Rod Dreher says no:
Let me make a point that's going to be overlooked among secular conservatives of Reformist impulse: no conservative movement that hopes to be successful can do so without religious conservatives. It will be very easy for secular Reform conservatives to sell op-ed pieces to newspapers, in which they argue that the GOP will not be revived until and unless it cuts itself free from the Religious Right. It'll be easy for them to sell that point because it suits the prejudices of the kind of secular liberals who run the media. But it's quite wrong.
As a tactical matter, I think he's correct. There are not enough fiscal conservatives/social liberals, or even fiscal conservatives/who cares? to make a party.
Where does that leave the libertarians, though? Since the end of the cold war, when our military policy was at least arguably explicitly pro-market, the libertarians have been slowly unbinding themselves from the embrace of the Republican party. Can we live with a party that embraces socially conservative goals? Should we go to teh Democrats? And if we stay with the Republicans (in broad sympathy, if not in votes, etc), then how do we build an acceptable common platform?
Federalism is helpful. If you take the position, as I and, I think, most libertarians do, that there is no explicitly libertarian position on abortion*, then it makes sense to demand that the federal government take no stance on that issue. Even gay marriage can be finessed, I think; in five years, conservative Christians facing social change may well be ready to support getting the state out of the marriage business.
But federalism will not get us the whole way. If the Republicans want not merely grudging, but enthusiastic support from libertarians, I think what we need is in many ways a more minimalist platform, one refocused on having the government do as little as possible. We'll probably still end up electing a lot of pro-life congressmen who want to do something about that. But if the Republicans stop making it an issue for the party as a whole, they'll pick up more votes in the northeast and the west coast.
Is it worth it for them to change to woo us? I don't know. I don't share the libertarian confidence that we are going to achieve massive new affirmative steps in our direction; a lot of the things we want, like a simpler tax code and privatized social security, are actually issues that the Republican leadership agrees with us on, and the greater American public does not. But perhaps it's worth trying to prune the party platform back to the common ground, and then build from there.
* the belief that there is an explictly libertarian position is held, as far as I can tell, almost entirely among liberals furious at pro-lifers. Persons have a right to be protected against the initiation of force, and libertarianism has no basic principles that answer the question of when personhood begins.
Does the air get thin atop your ivory tower?
Wasn't McCain mostly libertarian? Lower taxes, lower social spending, lower business subsidies, lower trade embargoes, very pro free trade... That sounds very libertarian to me. Especially compared to Obama...
What am I missing?
Megan, I hear what you're saying and I love the plan for unity, but I have to say that I can practically guarantee that the Republican social and religious conservatives will never stop making abortion an issue for the party as a whole. For many people, that is THE only issue, and even if they vaguely see the forest through the trees, they will never agree that this issue should be back-burnered enough to include a whole group of those without a fierce belief that life begins at conception. They will believe that cuts at the very heart of who they are. I hope that the libertarian party can be absorbed and can moderate the temperate of the GOP. But it's about as likely as them merging with the illuminati left.
There is a perception that government welfare enables a lot of the disfunctional behaviors that social conservatives criticize. Prune the government funding that enables these behaviors, and you would probably see a lot of social conservatives opening up to the idea that decriminalizing some of them (drug abuse, for instance).
Will Wilkinson had a couple of posts last week speculating that the percentage of socially liberal/fiscally conservative voters was going to increase in years ahead.
I'm a tad skeptical. If there's a real ideological shift in the offing, I sure don't see it.
As much as we might like to flatter ourselves otherwise, I really don't think the Republican Party needs libertarians anymore. I think Karl Rove proved that the religious right is such a mindless, reflexively Republican demographic that if you feed it a steady diet of rhetorical red meat about "families" and "traditional values" or whatever, you can lock down a plurality pretty quickly.
I think libertarians are just going to have to ask themselves individually whether they can bite the bullet and tacitly support the social conservatives' agenda. For me, the answer's no.
in five years, conservative Christians facing social change may well be ready to support getting the state out of the marriage business.
People who say this--including, strangely, some law professors such as Reynolds--appear to have no idea how entrenched marriage is in all aspects of the law. There is virtually nothing that marriage does not touch. This isn't a matter of repealing the civil marriage laws. It's a matter of answering thousands upon thousands of questions about relationships in property, tort, civil and criminal procedure, evidence, tax, and yes, federal entitlements. Hell, even the securities laws would be affected.
The problem there is that federalism is only helpful so long as the topic is specifically abortion. The instant the topic of the day turns to things like euthanasia, medical marijuana, gay marriage, or Sciavo-type family law social cons will drop their federalist "principles" and turn on you like mad dogs.
MM, thanks for the post! As a relatively pro-life, small-l libertarian, it's nice to read other libertarians who admit that you don't have to favor permissive abortion to be a libertarian.
[I'm not religious. I've just seen the ultrasounds of my own children. They weren't "clumps of cells" or "mostly fluid". They were little girls hanging out in Mama's tummy!]
IMHO, regarding abortion, Republicans need to focus on the areas where there is more agreement: the later parts of the pregnancy.
I had a little hope Barr would make a good showing, despite the fact he's a buffoon.
I don't think the Libertarians care enough to get involved and seize what looks like an opportunity. Half the Reason staffers never vote.
I think half the appeal of Libertarianism is hating on both parties and pretending to be above the fray. You can never be disappointed in your own guys if your own guys are never in power. You can talk about theory and how no one has applied it correctly, same as all my Marxist professors did.
The GOP has basically been running on a platform of finger-pointing that the true believers seem to enjoy. I think the Libertarians are committed to something similar, but without the messy involvement and compromise.
I think the GOP will ignore Libertarians, at least in the short term. The Libertarians, because they refuse to engage, will make it very easy for them to do so.
A seriously silly question:
It might be easier to reform the Democrats?
Over at Will Wilkinson's place a few people are arguing, basically, that although he and Kerry Howley and their fellow travelers call themselves "Libertarians", they are actually "Classical Liberals". Using the term to describe their socially liberal (pro-sex, -drugs, -gay marriage, -equal rights, etc.) attitudes is basically, misusing the word.
Personally, I think their politics are great, so if that makes me a Libertarian, fine, and if it makes me a Classical Liberal, that's fine too. And I have no idea if there's some significant underground battle in the free market world about the terms.
To me that seems like the point here: there are two "Libertarian" philosophies that overlap in the "free market" parts of the venn diagram. If you're on one side, you like the Republicans. If you're on the other, you don't.
You're arguing strategy, not philosophy: which circle will maximize the parts of the graph you like and minimize the parts you don't. Different Libertarians will clearly have different opinions.
"If you take the position, as I and, I think, most libertarians do, that there is no explicitly libertarian position on abortion*, then it makes sense to demand that the federal government take no stance on that issue."
The problem with this notion is that it ignores the Constitution. The Federal Government takes a position on abortion solely because banning it has been declared unconstitutional.
You may argue, as many have, that Roe was poorly decided [I disagree], but in order to overturn it you would have to attack every decision from Griswold forward dealing with equal rights. Conservatives imagine that is is easily done, but I am certain that, just as with a Republican dominated government, the law of unintended consequences would run havok with the Bill of Rights itself (ie: torture as US policy & practice).
In order to overturn Roe, you would have to declare a foetus a Person under the Constitution. This is a Pandora's Box that would inevitably unleash consequences that would be disastrous to the very notion of individual rights.
In order to overturn Roe, you would have to declare a foetus a Person under the Constitution
Doing that would surely unleash unintended consequences, but it's not actually necessary to overturn Roe. All you have to do is revert to the position which Blackmun himself states, but ignores, namely that SCOTUS doesn't know when life begins, so it won't take a stance on the issue.
We sent the Republican party a message that we couldn't be taken for granted.
Who's "we", Iraq Invasion cheerleader?
"A lot of libertarians are feeling a little frisky nowadays. We sent the Republican party a message that we couldn't be taken for granted. Now isn't it time to press our claims, get rid of the social conservatives once and for all?"
Lew Rockwell wants to get rid of the social conservatives once and for all? Oh, excuse me, I forgot that when you write "libertarians" you only mean _your_ type of neolibertarians, not those Bircher-esque paleolibs.
Back to the original post, it's pretty much irrelevant who libertarians support. They're a minute percentage of the electorate, and (at least as far as neolibs are concerned) their core competency is bitching and snarking as opposed to, say, building an effective political coalition (which would require them to sully themselves with ideological compromises).
But perhaps it's worth trying to prune the party platform back to the common ground, and then build from there.
Or perhaps you could start a libertarian political party--to give you an opportunity to actually vote for fellow libertarians like yourself. A way for libertarians like you to be able to proudly show the courage of your convictions. Why hasn't anyone thought of that?
Well, my understanding is that the "libertarian" position on abortion is that it is an issue of personal morality and as such, the govt has no business legislating it. That's not the same as there is no position on it.
That said, I think an intersting platform to position is articulated here:
http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/11/election-blues-and-reviews-iv-toward.html
1. Regligious freedom (i.e. personal morality to stay out of politics - focus on individual rights)
2. Free Speech
3. Free Trade and Economic Freedom
4. Immigration sanity
5. A foreign policy of self-interst (as opposed to weakness or altruistic democracy building)
All people vote values heirarchies. That is, many people, even though they're religous, might find enough of this sort of platform palattable as to have it deter a vote for a leftist.
The number of people who would throw all of this out, simply for a prolife vote on abortion are smaller than one might think.
For the most part we're seeing libertarians turn from libertarianism to liberalism. I mean, the sort of things that pro-life conservatives want are things like: no federal funding for ESCR, no federal funding for abortion, no federal right to an abortion, limits on federal spending overseas as regards abortion. But we see supposed libertarians insisting on expanding the list of things funded by the government, rather than fighting the funding.
I think if there's a Republican that actually runs on lower taxes and (here's the key) significantly lower spending, a lot of libertarians can support him. McCain's small government plan was basically no earmarks and a spending freeze. When economists say you're going to increase the debt by more than the Democrat, you have quite a fail of a plan. Cut defense spending in half or more, be honest about major cuts to Medicare, privatize SS, and don't go insane about abortion and gay marriage, and yeah, you'd see a lot of people who really don't like Republicans right now come over.
The problem is of course, that this isn't actually politically viable. You automatically lose seniors by proposing to drastically cut their benefits, and right now seniors are the only demographic actually voting Republican. People like the idea small government but also like all the benefits of big government. That's a tough one to reconcile.
Yesh,
Please all of you read this:
Judith Jarvis Thomson
"A Defense of Abortion." Philosophy and Public Affairs 1 (1971): 47-66.
You can be a libertarian and even grant the fetus a complete right to life at conception.
As for "Persons have a right to be protected against the initiation of force,", is it not better to say that "Persons have the right to not be killed unjustly". It seems in the former, a cop who initiates force to protect a hostage would violate that principle but not the latter.
Libfan at 1:36,
You're missing several deal-breaking biggies about McCain. Here are a few:
1. War. The man loves it. He thrives on conflict. See the Russian invasion of Georgia and his incredibly hyperbolic, saber-rattling reaction to it for an example of this. He was hoping to turn that regional conflict into something big and international so he could get into it up to his elbows and really show voters what's what. Suffice it to say that libertarians aren't typically fans of anything that requires the Federal government to spend tons of money and get all up in other people's business unless there's a damned good reason. Even then, getting libertarians on board is a serious crapshoot.
2. McCain-Feingold has done the most to limit political speech and impede the ability of third parties to compete with the Dems and GOP on a national scale. The man has shown himself to be a gleeful enemy of freedom of speech by sponsoring one of the biggest affronts to the First Amendment. That alone should be enough to inspire disdain for the man.
3. Something you may have noticed about libertarians is that many of them really, really like economic argument. It's extremely common to see an argument in favor of some kind of libertarian reform couched in economic terms. McCain is singularly incompetent on matters pertaining to economics, so there's a pretty big turn-off to a whole bundle of libertarians.
4. He is given to serious temper tantrums. I would think that not just libertarians, but anyone not blinded by excessive loyalty to the GOP would blanch at the thought of someone as notoriously choleric as John McCain in charge of a country.
The point is that John McCain has more going against him than a few positions he holds that are favorable to libertarian ends can make up for.
Judge each candidate by their platforms and actions, but ignore their political affiliation. If enough good people get in (or enough bad people are kept out), the party issue will take care of itself.
And yes you can oppose Roe v. Wade and still be a Libertarian.
The libertarian-religious compromise has to be that the party will oppose all legislation and regulation that would prohibit religious people from acting on their faith. Libertarians will go that far, but they won't take the extra step that the right has sought in recent years -- supporting laws that force the religious side's view of moral conduct on others.
Dreher can argue all that he wants about religious folks being by far the majority of support for Republicans, but it doesn't really matter. If they can't sign up the libertarian side, then they lose elections and they get Democratic governments that will outlaw much of what they hold dear.
True, Democratic rule doesn't particularly appeal to libertarians, but if the religious right insists on having the sort of Big Government Republican party that we've had under Bush, then Republicans are not better than Democrats, and probably worse.
When economists say you're going to increase the debt by more than the Democrat, you have quite a fail of a plan.
When was the last time that wasn't true? Do you really need an economist to point that out? And IQ above Levi Johnston ought to do it.
And what're the libertarian positions on the most recent FISA laws, Habeas Corpus, and torture (I know what Megan's are)?
Judge each candidate by their platforms and actions, but ignore their political affiliation.
Excellent, often overlooked point. But wouldn't the Libertarian candidate usually support more libertarian positions than any other party's candidate? You know, as a rule.
Past Reagan, I've found the Democrats more congenial to fiscal conservative/social liberal ideas and more effective at implementing directionally-correct policies (e.g. welfare reform). There is absolutely no home in the Republican party for socially moderate, much less libertarian, views; social moderates have been the useful idiots of the party for the last 16 years. Economic competence was completely absent in both Bush administrations, each of which brought financial crises.
The Republican Party does not represent your ideals and does not want to hear your ideas. Get over it.
Past Reagan, I've found the Democrats more congenial to fiscal conservative/social liberal ideas and more effective at implementing directionally-correct policies (e.g. welfare reform).
Welfare reform was forced on Clinton (he vetoed it before he signed it) by Gingrich. Who, if I recall correctly, was not a Democrat.
Granted, that was years ago.
This post is exactly the reason I read your blog.
Personally I think there is a more centrist party brewing amongst us. Though I'm not sure what it is going to take to get it off the ground.
Hmmm . . . there's a lot of that going around. I'd like to vote Republican again someday myself (I think of myself as an 'Eisenhower Republican', which these days is apparently some sort of Democrat.)
If libertarians ever want to have any sort of influence, as opposed to just being cover for policies that have been previously decided but need a rationalization for public consumption, they're going to have to make some hard decisions on which of the major parties does the most towards promoting their conceptions of personal liberty. _Neither_ party is going to cut spending any time soon.
Scoop,
I guess we'll soon find out who is worse.
I largely agree with what you wrote, but I'm not so sure you meant only what you wrote. I'm not religious, but I do favor the government imposing some "moral conduct" on people; for example, prohibition on the initiation of force. In my mind, that includes preborn humans, but I understand that some might disagree.
Trying to wave away the disagreement by calling it religious (it isn't) or "personal choice" won't work. Why can we not kill sixteen year olds? Two year olds? What about two week olds? Minus one week olds? It's certainly a matter of "moral conduct" and we need a way to resolve how we'll decide such things.
I want only a very minimal state, but I do want one that prevents others from killing my one year old. I also want one that prevents you from killing your own one year old and I don't think you can write me out of the libertarian movement for wanting it.
Best regards,
--Colin
On libertarians and abortion...
IMO, the uncertainty in the "when is it a person" question allows libertarians to rationally come down as pro-life or a pro-choice, depending on how they answer it. If you believe personhood arrives at conception, it's an entirely libertarian position to convey rights to that unborn individual. If personhood arrives after the first trimester, you're a libertarian pro-choicer, protecting the rights of the mother. Nothing irrational with that is there? It's just another judgment call that doesn't have to upset first principles.
Now, if you're not "in it for the fetuses" and your pro-life position comes from some other motivation, you're probably not much of a libertarian after all (at least on this issue).
The abortion issue doesn't have drive a wedge between libertarians and social conservatives. There are plenty of other problem issues, but with this one, we could probably all sit under one big tent.
Personally I think there is a more centrist party brewing amongst us.
What's wrong with the Libertarian Party? Unless, you're not really libertarian, just a Republican who thinks calling themselves one sounds interesting or are an arrested adolescent, not yet ready to let go of Objectivism.
Megan, just one sort of crux point I'd make about your post: you implicitly equate fiscal conservatives and small-government conservatives.
They're not the same.
The postwar evidence pretty clearly suggests that somewhat larger government and somewhat higher taxation (than what we have) results in more prosperity, and the ability to balance the budget when appropriate--the fundamental definer of fiscal conservatism.
Pro-growth progressives are trying to tell you that small-government Conservatism is in fact directly at odds with fiscal conservatism. (Especially when the central political strategy of small-government conservatism is "Borrow abroad. Buy votes here.")
Start with Bartels. Keep reading the research and data on correlations to long-term growth in developed countries. The conclusions are pretty resounding, downright unequivocal.
http://rodrik.typepad.com/dani_rodriks_weblog/2008/03/american-politi.html
Y'all (especially those in the Will Wilkinson camp) should check out some of the articles by social conservative / libertarian economist Jennifer Roback Morse. She makes the case that a minimalist state depends heavily on traditional family institutions (e.g. two-parent families raising and educating their children) to do a lot of heavy lifting to ensure ordered liberty. When the family breaks down, the state gets a lot bigger (more welfare, divorce courts, wealth re-distribution, crime goes up, etc.)
Since everyone is born and raised in a family of some kind, it makes sense to have cultural norms and policies that promote the stability, independence, and responsibility in families that undergird political freedom. Now we might disagree on how best to promote those things. But lots of us social conservatives sometimes feel like we are trying to save libertarianism from itself when the leftish wing advocates social changes as if they are cost-free.
Libertarians will have to compromise with someone-otherwise they are a political minority with no say in a two-party system. And the two-party system is here to stay.
With that out of the way, the question is which of the major parties is most compatible with libertarian ethics? It is my opinion that the party most respecting of private property is the one more deserving of the support of libertarians. Historically this has been the Republican party, but that respect has certainly been in retreat for a while, and it has not been due to ground ceded to, or taken by, the Democrats. It may well be that the political trend overall is to less respect for private property- that is certainly my observation. With this decline in property rights also goes the decline in personal liberties like speech/advocacy, association, and freedom from coercion.
I am a pessimist. The current trends are against liberty and freedom. At some point there will be a violent revolt, but that may lead to an even darker place.
Can someone here give me a quick lesson on Federalism. I mean, the usage above seems to imply leaving things to the states (or the Feds not getting involved), and yet, originally, wasn't Federalism about strong central government? Or has the usage of the term changed.
Anyone who can give me a quick definition of how the term has evolved or is used now, would greatly appreciate it. Thanks!
Finn,
I have the same understanding of the history of the word. Today, it clearly means states and/or the people should have all the rights/powers not explicitly granted to the federal government by the constitution. I have always thought that a better term might have been "explicit constitutionalism". Of course, that term would encompass more than what the term "federalism" does in present times.
From my own center-left perspective it strikes me that if libertarians feel they have more in common with social conservatives than with liberals (as has tended to be the case) then maybe they should find another name for themselves than "libertarians". By allying with social conservatives they make a statement that their primary value is to reduce taxes rather than to support liberty in the broadest sense of the word.
Is it possible, maybe, if libertarians crowd into the democratic party, that we might pull them closer to libertarianism?
Perhaps we're looking at this from the wrong perspective. What if a party were to organize around actually solving a problem.....what a concept.
I think it's safe to say that the next two years of single party governing will not only NOT solve a single problem, it will spawn at least two or three more problems for each issue it says it's trying to address.
GOP, pick a problem or two.....doesn't matter what, just pick something, and take a stand on it to be addressed with the next Congress, in 2011.....another Contract with America, if you will. Another 1994 is definitely possible.
First, on economic policy, campaign grandstanding aside, the fact of the matter is that the Dems have moved significantly to the right on economics over the last 30 years.
Second - it's not all about tax rates; a good libertarian will not want to tax future generations any more than he wants to be taxed himself, which means that spending is the most important rubric....and both parties are equally bad on that front. The difference is that the current crop of Republicans spend it on things with much larger unintended consequences (like invading every country they don't like).
Third - who says that Republicans need libertarians and vice versa? They don't. At this point in time, the biggest practical difference between the two parties is on social issues, an area where Dems have a distinct advantage and in which Dems are likely to be more open to libertarian arguments than conservative Republicans.
Meanwhile, there are lots of groups that the Republicans can pick off, over time, from the Dems based primarily on social issues. Indeed, there were a handful of groups this year where McCain outperformed or equalled Bush in 2004 (which is equivalent to outperforming Bush given the gawdawful political climate), including the elderly (which he won and which were historically a big Dem bloc) and union voters (he still got trounced but he did about 7 points better than Bush, getting I think 39%). If Republicans de-emphasize or moderate their positions on one or two other issues, they'll probably start doing well (or at least much better) with other socially conservative, fiscally liberal voters.
To expand on "Diversity"'s not-silly question: mightn't it be easier to create a significant, fiscally responsible wing of the Democratic Party? The God-and-Flag wing of the Republican Party is going to be energized, not disheartened, by the actions of the incoming Congress and administration. Likewise the pro-drilling, anti-immigration, and foreign-intervention wings. Together these groups are large enough that the Republican Party will neither move toward the middle nor go the way of the Whigs.
On the other hand, the unavoidable, massive deficits that face us may provide a sufficient barrier to new and expanded programs to open up a niche for a Concord Coalition-type bloc within the Democrats.
The problem is that under Bush, the Republicans are no for economic freedom.
However, under Pelosi, the Democrats are for political correctness and the nanny state - and want greater state intrusion into personal affairs.
This leaves me in a world where the Democrats are more for economic freedom and the Republicans are more for personal freedom - where Canada has a freer market than America, and the Mexican government gives less money to plutocrats than the American ones.
What happened to my country?
Phil P,
I think libertarians can adopt common cause with social conservatives and still be liberty-motivated.
I think those on the left (esp, IMHO center-left) tend to overstate their eagerness for liberty. The Obama plan for mandatory community service (recently obscured on change.gov) for middle school, high school, and college students is something the left supports, but that sure ain't liberty. (I don't think it makes it better if they shift from requiring community service to using tax money to pay for it. I'd similarly oppose paying students to attend "Patriotism Seminars" or whatever the right-wing equivalent would be.)
I don't know any Americans who were sent to Gitmo, but I know lots of students and parents of students.
As a libertarian, I want the government to get out of certifying particular family structures (i.e., defining marriage). Most liberals I know want the government to give social sanction to gay couples and, further, to use public schools to impose their moral message that gay marriage is "just as good" as hetero marriage. That might be nice, but it's not liberty. It's using the state to push your own moral agenda.
I wouldn't have voted for Prop 8, but I see a dim silver lining in its passage: it is a useful counter-example to the "Democracy Makes Right" message that many liberals feel after last Tuesday.
--Colin
It wasn't the SoCons that sunk McCain. Social issues barely figured in this election at all. It wasn't even the warmongering NeoCons that did in the GOP this year (though they certainly didn't help). It was Grover Norquist and his clones. They've basically painted the Republicans into a very small corner, preventing the party from crafting a viable solution to problems the voters actually care about and want solved. Healthcare is the most obvious example: McCain came up with a healthcare plan only the Cato Insitute could love-- it certainly wasn't remotely like anything the public wants.
JonF,
For me, part of the point of libertarianism is not having to worry about "what the public wants". The public wanted to invade Iraq in 2003. In 2006 they were furious that we did. In 2008 they stopped caring altogether.
Much of what "the public" knows about "healthcare plans" is probably wrong. (Just like much of what they know about gay marriage is probably wrong.)
You're right that they're scared to death of McCain's plan, but a big reason why they're scared is that Obama spent millions of dollars scaring them. He didn't spend that money because he was afraid McCain's plan would fail, but rather because he was afraid it would work.
Markets are scary because "no one is in charge", but they work. Socialized medicine isn't magic and won't be magic by making insurance companies disappear. Obama will not be able to provide more services at less cost. That can only happen through efficiency gains and, as MM has often blogged, it's hard to make the personal work of healthcare more efficient. [He will be able to make drugs less expensive at the cost of the existence of future drugs.]
--Colin
It wasn't the SoCons that sunk McCain. Social issues barely figured in this election at all.
Except I was leaning toward McCain before he picked Palin. So at least in that respect, the SoCons caused the McCain ship to take on a lot of water.
"Most liberals I know want the government to give social sanction to gay couples and, further, to use public schools to impose their moral message that gay marriage is "just as good" as hetero marriage."
I'm sorry, but this is blatant mischaracterization. What "most liberals" want is the same government-given rights heterosexual couples have applied to all couples. There are quite a few of these that in many states you simply cannot get as whatever quasi-legal structure currently exists. If that means making marriage a religious-only thing and having a separate government construct for *all* couples, awesome. I think we liberals would love that. The difference in rights is the primary issue; stop conflating things.
As for schools, well, that's completely farcical. That's the kind of boogeyman scare tactic that got Prop 8 passed, and grats on using that to such great effect, I guess, but it isn't remotely true. Nobody wants to indoctrinate your precious snowflakes. They just want an end to "separate but equal".
The Republican Party today is a mixtures of traditional "cloth-coat" old time Republicans, the religious right and business friendly supply-siders. Libertarians, even when the term is stretched, are a small minority of the GOP. As for abortion, gay marriage etc. - your belief that you can parse these yes/no issues into some kind of middle ground is, at best, laughable. The most successful recent Republican politicians (Gingrich, Bush) were skilled at papering over the obvious divisions in the party. That's the best the Republicans - now more Southern, more right-wing and further away from middle class pocketbook issues than ever - can really hope for right now. As for "Libertarians", that nebulously defined group is trading just below GM's stock at the moment, and hardly just with liberals. Good luck offering to broker the future of the GOP.
"Socialized medicine isn't magic and won't be magic by making insurance companies disappear. Obama will not be able to provide more services at less cost."
Which is why our health care system is ranked well below that of virtually every single other developed country. Clearly what we need is to go in the exact opposite direction all those successful health care systems have taken.
Adam,
As I said, I didn't favor Prop 8, though as a non-Californian I didn't get to vote against it.
I'll take you at your word that you don't favor using public schools to indoctrinate students, but I think your claim that "no one wants to" is too strong. Many do. Honest liberals whom I know say as much. I don't think you have to ask too many liberals to find a sizable number that favor government re-inforcing the message that this all marriage is the same. (I'd bet on a majority.)
I also don't think you'll find too many liberals that will endorse government getting out of marriage altogether. There exist liberals that really want government's (or, they'd say "society's") endorsement that gay marriage is "just as good as" hetero marriage.
[Note: I don't want government to endorse *any* marriage. I'm not religious, but I'm libertarian!]
(Thanks for the kind words about my little snowflakes. They're really quite cute!)
--Colin
Adam,
Two objections: one practical, one philosophical:
1. I think there are social, genetic, and environmental factors that apply in the U.S. that don't apply in other countries. The test would be their system with our population, not their system with their population.
2. Studies show that religious people are happier and have more satisfied sex lives than non-religious people. I don't support compulsory religion, no matter how "happy" the outcome. Likewise with health care.
I don't object to your wanting to socialize your medicine. I object to your wanting to socialize mine. If it's such a great system, you can form a socialized system without coercion. Get together with a bunch of people and form a system. The rich voted for Obama. You should have no problem getting them to chip in! Why must your system include me and my money?
Best regards,
--CF
Adam: wasn't prop 8 a vote over the word "marriage"? Aren't civil unions still available in CA?
So doesn't that mean that the same rights (except for those covered by DOMA, which Prop 8 couldn't affect) are available right now in CA?
If I'm right about this, then what are you complaining about (if I'm wrong, please correct me)?
Someone will one day have to explain to me the libertarian brats who grew up in a nation that, despite the best efforts of the great pig trough builders, the Republican Party, managed to create a governmental structure that allowed them to grow up with good water, inoculations against fatal illnesses, zoning that "restricted" some but made the world somewhat more rational and bearable. Someone. Some day.
Who's "we", Iraq Invasion cheerleader?
ed...psst, ed...uhm, everyone else is too polite to say it, but your material is six years old and no longer funny. Catch up on the news for the past month -- I believe your party took both the legislative and executive branches, and as a nifty bonus, it gets to complete an Iraq troop wind-down that is already beginning and take credit for it. Time to push the Sneer Machine back into the corner for a spell and start forumlating some constructive policy positions, eh?
Adam - Go wait 2 years for a hip replacement in Canada, and then come and give us a report. Canada's "system" has become the 900tonne gorilla of every province's budget, squeezing education, infrastructure and public safety, yet the system still leave many people in pain for huge amounts of time. It isn't free (anyone with a non-trivial income pays "premiums" to the government in addition to huge taxes) and there is a lot of stuff not covered (Dental, Pharma and Vision being the biggest) so you still want to get some sort of supplementary plan from your company or on your own dime. Also, lots of cutting edge drugs and technologies are simply not availible at any price, but Canadians know that they exist because they can look over the border. Maybe rationing healthcare works in Europe where folks don't know any better, but it doesn't work when you know there is an alternative.
Not only that, but Canada free-rides on pharma development which has become almost a US-only industry, since only the US for-profit healthcare regime can pay the huge costs of development.
Finally, the whole thing is really just a form of corporate welfare for big companies.
There is nothing wrong with the Libertarian Party, except for the fact that hasn't been able to wedge itself into our two party system and make it the three party system. Just like the Green Party et al.
My comment is that whatever you decide to call it, a third party is forming in the minds of the electorate. Just wait until the Democrats aren't able to deliver on their promises even with their "mandate." Just like the Republicans can't deliver on their promise to shrink the government. Someone has to take the reigns from these two groups and force ourselves into a more practical system of governance.
but your material is six years old and no longer funny.
It was never funny. Ever. And by the way, did I miss a sincere apology somewhere.
I believe your party took both the legislative and executive branches
Not my party. You must have me confused with somebody else.
Oh, and Megan, if you're so eager to vote Republican again, you ought to register to vote first. It's pretty easy, no thanks to the Republican party, which isn't in favor of easier voter registration (aka democracy).
Yes, ed, thank you for your insight. The problem isn't that I don't know how to register to vote; the problem was that I had the wrong date for the registration deadline, so when I tried to register, it was too late.
I consider myself a libertarian.
I am a 25 year old gay, white, college-educated male with an income in the middle-$40s. In the only two Presidential races for which I have been eligible to vote, I voted for the Democrat. I have voted Democrat in most state and local races as well. But like you, I'd like to vote Republican someday.
Even though I have sided with the Democrats for the last seven years, I think that in the long run the Republican Party may be the better party for maximizing individual liberty. This is founded on my belief that in America today there are basically two political coalitions:
1. The Democrats, who are composed of ethnic minorities, sexual minorities, labor, and other historically disempowered groups (as well as those who sympathize with such groups). To paint with a broad brush, this is the party of "things are bad, and government is our tool for making things better".
2. The Republicans, who consist of religious and cultural conservatives, big business, some fiscal conservatives, and the "my country, right or wrong" crowd. This is the party of "things used to be better than they are now" -- and despite claims to the contrary, they have attempted to return to the old days by legislating behavior.
While neither party is a natural supporter of libertarianism, the Republican Party may provide a better constituency a return to liberty.
As you allude to with your gay marriage example, cultural conservatives may one day realize that they have lost the "Culture Wars". When that day comes, it may become easier to persuade them to develop their own non-governmental institutions than to rely on government fiat. Before this can happen, the Republicans must repudiate their recent behavior (see Orin Kerr and Roderick T. Long). Then, if conservatives stop trying to force their ideals on others, perhaps they will be content to cultivate their own norms apart from government.
On the other hand, increasing numbers of Americans are opposed to the status quo. The Democratic Party has picked up an anti-establishment streak in recent years (due mainly to Bushian excesses), and I fear that this will vanish once the Democrats take power. To wit:
- As Baby Boomers age, there will be the temptation to expand pensions and medical entitlement programs.
- Sympathy for oppressed groups will result in the passage of laws (and court decisions) the correct old wrongs by creating new privileges.
- As global industrialization continues, rising labor costs -- along with increasing transportation costs -- will bring manufacturing back to America. While this is not de facto negative, I fear that it will create a resurgence of unions.
Such changes will not be permanent. Even if the Democrats do expand government, there will one day be a counter-reaction just like the Reagan revolution was to the Great Society. But I fear that the pattern is just like the business cycle: even though there are peaks and troughs, in the long run, it just keeps growing. And as less liberty is permitted, less liberty is permissible.
Libertarians must continue to voice their opposition. For my part, I have taken to opposing Democrats' policies even while supporting their candidates. While many still think that things were better in the past, I know that people throughout history have been easily persuaded to trade liberty for alleged "progress".
Sorry, Megan.
But I think you're projecting and being a tad presumptuous to think that libertarians are a solid GOP voting bloc. Perhaps under certain conditions and contexts they may be. But in general, I don't think so.
Perhaps I'm projecting a bit as well but being a libertarian who has rarely voted GOP, I think the idea that a GOP is a default voting position for libertarians is a bit misguided.
Re: For me, part of the point of libertarianism is not having to worry about "what the public wants".
All hail King Colin I!
Seriously, if that's what you're looking for you need a monarchy, with you as the king-- and not a figurehead, but one with real power. Those aren't too popular these days, generally for good reason. And a libertarianism that leads to "L'etat c'est moi" strikes me as very strange libertarianism.
Re: You're right that they're scared to death of McCain's plan, but a big reason why they're scared is that Obama spent millions of dollars scaring them.
McCain threatened to disrupt people's existing arangements, with which many people are content. That's a bad idea, not to mention running counter to good old conservative principles about leaving standing applecarts upright and unbroken things unfixed. The proper libertarian/conservative response would have been to do nothing at all. Or if that wasn't politically viable, then the next best proposal would have been to extend the current tax deducibility to everyone, not just employees or the self-employed (and maybe throw in a tax credit for lower income people).
Re: Socialized medicine isn't magic and won't be magic by making insurance companies disappear.
I have yet to see where Obama is proposing making insurance companies disappear. His plan builds on the existing system and, crucially, leaves strictly alone anything people already have. What it does do is establish a public back-up for people who do have their own insurance through work. Since the public already pays for uncompensated care through various backdoor mechanisms, this is less a fundamental change than it may seem-- it just rationalizes what already happens. (And this will not be "free", as some reasonable contribution will be required). The leftwing Netroots fanatsizes that this will evolve into single-payor, but I don't see that at all. We have public-private mixes of this sort in many other areas (education, transportation, security) and the public option has never and no where driven the private one to extinction. And businesses do not offer health benefits out of pure altruism: they offer such benefits because they want to attract workers. That motive would not change under Obama's plan; employer health plans are here to stay.
Re: I'll take you at your word that you don't favor using public schools to indoctrinate students, but I think your claim that "no one wants to" is too strong. Many do.
The only area where I have seen schools weigh in on the gay issue in any way is in demanding tolerance for gay students and punishing bullies for harrassing them. Are you in favor of kids being bullied and treated intolerantly? That's an even weirder definition of libertarianism (Freedom for brats to bull others!), and I have trouble seeing why even conservative religious folk would stick up for such rights. At least it is not thus that I understand the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Re: I don't object to your wanting to socialize your medicine. I object to your wanting to socialize mine.
Obama's plan would not force you to change your current healthcare arrangements.
Obama's plan would not force you to change your current healthcare arrangements.
What about the plan actually passed by the Pelosi/Reid sausage factory, and destined to be signed rather than vetoed by President Obama?
JonF,
Re: "King Colin". Nah, I don't think I'd be a good king and I'm not in favor of a monarchy. I don't think you need a monarchy to leave the private sphere very large and the public sphere really small. I imagine there are a lot of homosexuals in California who now wish that "the public" didn't get to decide the parameters of their family relationships.
Re: healthcare. I fear that existing arrangements will be disrupted by reality. The question is: in what direction will we go then? The left seems to want to use the crisis to impose a more socialized form of healthcare on everyone. McCain seemed to want to push toward a portable, market-based approach. (The crack about the Cato Institute was, IMHO, pretty accurate.) The nice thing about a market approach is it would let those who believe a socialized system would work better to establish their own. Libertarianism doesn't make communes illegal. It just lets some of us live outside them.
I would disagree, re: public education. That system makes it almost impossible for most families to afford private education.
I hope you're right about Obama's health plan. I fear that what emerges will inch us toward more socialism than we already have.
Re: bullying. I agree that schools should act to protect students from one another. I disagree that that is the only action taken by schools. If you check out (Google) the use of pro-gay-marriage book "King and King" in Mass. public schools, you'll find the schools were doing more than stopping bullying: they were teaching values with which some parents disagreed.
I understand the teacher's and administrators' motives: they just wanted to teach that gay marriage is just as good as hetero marriage. I also understand why some parents don't think it's the business of government schools to be teaching that message. [If 52% of Californians disagree, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find that a majority of parents do.]
Again, I'm okeedokee with gay marriage. I don't think that government (or "society") should have a say in how people mutually agree to interact. I'm just consistent in applying that principle.
Have a good night, all!
--CF
Actually Obama’s plan would do quite a bit to force people to change their current healthcare arrangements. Obama proposed not only the creation of a new taxpayer funded healthcare entitlement but in addition the creation of a national “exchange” to force every private plan to conform to whatever was covered in his new Obamacare program. In other words, you would get to “keep your private health insurance” only so long as your plan was rewritten to cover whatever it was that the new federal bureaucracy thought should be covered in your plan.
Somehow, it seems to me that libertarians should have no incentive to stick with any one party - as the GOP has shown, politicians are only interested in "small government" when they're not in power. I expect that after a few years in power, Democrats are going to need to be booted out and hopefully, there will be a new generation of GOP members ready to go into Washington. I respect social conservatives who are consistent and respectful of other religions.
Libertarianism is a political philosophy, and as such inseparable from the social contract to which an unborn fetus has no right. If we assigned all unborn fetuses social security numbers, then I could see why abortion would be an issue. Somehow, I think abortion is moral and thus is a question of ethics. Political philosophies are rarely good at making moral judgments.
Yancey @3:36... thanks for your thoughts. I had looked at wiki and a few other places and just wanted to make sure I was grasping the evolution of how it's used.
Rather than saying that there is no explicitly libertarian position on abortion, I would think it would be more accurate to say there are lots of different explicitly libertarian positions on abortion, from fully legal up to birth to completely illegal from the moment of conception. The explicitly non-libertarian positions on abortion would be something like mandatory abortion for fetuses with prenatal defects, or in order to keep the population down. There probably isn't anyone in the US with a non-libertarian position on abortion.
Just wondering... What concessions are libertarians willing to make to the social conservatives?
That is a most excellent question Doug @ 1:18.
It is also good to know that "libertarianism has no basic principles that answer the question of when personhood begins" given their ongoing campaign of mocking dismissal of social conservatives and the Pro-Life side abortion issue. How convenient! This no doubt happily adds necessary personal flexibility to the Libertarian guiding principle, "Persons have a right to be protected against the initiation of force".
One wonders how on earth Libertarians imagine that they can get "the government" to "do as little as possible" in an environment of intensifying social dysfunction that will inevitably accrue as the Left continues it's Gramscian dismantling of institution of marriage.
But wouldn't the Libertarian candidate usually support more libertarian positions than any other party's candidate?
I don't think anyone counts the L party as a real party. Not because of their ideas, but because the candidates are usually screw ups who can't make it in the 2 party system. Sometimes I vote L if the race between the two major party candidates isn't close and I want to send a signal. Not that it does any good, but it makes me feel better. This for me is rather rare though. Usually the race is close or I actually like a major party candidate and vote for them (or dislike one enough to vote against them and for a viable candidate).
[begin ramble]
For what it's worth, I'm still registered R. I liked the Contract with America. But I don't always vote R. I vote against any candidate who isn't pro-immigration for instance. For me that is the litmus test that shows whether a candidate believes in individual freedom or not. Since I live in Arizona, and there is a huge crazy anti-immigrant faction among the Rs here, I often cross party lines and vote D.
Government does some things right. I'm for clean water standards and other regulations that make living better and more efficient.
I love my country, but I am against protectionism and nativism. I don't mind so much transferring a little wealth from rich to poor, especially w.r.t. subsidized education and keeping people from starving, but I despise wealth transfers from middle class to rich like agricultural subsidies. I like capitalism but I hate crony capitalism. Corporations and the stock market are cool, but I wish our justice system would enforce "fiduciary duty" laws more (executives should make money for investors, not from investors). I wish our Feds would balance the budget and start paying off the debt. I don't mind raising taxes to balance the budget, but I hate the idea of raising taxes while some congressman is rerouting a highway at increased cost in order to raise the value of his best friend's real estate investment.
[end ramble]
I don't think anyone counts the L party as a real party. Not because of their ideas, but because the candidates are usually screw ups who can't make it in the 2 party system.
Any libertarian who could make it in the two party system wouldn't, with the rare exception, be a libertarian.
If nobody counts the L party as a real party, then it probably won't be a real party. Anyone who claims to support libertarian ideals really ought to get on board.
Your ramble makes me think that there ought to be no conceivable way that you could vote Republican unless and until Lincoln returns.
Your ramble makes me think that there ought to be no conceivable way that you could vote Republican unless and until Lincoln returns.
Jeff Flake is my representative. He's a Republican but he's also one of the most libertarian members of congress. I always vote for him. From an interview with Reason magazine while the GOP was still in control:
Reason: What policies could a GOP-run Congress enact that would appeal to libertarians?
Flake: At this late date? Adjournment.
Quite a bit of pessimism here. It comes from being marginalized and ignored by your own party, for so long. As a libertarian I have to say that I haven't been this excited about our movement in a long time. Whatever your criticisms of Ron Paul, he got the Libertarian message out loud and clear. I haven't heard so many people discussing Libertarian issues in a long time.
As far as the social conservatives go, I agree with Jeff; No, the Republican party no longer needs us, and clearly they haven't represented us for a long time. The gop is now the party of social conservative values. As a Libertarian, your not going to get much out of them. It's over, let's move on.
The idea that the gop the is lesser of two evils seems to be the prevailing sentiment. Most of us would vote LP if we felt they had a chance, and we are afraid of 'throwing-our-vote-away'. What logic. If half the Libertarian voters who feel this way decide to vote their principles, what a party we'll have!! If all do, the LP would be a juggernaut. What does this say about our dedication to our principles? Furthermore, I can't imagine a better method of wasting my vote then to give it to a party that doesn't represent me!
I cannot be responsible for anyone else's vote, only my own. It is my duty as an American, to cast my vote for the party/person who's policies will benefit me and my country regardless of perceptions and forecasts of the outcome.
Most of us would vote LP if we felt they had a chance
The problem with the Libertarian Party is they let anyone run. A few years ago, I remember one of our L candidate's major platform issues was letting teachers bring guns to schools. Having seen more than one teacher "lose it" while I was going to high school, I concluded the candidate was either insane or stupid. Either way, I couldn't vote for him and it turned me off of the Libertarian party as a realistic avenue for advancement.
I checked Flake's voting record. He's mavericky libertarian-ish on smaller issues (flag desecration--good on him). On big picture stuff that actually matters, he voted for the Iraq Invasion, against Gay Marriage, for Military Commissions Act, FISA bulljive, and PATRIOT Act. He's about as libertarian as a certain well-heeled Atlantic blogger I could mention. It appears as though Mr. Flake faced a Libertarian candidate every time he's run. People who like to label themselves libertarians should vote for the Libertarian candidate if they have the slightest bit of courage of their convictions.
On big picture stuff that actually matters...
Clipped from Wikipedia:
Flake voted against No Child Left Behind, Sarbanes-Oxley, Medicare Part D, Homeland Security Act[3], and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. He joined John McCain and Jim Kolbe in sponsoring bills to increase legal immigration and establish a guest worker program.
Flake initially supported the Patriot Act and the Iraq War, but more recently has changed his position to one of cautious opposition, including voting against appropriations for both. He also supports ending the Cuba Trade Embargo and has been a proponent of reform in the House, particularly in the wake of former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's ethical and fundraising controversies. He co-authored a letter with now former Congressman Charlie Bass of New Hampshire, which called for DeLay to step down ahead of his decision not to seek re-election to the House.
In response to Eric Smith's comment (http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/11/id_like_to_vote_republican_aga.php#comment-1173301)
the Thomson piece really doesn't settle much.
First, it assumes that people own themselves as they own property, and that that's why we have rights, say, to free speech, drug use, having sex with people for money, etc. A lot of philosophers, though, don't think that is the right way to think of how we derive those rights.
Second, even if you agree with the premise, the conclusion doesn't follow. A lot of philosophers I know have read the article and thought, "Even though the fetus is on my property--i.e., my body--getting rid of it means its dying. I don't think it's morally acceptable to do that." They also don't think that you have the right to kick someone off your property if it means that it's 99% likely that that person will die.
Third, even if you don't think the fetus is a person, you may think it's seriously immoral to abort it. I give you Don Marquis, "Why Abortion is Immoral," The Journal of Philosophy, 1989.
pbh,
The only thing you have to do to overturn Roe is to get 5 SC Justices to admit that it, and Griswald, are illegitimate decisions made solely on the basis of "we're the Supreme Court, we can do whatever we want."
Regulating sex is not one of the Federal Government's enumerated powers. Why is that so hard for lefties to understand?
Republicans need to get back to small government, rather than just being another set of pigs at the trough.
Libertarians need to firmly understand that judicial imperialism is always wrong, no matter how much you make like the result. If it was not put into the Constitution by a knowing democratic majority, >bit's not there.
A knowing democratic majority put equal treatment under the law regardless of skin color into the Constitution. They also had segregation. When it turned out that segregation and equal treatment didn't mix, equal treatment (quite properly) won, because it was what was in the Constitution.
When the fight to give women the right to vote came to a head, the people leading that fight didn't say "hey look, the 14th Amendment requires equal treatment for everyone. Therefore we already have the right to vote. Let's go to court!"
Instead, they got the 19th Amendment passed.
You want "no discrimination based upon sex" as a Constitutional Right? Great. Restart the ERA, and get it passed. Don't go to the courts and demand that judges create the right for you.
You want SSM as a Constitutional Right? Great. Push Congress to get the Amendment process started. Don't go to the courts and demand that judges create the right for you.
You want SSM? Work the Initiative / Legislative process to get it passed. Stay out of the courts.
The cause of liberty is not enhanced by having judges rewrite the laws to meet their personal whims. If you don't instinctively understand why that kind of dictatorship / oligarchy is bad, understand this:
The kind of "judge" who cares more about his personal desires, or about the desires of his social network, than about the law, and his oath of office, is not the kind of person who believes in a small, weak, limited government. And his social circle doesn't believe in that, either. Whatever tactical victories you get from such a judge, strategically you're going to get screwed.
BTW,
A question for any libertarians who claim that Griswald and Roe were properly decided:
If we have the right to control our own bodies, why does the FDA still exist? Why is the War on Drugs still being fought? Why did Dr. Kevorkian get sent to jail, and why is there even the slightest question on whether or not we have the Right to Die?
Why is it, on all these issues where we know that only one human being is involved (no questions about "when does life begin" here), the Federal Government and State Government's get to tell us what to do with our bodies?
Then there's Prop 8. I'd expect every libertarian to be happy it passed.
It's all about Contracts. The State Constitution is a contract between The People, and the Government (including the Courts). Anyone want to seriously claim that the people who wrote that contract wrote SSM into the contract? Anyone want to seriously claim that any later generation amended the contract to add SSM? (If so, you don't know what you're talking about, or are dishonest. Go read the dissent in the ruling.)
So 4 judges decided to unilaterally change the contract between The People and The Government, to favor a third party, manifestly against the wishes of The People (as expressed 8 years previously, in a 61 - 39 vote).
If you care about requiring people to honor contracts, how can you not be appalled by that action? If you don't care about contracts, how can you possibly have a free market?
In short, how can you call yourself libertarian, and not be happy that an invalid attempt to rewrite a contract was defeated? Because some people's feelings were hurt? Really? All it takes to invalidate a contract is someone else feels really bad about it?