More Libertarianism In The News
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Democrats, Libertarian, RepublicansYesterday I wrote about “The Rise Of The New Libertarianism” and today I read an article that makes a lot of the points I discussed, and then some.
Specifically, it talks about how more and more libertarians are speaking out
The lefty Internet titan Markos “Daily Kos” Moulitsas penned a widely read manifesto last year pegging the future of his party to the “Libertarian Democrat.” The conservative pundit Jonah Goldberg declared this year that he’s “much more of a libertarian” lately. Bill Maher, Christopher Hitchens, Tucker Carlson, “South Park” co-creator Matt Stone — self-described libertarians all. Surely it’s a milestone when Drew Carey, the new host of that great national treasure “The Price Is Right,” becomes an outspoken advocate of open borders, same-sex marriage, free speech and repealing drug prohibition. As Michael Kinsley, an arch purveyor of conventional wisdom, wrote recently in Time magazine, such people are going to be “an increasingly powerful force in politics.”Kinsley is hardly alone in recognizing this trend. In April 2006, the Pew Research Center published a study suggesting that 9 percent of Americans — more than enough to swing every presidential election since 1988 — espouse a “libertarian” ideology that opposes “government regulation in both the economic and the social spheres.” That is, a good chunk of your fellow citizens are fiscally conservative and socially liberal; in bumper-stickerese, they love their countrymen but distrust their government. Anyone looking to win elections — or to make sense of contemporary U.S. politics — would do well to understand the deep and growing reservoir that Paul is tapping into.
Don’t let that last sentence from the Wash Post pass you by. Ron Paul isn’t the catalyst. He’s merely tapping into a growing movement. I started to see it a couple years ago when I started this blog and now the growing discontent in this country with the two-party, pro-government system is giving rise to a Libertarian candidacy, even if Paul doesn’t want to admit he’s really a Libertarian.
And let’s also not forget that while that Pew poll may have only exposed 9% as having a libertarian ideology, 19% voted for Perot in ‘92. That’s more than enough to create a viable third party in this country and take away the swing vote from the R and Ds.
So to sum up…
More than at any other time over the past two decades, Americans are hungering for the politics and freewheeling fun of libertarianism. And with the dreary prospect of a Giuliani vs. Clinton death match in 2008, that hunger is likely to grow even faster than the size of the federal government or the casualty toll in Iraq. Ron Paul may lose next year’s battle — though not without a memorable fight — but the laissez-faire agitators he has helped energize will find themselves at the leading edge of American politics and culture for years to come.
Indeed.
This entry was posted on Sunday, November 25th, 2007 and is filed under Democrats, Libertarian, Republicans. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
November 25th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
Glad to see you coming around… ;)
November 25th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
We all know there is not a warm bucket of spit’s difference between Rudy and Hillary. If we make a mistake and elect one of them- the deficit will continue to be out of control- we will still be bogged down in the Middle East- spending more money we do not have – while offering more and more “freebies” we can not afford here at home.
Ron Paul offers the only way we can avoid going bankrupt- by stopping the war machine and stopping the policing of the world.
Let’s save a trillion dollars a year by bringing home our troops in 120 countries and concentrate on doing some good here at home.
When we stop killing people in the name of democracy, and stop trying to scare people here at home – we just might surprise ourselves .
November 25th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
I think Ron Paul would be easily dismissed by the top tier guys if those guys did just one thing: explain how they would finance all the expenses they’re proposing.
Yes, I’m against the Iraq situation, and Iran, but only because it is impossible to pay for. I’m against universal health care for the same reason. I’m against NCLB, again for the same reason.
I’m a twice-Bush voting Republican who wants to vote for a top tier candidate in the primaries, but I can’t, because none of the top tier guys will explain to anyone how they’re going to pay for anything.
As of today, Ron Paul has my vote ONLY because he has explained how he will pay for the country he wants to Preside over: by reducing some government programs.
Where are the Reagans and even the Gingriches, who proposed LESS government, MORE family values and MORE liberty?
If ONE top tier candidate would explain how they’d handle the country’s financial mess, Ron Paul would be quickly forgotten.
November 25th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
The main stream media just does not get it. Ron Paul is what America wants, he is the people’s choice. He dominates in straw polls, debate polls, fund raising, web traffic and grass roots networking. I have gathered the evidence and created a website.
Please visit http://www.thecaseforronpaul.com and judge for yourself.
November 25th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
Anyone that does not realize that Ron Paul is a “top tier” candidate at this point is just ignorant. He dominates in straw polls, debate polls, fund raising, web traffic and grass roots networking. I have gathered the evidence and created a website.
Please visit http://www.thecaseforronpaul.com and judge for yourself.
November 25th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
Yeah, let’s hear it for the spoilers. What we need is another four or eight years of the kind of government Ralph Nader helped to bring us in recent years. It works so well and is so all-around satisfactory.
November 25th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
“We all know there is not a warm bucket of spit’s difference between Rudy and Hillary.”
There are some deragatory things that can be said about Hillary Clinton, but being incompetent and isn’t one of them. If you can’t see that glaring difference, you need to stop hyperventillating about Ron Paul and take a closer look.
November 25th, 2007 at 6:39 pm
“. . . now the growing discontent in this country with the two-party, pro-government system is giving rise to a Libertarian candidacy, even if Paul doesn’t want to admit he’s really a Libertarian.”
I’m trying to understand your preferences. You like Bloomberg, who has been a Republican and a Democrat, depending evidently on which ticket is open when he wants to seek public office — so now he’s an independent.
I sort of get the idea Bloomberg would resurrect the Whig Party if he thought doing so would get him where he wants to go. This tells me his politics are rooted in ambition and opportunism, with philosophy or some sense of greater purpose coincidental if they count at all.
Then there’s Ron Paul, who according to you is a Libertarian who’s not honest enough or proud enough of his political philosophy to acknowledge he’s a Libertarian — and fun for office as one.
Reality check: If you need an operation, heaven forbid, don’t go to a doctor who dislikes hospitals, isn’t comfortable around the sick and hates doing operations.
If you need some plumbing reworked, don’t hire someone who hates wrestling with pipes, fittings, washers and that kind of thing.
And, if you need someone to do a good job leading and managing government, don’t elect a person who dislikes and wants to do away with government, or maybe just make it run so unsatisfactorily people will want to get rid of it.
November 25th, 2007 at 7:08 pm
I think Bush has done a fantastic job of running the government “so unsatisfactorily people will want to get rid of it”. I believe both Rudy and Hillary will work to continue many of Bushes failed policies. That is why I am voting for the Republican libertarian Ron Paul.
November 25th, 2007 at 9:16 pm
“I believe both Rudy and Hillary will work to continue many of Bushes failed policies.”
I believe you’ve got it half right.
Clinton isn’t my first choice, although if she wins the nomination I will support her and vote for her as much as if she had been my first choice. You might not like her, but please, give her credit for having enough sense to come in out of the rain.
The damage Bush has done with his idiotic rendition of a neo-Coolidge at home and his crackpot crusade abroad— and the unpopularity of both — aren’t lost on Clinton. If she becomes president, I expect she will make a mistake or two. I don’t expect her to replicate Bush’s mistakes.
November 25th, 2007 at 9:29 pm
Ron Paul will not run as a 3rd party. he has said so repeatedly, and he has said why. (cuz the game is rigged against 3rd parties) Ross Perot’s 19% notwithstanding. Ron Paul is fully aware of what the GOP did to Pat Buchanan in 2000 and he won’t fall for the same trick.
Ron Paul may have a snowball’s chance in Hell of getting the GOP nomination, but I understand that Satan Himself just bought a pair of ice skates…
Ron Paul is the last honest politician. That alone gives him a fighting chance. check out the latest polling numbers http://www.pollster.com – the pollsters are beginning to acknowledge that Ron could win. They have to move towards the real numbers now, or they will look like total fools come Jan.
to SW Anderson: your analogy assumes we want to repair the Government.
I would say: If you want to get rid of rats and roaches, don’t hire an exterminator who only wants to trim back their rate of growth. And when I am sick, I sure do stay the hell away from doctors who are “knife-happy” and like to put me in the hospital.
November 25th, 2007 at 11:36 pm
Hillary voted for Patriot Act 1 AND Patriot Act 2. She voted for Regime Change in Iraq, and she voted for the military authorization for the invasion of Iraq. Despite the protests of her own party, she claims simultaneously, that there should be a timetable, but she will vote to fund the war without a timetable, and troops can’t come home before 2013, sometime after her first term as president. She is worthless, but I encourage you to vote for her in the primaries because the further he lead in the Democratic nomination the more Democrats will vote for Paul in the open primaries. Paul will wipe the floor with her in the general election.
November 26th, 2007 at 1:35 am
If you want the economy to work, go to someone who understands economics. Only Ron Paul is capable of an argument with Ben Bernanke (see youtube). The others don’t have a clue. They see the Presidency as a nice new stack of credit cards.
November 26th, 2007 at 2:23 am
rhys wrote:
“Paul will wipe the floor with her in the general election.”
I heard similar bravado from supporters of John Anderson, Eugene McCarthy, Ross Perot and Ralph Nader — great presidents all.
November 26th, 2007 at 2:29 am
gao, I want the U.S. economy to work, but more importantly, I want our whole country — society, economy, government, political system and all — to work in the longterm best interest of the American people as a whole.
The People’s Republic of China has an economy that works. So does Saudi Arabia. Having an economy that works isn’t enough. Don’t be deluded into thinking it does.
November 26th, 2007 at 10:26 am
S.W.,
You might as well forget it. Libertarians can’t be reasoned with. That’s why I find the title Reason for a magazine of theirs so amusing. They don’t have a clue about most of what they spout. They don’t even realize that they are espousing a transformation of 21st Century America into a new Dickensian England. They claim that Paul is God’s gift to economics because of preaching the gold standard and the elimination of all government programs other than defense and the basics of government when they don’t even have a clue as to the strengths and weaknesses of the gold standard and the consequences of abandoning the concept of our nation as a common society.
November 26th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
Jim S., thanks for chiming in, reminding me I haven’t fallen through Alice’s looking glass after all.
I’ll add to what you mentioned that there’s a sort of cult of personality going on with Paul, and that part I can understand. He presents himself and his ideas well and has a certain “No matter what others say, I/we know better” appeal, especially to people who really don’t appreciate or understand the ramifications.
I’ve never seen or heard of a bloody revolution carried out by enraged senior citizens. What’s more, I don’t want to. If Paul is really as smart as he has his ardent supporters think he is, he wouldn’t want to risk one either.
November 26th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
I encourage those who are so sold on Paul and the libertarian agenda to consider this analogy. There’s no big need to answer, please just think about this.
In the early days of the horseless carriage, 1903-1910 or so, big cities had no more than a few dozen motor vehicles. Most small towns across the country had one at most.
Back then, there was virtually no need for stop signs, traffic lights, turn lanes, parking meters, annual vehicle inspections and all the rest. Most states didn’t even issue driver’s licenses.
As more and more individuals and businesses bought cars and trucks there were more and more problems, including near misses and collisions, pedestrian injuries, people driving too fast for conditions, parking in inappropriate places and on and on.
Trust me on this libertarians. The evildoers known as gummint bureaucrats weren’t watching and waiting to pounce with all sorts of laws, rules and fees.
What happened can be summed up with an anecdote. A young man who parked his first car, a new one, on Main Street while he went into a store to buy something came out later to find someone had sideswiped his pride and joy. Shaking his fist in anger, he declared, “There oughta be a law!” He soon went with a group of citizens harmed by drivers to a city council meeting, to demand that rules be written into law and that cops be hired to enforce them.
A few years later, as more and more people bought and used vehicles, insurance companies began demanding that states as well as towns and counties regulate vehicles and traffic. Most people understood the need and supported the imposition of rules, including right-of-way, speed limits, what must be done if one has an accident, etc.
I can go all through government, federal, state, county, municipal, and point out similar situations. The vast majority of rules, regulations and regulators exist because people who were being hurt, endangered or somehow disadvantaged demanded them.
It might sound cool to just go through and start ripping these things out, until you hear from people no longer protected or backed up by them. Or maybe until you yourself learn the hard way they exist for sound reasons.
If you want to live relatively free of rules, regulations and government, go to a wilderness area. Living in society, in communities, brings benefits that come at a cost. Part of that cost is not being able to do anything you want, any way you want, any time and any place you want.
The flipside, of course, is that you have some protection from others whose exercise of complete freedom might harm or annoy the hell out of you.
November 27th, 2007 at 9:14 pm
Rudy is the most libertarian major party Presidential candidate since Goldwater. He’s not perfect. But he’s damn close being a moderate libertarian according to ontheissues.org
All these Rudy haters need to lighten up, and look at his record. Tax cutting 23 times! Major libertarians backing him like Steve Forbes, Deroy Murdock, Sally Pipes, and Dennis Miller. And he’s Pro-Choice and Sexually Tolerant to boot.
I thought I’d never live to see this day: The GOP actually getting ready to nominate a libertarian-leaning candidate for President.
The entire libertarian movement should be jumping for joy. But being the cynic dweebs that they are, the jealous partisan Libertarian set is just bitchin’ and moaning that Giuliani isn’t perfect.
Whaw, whaw, whaw.