Libertarians
CATO is saying we libertarian sorts are the swing voters. Of course they are. But they may be right this time. After all, some one swings elections and it’s not the party faithful.
Meanwhile, there’s a call for a libertarian-liberal alliance. As I said before, if liberals would get guns right, they’d get more recruits. Libertarians just don’t trust people who don’t trust them.
December 5th, 2006 at 12:30 pm
It’s one thing for liberals and libertarians to work together against a common enemy, but now that Democrats hold Congress, any talk of a further alliance is silly. It’s not just guns that make them a poor fit. Whether it’s taxes, school choice, or any other contented issue, liberals consistently support the view that expands the power of the state, thereby reducing the freedom of the individual for his own supposed benefit. The lone exception to the rule is abortion, and that only because liberals have yet to formulate a rule determinining who “needs” one and who doesn’t. Once their social scientists pull that off, their last pro-choice will go out the window, making way for a more enlightened, super-liberal law mandating abortions under certain circumstances, and prohibiting it under all others.
December 5th, 2006 at 3:00 pm
I’m pretty confident that most real libertarians will be quite sick of the Democrat party (especially James Webb).
The Republicans drove most libertarians away with their spending-like-drunken-sailors routine. If they would start acting like Reagan again, they could win most of them back.
December 5th, 2006 at 3:01 pm
Oops, forgot to add “by 2008”.
December 5th, 2006 at 4:27 pm
If they would start acting like Reagan again
The deficit spending part, or the raising taxes on the working class part?
December 5th, 2006 at 4:30 pm
The lone exception to the rule is abortion
Yes, because things like tough sodomy laws, flag desecration amendments, “gays are icky” amendments, etc., are well-known liberal objectives.
December 5th, 2006 at 6:38 pm
I was thinking more the “talk about reducing government paperwork” part, tgirsch.
Also, last I checked, the ‘gays are icky’ amendments directly oppose government action. Just a popular government action – recognition of specific actions – but action nevertheless. You can argue for it by fairness, but not because you want the government to leave shit alone.
I also haven’t seen many Republicans attempting to move forward a new anti-sodomy law.
December 5th, 2006 at 7:06 pm
The deficit spending part, or the raising taxes on the working class part?
Like it or not, the overall federal tax burden on the average American family was significantly lower in 1989 than it was in 1981.
Just like Bush’s Evil Tax Cuts For the Wealthy have caused my yearly refund to balloon from about $2,500 in 2000 to over $6,000 last year.
December 5th, 2006 at 8:56 pm
Reagan spent like a drunken sailor too. If you want lower spending, get Democrats in Congress or in the Presidency. Been proven over and over again.
December 5th, 2006 at 11:36 pm
Nobody supports sodomy laws, and “let’s constitutionalize the traditional definition of marriage” amendments are neither pro- nor anti-liberty. Flag desecration amendments are lame, but their impact on personal liberty is negligible, especially when compared to the more substantive restrictions on free political speech that are well-known liberal objectives. Besides, my point wasn’t that conservatives are consistently pro-freedom – they’re not – it’s that liberals are consistently anti-freedom. When Republicans flirt with big government, they alienate their base, and everyone concludes they have lost their way. No one says the Dems lost their way when they push for more government, and while doing so may alienate the centrists they need to win in tight races, it sure as hell does not offend their base. Quite the contrary; that’s their version of red meat.
December 6th, 2006 at 1:12 pm
Reagan spent like a drunken sailor too. If you want lower spending, get Democrats in Congress or in the Presidency. Been proven over and over again.
Uh, Manish, the Democrats did control the House of Representatives during the entire Reagan presidency. They House is primarily responsible for spending money; the president can only request funds from Congress.
Thats’ why Bill Clinton didn’t magically balance the budget until after the Republicans had taken control of both houses of Congress in 1994. Prior to that, he was happy to spend money hand over fist.
December 9th, 2006 at 1:49 pm
“Gays are icky” according to Republicans. Really? How does one explain the extreme tolerance and love by virtually all Republicans for Dick Cheney’s daughter? How does one explain the active Log Cabin Clubs in the GOP? I think you have a very 1980s Falwell/Robertson view of the Republican Party. It ain’t like that any more in the GOP. Gays are openly invited in and welcomed, so long as they are fiscally conservative. It’s their economic views that matter, NOT what they do in their bedrooms.
And as for other civil liberties? What about seat belt laws, helmet laws for kids riding bikes, the military draft, smoking bans, onorous speed limits, gun rights, politically correct speech codes on college campuses, racial quotas, ect… Those are civil liberties too. Just because Dems are right on one issue — abortion — doesn’t mean in any way they are supportive of individual freedom. We agree with the conservatives on a lot more personal liberties issues than we do with the Dems.
And what about fighting Islamo-Fascists? The Dems wish to appease those Radical Muslims who want to clothe our wives and girlfriends in ugly burqas from head to toe, force us all to kneel down and pray to Allah 5 times a day, and publicly stone to death our Gay friends in public squares, while marching off all of our Jewish friends to Concentration Camps.
No thanks, I’ll stick with the libertarian-conservative alliance thank you!!!
Eric at http://www.mainstreamlibertarian.com
December 9th, 2006 at 1:52 pm
Precisely Xrlq, Gay Marriage is NOT a libertarian issue one way or the other. We’re ambivelent on it. We just think government should get out of the business of marriage altogether.