a sad state of affairs when our party cannot win the vote of this group.

The question is why?

Has Bush totally lost for our party the small government position? If so that is too bad, because I don’t think he ever claimed to be a small government conservative and he most certainly did not govern like one.

Have the socially conservative positions (particularly on drugs and gambling) scared some libertarians away from the party?

Have other libertarians been scared away by things like the Patriot Act?

Regardless, of the reason we have clearly lost most of them.

So can we bring them back?

Can a Libertarian who thinks marijuana should be legalized sit comfortably in the same tent with an evangelical Christian conservative?

When Reagan was the president he managed to bring these groups together but I would argue that the split began in the ’88 primary when, Bush, Dole, Robertson, Kemp and even Ron Paul all took different factions and I don’t think we have put them all back together in a meaningful way since.

Thoughts? Comments? Ideas?

Tags: ,
Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY

  • Pingback: Melaine Mcmenamin

  • Pingback: Shandra Sago

  • Pingback: Nilda Zeman

  • tcgeol

    Absolutely! I am an evangelical Christian conservative and I believe marijuana should be legalized. I’ve never been fool enough to use it, but if someone else wants to do so, they should feel free. The small-government, federalist side of libertarianism should be a focal point of social conservatism as well.

    Several other issues come into play here, I think. Obviously, the Republican party has not been a small-government party. We have played the intrusive, big-gov part almost as well as the Democrats, and it has killed us.

    On the other hand, a lot of libertarians – especially of the kind who would consider voting for Obama (I’m not referring to all libertarians, Doc Holliday :) - really aren’t libertarian at all, but are basically leftists who don’t want to pay taxes. They are not federalists and Constitutionalists as libertarians should be, but are on the liberal side of the culture war. I don’t think that we would have had their votes in any case.

  • aaronbg

    I am also a Christian who would support the legalization of Marijuana. I have been fool enough to try it in my youth and I found it to be no greater a sin than being drunk. Christianity is not about eliminating the means of temptation, rather it is about not succumbing to temptation by relying on God.

  • 1SGinTN

    nt

  • kyle8

    and have not changed my concern for life and morality issues. But I just came to the realization that on certain “vices” the best way to contain the negative effects was not prohibition.

    In this I followed the lead of Bill Buckley.

  • aaronbg

    no more random whiz quiz….;^)

  • tcgeol

    Keeping people from being able to do as they choose in most areas of life that don’t directly affect others is not part of being a “conservative Christian”, so to speak.

  • indym

    I am a christian and believe that drugs should not be legalized and should be opposed. It goes without saying the path of destruction that drugs, gambling, and other vices have done to our society. The republican party has always had a moral strain since its founding. This is the party that freed slaves, supported prohibition, supported the rights of women to vote, signed the first civil rights legislation since the civil war and have opposed abortion and stood up for traditional values. Millions of voters have supported the republican party in recent decades for these reasons. I think that evangelical voters are more concerned with these issues than with spending and taxes although they would like to see both lowered. I disagree that President Reagan supported libertarian positions or intentionally tried to gain the support of libertarians. I think libertarians were attracted to the republican party because it was the majority party really since 1980 until now. I think you will see more liberterians voting for Obama and democrats compared to republicans in the next few cycles.

  • 1SGinTN

    A long time ago. Nevertheless, every once in a while I wonder what it would be like to once again…..

    And then I twist the top off a cold one instead. Hey, I’m a Baptist, but not that kind of Baptist.

    I’m of two minds concerning the legalization issue, so I generally keep my mouth shut about it, lest I expose my wobbliness. It’s not the substance, its the abuse of it I have a problem with. Moderation in all things (except politics), right?

  • kyle8

    how is that war on drugs workin out for ya?

    Being moral does not mean you have to have your eyes closed or keep making the same mistakes.

  • aaronbg

    It should not be laid at the feet of Republicans as a whole…if you are a progressive than you stand counter to all Conservative thought.

  • aaronbg

    But we must remember that we can’t stop people from abusing any drug…even alcohol.

  • civil_truth

    In principle, I would agree that a pluralistic, liberal (in the classic sense) representative democracy should not interfere with consensual contracts nor with individual behavior that truly does not affect others.

    The problem in practice with libertarians (and also with many of us who aren’t strict libertarians) is that we are tempted to define the sphere of influence of our behaviors and contracts too narrowly in order to deny that outsiders may have a conflicting interest.

    And when conflict arises between the rights of two people or two sets of people that cannot be successfully negotiated, then government needs to step in.

    Just as an example: regarding drugs, buying drugs is not simply an expenditure of discretionary income on an victimless activity: indeed there plausibly are victims – for instance, if your facilities are diminished at work, then you are negatively impacting your employer. The money you spend coupled with others has serious effects on nations where the drugs are grown. Drug trafficking can attract other activities that negatively impact the neighborhood.

    And there are countervailing arguments regarding the possible societal benefits of taking drug use out of the criminal justice system.

    My purpose here is not necessarily to argue against legalization, but to point out that you need to look at all the impacts and consequences, not just your own private sphere, and to recognize that there are conflicting interests. Society needs to weigh the benefits and costs, but the issue of drugs is not just a simple “leave me alone I’m not bothering anyone else” issue.

    Similarly, abortion is not simply “it’s my body, I can do with it what I want” but also involves other lives too, including that of the unborn child, that need to be included in the societal decision process.

    Bottom line: socially conservative positions are not necessarily antithetical to libertarian instincts; the key is recognize the whole web of impacts of various actions and choices, not just those impacts that favor your side of the issue.

  • tcgeol

    to make every immoral act illegal. If people are not free to make mistakes, they aren’t free at all. Our country was not founded for such a purpose and we were never intended to be so. The Declaration talks about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In your view, there is very little liberty.

    Sure, we were to be the “shining city on a hill”, but that was to be because we were a moral and religious people who would do right because we acknowledged God, not because the government was mandating such behavior.

  • 1SGinTN

    but backed off lest I offend a fellow Christian.

    Just let me say that although our laws and Constitution have a basis in and depend on Christian morality, when we legislate against personal vice we put that controlling function in the wrong sphere. Government should neither promote nor prevent the exercise of personal vice. That is between an individual and his God (and to an extent; his priest, pastor, brother, sister, etc). Government intervention in this area creates too many unintended consequences. Don’t put the duty of the individual Christian and the Church in the hands of the legislature.

  • 1SGinTN

    nt

  • Jim_Tomasik

    …

  • birdmojo

    I’m just sayin’.

  • ScottWP

    “it goes without saying…” should probably follow its own advice and not be said.

    Next time, you’ll probably start with “everybody knows that…”

    Your assumptions are claptrap.

    But I mean that in the friendliest way, of course.

    Also, what Top said, to the tenth power.

  • Achance

    Not so much anymore. These things are only a vice if you can’t afford them.

  • aaronbg

    Have you been spending your dividend checks on pot…shame…;^)

  • Achance

    back when it was legal here. Once it was legal it wasn’t so much fun. Actually, even though I’m a child of the Sixties, I never liked pot. Don’t know why one would want to become slow and stupid.

    I don’t really know what I spent this year’s dividend on; it just went in the pot, so to speak.

  • JSobieski

    I agree the Reagan did not purposely appeal to Libertarians outside of the economic sphere (where they are pretty much indistinguishable from conservatives). I think libertarians like Reagan because he talked more about limited government than any president since before the Great Depression.

    Government is not the answer to all problems, and yes that includes social problems.

    In most instances, there needs to be a distinction between legality and morality. Liberty does not exist if people are not free to make their own moral choices.

    Deciding between (1) an immoral act that should be permitted by law even though it unarguably can and does impact others and (2) an immoral act that sufficiently impedes the liberty of others that its prohibition is justified by sanction of law is the $1 TRILLION dollar question in government.

    We all draw the line differently.

  • aaronbg

    you have a boat right…If I am correct then I assume most of your dividends go directly to it in one way or another.

    And I was just joking about you smoking pot…you never seemed to have the required sense of humor to enjoy it…not that there is anything wrong with that…;^)

  • Achance

    is NEVER satisfied. I’d sell it but I’d have to pay somebody to take it these days. Well, maybe I wouldn’t; boats are a good thing in SE Alaska. Thing keeps me working, that’s for sure. We could live pretty comfortably on our retirement if we didn’t have it. Care and feeding of the boat MAKES me go make more money. You know, “boat” really isn’t a word, it is an acronym: Break Out Another Thousand.

  • aaronbg

    I have avoided the urge to purchase a boat for that very reason….Luckily my father-in-law has one…;^)

  • Achance

    If it floats, flies, or, well, you know; rent it! Of course, a buddy of mine who used to claim that as his motto now has a 1941 airplane and a 25 yr old wife, so it is a hard motto to live up to.

    Actually, my boat isn’t too bad as a money committment as long as I have the time and skill to keep it up. If it is stuff I can do and I can get away from SWMBO to actually do it, it isn’t a problem. If I can’t do it, I have to engage one of the marine brain surgeons and that HURTS!