Quick Thoughts on Libertarianism and 2012.
Many libertarians I've encountered on Twitter talk often about how both Democrats and Republicans are equally bad, have equal commitments to statism, and about how neither party is worthy of any support. This leads to the erroneous conclusion (in my humble opinion) that defeating Barack Obama in 2012 just isn't that important if we're going to replace him with a someone just as bad.
To my knowledge, the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell is the singular instance of Obama achieving libertarian ends since he's been in office. Consider then, how much damage he's done to the libertarian cause:
- ObamaCare (which is a 'platform' for a full government takeover of the health care system)
- The Stimulus (which amounted to little more than a payoff to Democratic states and their public sector unions)
- FinReg (which doesn't end 'too big to fail.')
- Escalation of the war in Afghanistan, continuation of the war in Iraq, and a new war in Libya.
- Reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act.
- Failure to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay
There's more, but you get the idea.
In August of 2010, Tim Carney of the Washington Examiner obliterated the notion that there's such a thing as a left-libertarian alliance. I couldn't agree with him more.
You would think that given how much Obama has done that's in direct violation of libertarian principles that defeating him would be the top priority of libertarians in 2012. Based on what I've seen on twitter and elsewhere in the blogopshere, you'd be wrong in making that assumption.
- Comment (16)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
May '11
Re: Quick Thoughts on Libertarianism and 2012.
I voted for McCain for ONE reason - I thought "universal" healthcare from Obama would be more damaging than any warmongering or other damage McCain could do. However, I figured that if Obama was elected, at least we would see Guantanamo closed, wars in the Middle East halted, and the Patriot Act repealed.
...Yeah.
May '10
Re: Quick Thoughts on Libertarianism and 2012.
I make a distinction between the Ron Paulbots and the Tea Partiers.
I think the Ron Paul supporters seem to have not thought through their arguments to logical conclusions or are so idealistic as to be essentially irrelevant -- like Kucinich supporters they simply are uninterested in who actually becomes president. Or alternatively are passionate about ending war and preserving civil liberties and only mildly interested in reigning in the deficit.
On the other hand, the Tea Party supporters are pragmatic but have the idea that it would be better to re-elect Obama than to elect someone that will take half measures. We had some extremely heated debates on this subject on Ricochet in fact in advance of the 2010 elections. Some Tea Party purists believe that things have to become even worse before the electorate actively embraces conservative principles. In some sense they argue it would be better to win in 2016 with a legitimate mandate than to win in 2012 with 51% of the vote.
It may be time to begin those debates anew in this space: where do you draw the line for 2012 -- how important are true principles versus simply defeating Obama?
May '11
Re: Quick Thoughts on Libertarianism and 2012.
Keven, looking at your list, consider that four of them clearly are merely continuations of Bush policies defended by Republicans. Stimulus, Iraq and Afghanistan, the Patriot Act, and Gitmo are policies now tendered by both parties. Bush was himself a huge regulator, adding considerably to the Federal Register. And against Obama-care, Bush had the Prescription Drug Benefit, not as grotesque, but even so a massive state intervention. Based on the evidence you have provided here, I think you have made the case that from a Libertarian perspective, both parties are awful, one is worse on social issues and one is worse on economic issues.
If the Republicans wanted to court libertarians, they need to stick with the Tea Party agenda: reduce the size of government and avoid social issues.
Nov '10
Re: Quick Thoughts on Libertarianism and 2012.
Kevin,
Discovering how much worse X is than Y need not give you a positive reason to like Y.
For example, discovering X is a mass murderer as opposed to merely a murderer does not make Y the rapist more appealing, to someone who opposes violence.
Now, libertarians oppose the state. So, if you have two parties who support the state to different degrees, then libertarians should oppose both.
If, however, either Reps or Dems will get in next time; and if the latter getting in will be catastrophic whereas the former will be merely very bad; and if there are enough libertarians to make a difference; then they might consider voting en masse for Reps.
(Or maybe the shouldn't feel obliged to vote for someone they oppose. Should they be obliged to foresake their principles because so many others vote for Dems? Tough call.)
I am not convinced that most libertarians think the Reps are as statist as the Dems. Here, I think most would opine that Reps are the lesser of two evils. Isn't it obvious?
But Libertarians might bridle at being told to believe or asserts that Reps are not also a statist evil.
Edited on May 30, 2011 at 3:07amApr '11
Re: Quick Thoughts on Libertarianism and 2012.
Dennis Prager: "There are two parties: the stupid party and the dangerous party. I'm with the stupid party."
If Libertarians (and/or less pragmatic elements of the tea parties) insist on indirectly electing the likes of Obama because they find mainstream Republicans icky, then they have promoted unfettered statism in a way that makes their above-it-all reasons for doing so seem laughable and weak.
And Paulites do a lot of damage to issues that should be front-and-center in discussions within the conservative movement--overarching issues like Federalism and the 10th Amendment, Enumerated Powers, etc.--by associating those issues with nuttery (9/11 Trutherism, for instance). While we should be having a real debate about the responsibilities and limits of American military power, Paul and his straw-poll-game-playing minions suck all the air out of the room.
The only solution is for center-right, conservative, libertarian and tea party elements to work together to fix the GOP, rather than pouting about the presence of knuckleheads like Lindsey Graham and taking their respective balls and going home.
Libertarians do themselves, the GOP and the nation a disservice by playing this futile game.
Re: Quick Thoughts on Libertarianism and 2012.
Kenneth Gauck: Keven, looking at your list, consider that four of them clearly are merely continuations of Bush policies defended by Republicans. Stimulus, Iraq and Afghanistan, the Patriot Act, and Gitmo are policies now tendered by both parties. Bush was himself a huge regulator, adding considerably to the Federal Register. And against Obama-care, Bush had the Prescription Drug Benefit, not as grotesque, but even so a massive state intervention. Based on the evidence you have provided here, I think you have made the case that from a Libertarian perspective, both parties are awful, one is worse on social issues and one is worse on economic issues.
If the Republicans wanted to court libertarians, they need to stick with the Tea Party agenda: reduce the size of government and avoid social issues. · May 29 at 11:59pm
You're right, and that's sort of the point. If the Republicans are bad, the Democrats are catastrophic.
Sep '10
Re: Quick Thoughts on Libertarianism and 2012.
You nailed it, Kevin. Having called myself a small-l libertarian for decades, I am weary of hearing my idol Nick Gillespie begin every statement in support of something Republicans suggest with "I'm not a Republican. I don't play one on TV. I'll never register as one, but ..." (most recently saying that at the GOP debate a consensus was reached on legalizing drugs; why didn't he add that historically Democrats have been the biggest defenders of the drug war?). I've never heard Nick preface any remark about Democrats in such a way (he probably has been a Democrat, but I also suspect that he's embarrassed by the one but not the other). To me, if you want liberty and are for the little guy (more than you desire utopian fantasies of no more war), you can't look to the Democrats at all, but you can align yourself with Republicans, knowing there will be fights in the future. To say there's no difference and that only the Republicans are into the culture war is, to my mind, ridiculous (as Jonah Goldberg very aptly argued in a liberalitarian debate held at Reason).
Sep '10
Re: Quick Thoughts on Libertarianism and 2012.
If Libertarians (or libertarians) believe that 9-11 was an unprovoked attack on the U.S. (or an act of war), then the Iraq and Afghan wars are not only OK, they are necessary. Not all libertarians agree with Ron Paul's absurd foreign policy belief that the terrorists are terrorists because we are, or have been, "occupiers."
I, for one, think that the Patriot Act violates no one's rights. If you don't trip, and continue to trip, the word searching software, or somehow otherwise get the attention of the various national security agencies, you don't get listened in on or get visited by them. Yes, mistakes are made, but I think probable cause (or something similar to it--I'm not a lawyer) should still apply in these cases.
Sep '10
Re: Quick Thoughts on Libertarianism and 2012.
As for DADT, it was working well, and to get rid of it is not necessarily "libertarian," especially if it means decreased morale and cohesion in military units. Besides, what homosexual man in his right mind would act openly gay among a bunch of tough heteros that would inevitably "witness" the gay man sustain injuries by slipping on a bar of soap in the shower?
Re: Quick Thoughts on Libertarianism and 2012.
Dan, it's one thing to argue that libertarians should support the Afghan war on these grounds but entirely another to argue that the Iraq War would be "necessary" according to a libertarian. You can be a libertarian, disagree with Ron Paul's belief that "occupying" forces are the main cause of Islamist terror, and still disagree with the Iraq War.
Jul '10
Re: Quick Thoughts on Libertarianism and 2012.
Kenneth Gauck:
If the Republicans wanted to court libertarians, they need to stick with the Tea Party agenda: reduce the size of government and avoid social issues. · May 29 at 11:59pm
Why would Republicans court Libertarians? They're a tiny voting bloc.Ten votes are ten votes, whether cast by cast by thoughtful Libertarians or ignorant illiterates.
How does one "stay away from social issues" anyway? Across the board support for the status quo could do the trick, I suppose. Somehow though, I don't think that is what you mean.
Libertarians have many good ideas which are worth listening to and occasionally co-opting. In that sense, Libertarianism is (and can continue to be) a major player in American politics.
Sep '10
Re: Quick Thoughts on Libertarianism and 2012.
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
Dan, it's one thing to argue that libertarians should support the Afghan war on these grounds but entirely another to argue that the Iraq War would be "necessary" according to a libertarian. You can be a libertarian, disagree with Ron Paul's belief that "occupying" forces are the main cause of Islamist terror, and still disagree with the Iraq War. · May 30 at 9:51am
Point taken, but it's hair-splitting, the "split" being whether a given libertarian thinks that maintaining terrorist training facilities is seen as a direct enough act of war, or even an act of war at all.
Sep '10
Re: Quick Thoughts on Libertarianism and 2012.
Palaeologus
Kenneth Gauck:
If the Republicans wanted to court libertarians, they need to stick with the Tea Party agenda: reduce the size of government and avoid social issues. · May 29 at 11:59pm
Why would Republicans court Libertarians? They're a tiny voting bloc.Ten votes are ten votes, whether cast by cast by thoughtful Libertarians or ignorant illiterates.
How does one "stay away from social issues" anyway? Across the board support for the status quo could do the trick, I suppose. Somehow though, I don't think that is what you mean.
Libertarians have many good ideas which are worth listening to and occasionally co-opting. In that sense, Libertarianism is (and can continue to be) a major player in American politics. · May 30 at 10:05am
I think that libertarians care much more about getting fiscal issues right than social issues, since the fiscal issues affect them more, and libertarians, religious or not, are just as moral as socons, Republicans, or conservatives. Moreover, I really can't think of many socon-type laws that are enforceable enough to make those who break them stop, except perhaps for polygamy.
Jul '10
Re: Quick Thoughts on Libertarianism and 2012.
I think that's right. In my experience- hardly a meaningful demographic analysis- Libertarians tend to be either young or financially successful and so smallish breakdowns in the social order are usually not such a big deal to them.
Well, I tend to view most of the criminal code as largely "social" in nature.
Which raises an interesting (to me at least) question:
How successfully must a law deter or punish behavior to be worthwhile?
May '11
Re: Quick Thoughts on Libertarianism and 2012.
I am a libertarian who is usually pretty cynical about politics. In the past, I have felt that the beauty of the American system was that it didn't really matter who was president because the presidency rarely affected my life and no one seemed to be able to do too much damage in 4 years. Obama has changed that dynamic, perhaps for all time. It seems to me that the divide between the two parties is far greater than it ever has been. It is hard for me to imagine a scenario where Obama is re-elected but obviously the so called stupid party has a chance of screwing it up.
Feb '11
Re: Quick Thoughts on Libertarianism and 2012.
Southern Pessimist, I don't think you're pessimistic enough if it's hard for you to imagine a scenario where Obama is reelected. Roughly half the country likes and has liked what the Democrats are selling. It's far from clear that sufficient numbers of voters even agree that we're facing a debt and financial crisis; it's even less clear that they prefer Republican solutions.
What libertarians should keep in mind is that they and conservatives have much road to travel together still before the company becomes unbearable.