The Asylum Private Messages Options Search Blogs Images Chat Cam Portals Calendar FAQ's Join  
Asylum Forums : Powered by vBulletin version 2.2.8 Asylum Forums > Políticás der Monde > Hot-tub Libertarians
  Last Thread   Next Thread
Author
Thread [new thread]    [post reply]
Smug Git
Arrogance Personified

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35656

Hot-tub Libertarians

Thought that there might be some interest in this for a bunch of people. Not just Libertarians, but also for those people who still see the GOP as the better party, of the main two, for small government (even if not as the party, of the main two, for small government).

Even if you're a libertarian with a taxation focus, the GOP aren't better; their lowering of taxes, because of their huge deficit spending, is just taxation delayed. Personally, I think that the way to shrink government is first to get balanced budgets, then argue the immediate benefits, to the average pocket, of cutting government spending. At this stage, although it's a hard road however you plan it, I think that the Democrats are more likely to be of use, even if only through getting them into one of the House, Senate or Whitehouse and resetting the dynamic. That was part of my reasoning for supporting Kerry in the last election (along with many others who'd noticed that the GOP Congress could only be trusted to do its job when virtually at war with the President). Sager favours reforming the GOP and I do, too, but I only think that's going to happen with the taste of defeat in their mouths. The GOP strategists (such as Karl Rove) noticed that evangelicals don't vote very often, so delivered to them an agenda weighted towards their interests; if the Libertarians not only abstain but vote against the GOP, so long as it's clear that they can be won back, the GOP agenda will have to shift again. And if it doesn't, fair enough; there's not much for Libertarians in the current GOP anyhow. If the GOP want to really become the social conservative/religious looney party, then the third party that Jr was talking about elsewhere may, in fact, come to pass.

quote:
May 16, 2006
Hot-Tub Libertarians
By Ryan Sager

As the Republican Party abandons its commitment to small government, how politically impotent are libertarians? Let me count the ballots.

Specifically, let me count the ballots from 2004. Exit polls (along with, well, all polls) tend to ignore libertarians as a group, so one has to approach such questions from the side, as opposed to head on. But here's one measure of how libertarian-leaning voters voted in the last presidential election: While George W. Bush gained 10 points between 2000 and 2004 among voters who thought government should "do more," he stayed essentially even among voters who felt government should not do more or should "do less."

In other words, despite No Child Left Behind, campaign-finance regulation, steel tariffs, the Medicare prescription-drug bill and exploding government spending generally, libertarians stood by their man. (I should know. I did, too.)

That's no way for an organized voting bloc to behave. If no amount of sticking your finger in a constituency's eye will make them vote against you, you're going to poke through until you hit brain. But, of course, no one ever said that libertarians were organized -- or that, when it comes to politics, they have much in the way of brains.

But what if they did? How powerful a voting bloc could they be?

It's a tough question, and one libertarians have spent far too little time effort researching, but there's a quick and dirty answer: somewhere between 9 percent and 20 percent of the electorate.

The 20 percent figure comes from Gallup, which labels as libertarian voters who say they oppose the use of government either to "promote traditional values" or to "do too many things that should be left to individuals and businesses." Gallup finds an equal number of populists (people who want more government intervention in both the economy and the culture). And it finds that 27 percent of Americans are conservative and 24 percent are liberal.

The 9 percent figure comes by way of a recent analysis done by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. Last month, Pew released an analysis, based on a survey of 2,000 people, which was aimed at finding the ideologues among the American voting public -- those voters who held consistent ideological views on a sampling of subjects, such as health care, gay marriage and Social Security reform.

Libertarians were the smallest group, as defined by Pew, followed by conservatives (15 percent), populists (16 percent) and liberals (18 percent). A full 42 percent of voters held no identifiable ideology (these are presumably the people who vote for whomever's tallest).

Perhaps the most interesting fact in the Pew survey, however, was that less than 6 in 10 libertarians voted for Bush in 2004. While few libertarians seem to have deserted the president between 2000 and 2004, they are split roughly evenly between the two parties. The Pew survey finds 50 percent of libertarians identifying as Republicans, 41 percent as Democrats.

Given that libertarians' traditional home has been in the conservative base of the Republican Party for about five decades, as part of a strained partnership with social conservatives, their almost 50-50 split between the two parties today is big news.

According to Pew's "political typology," libertarians used to be one of three groups that made up the Republican Party, along with social conservatives and economic conservatives. But, since 1994, they've been replaced by a group of voters Pew has called Populists, but most recently renamed Pro-Government Conservatives. In essence, it would seem, these Pro-Government Conservatives -- about 10 percent of the electorate, largely female and southern, and equally at ease with universal health care and banning controversial books from libraries -- are squeezing libertarians further and further toward the fringes of the GOP.

Is there any way to reverse the tide?

That, of course, gets to the question of whether a bunch of individualists can ever be organized. A man who should know a little about that, the Cato Institute's executive vice president, David Boaz, tells two stories. In one, a man wouldn't come to a rally for 1980 Libertarian Party presidential candidate Ed Clark because he had to look at his sister-in-law's car. In another, a man skipped a rally at the 1984 Democratic convention in San Francisco because he had a more pressing engagement ... in a hot tub.

"I think libertarians are looking at their sister-in-law's car, instead of going to political meetings," Boaz says. "And there are also libertarians who are in hot tubs in Sausalito." These may seem like small things, Boaz argues, but the cumulative effect is that people who don't care much for government are the hardest to convince to care about changing it.

The challenge, then -- for those who don't want to see the Republican Party succumb once and for all to big-government conservatism and who don't want to see it become overrun with populists lacking in respect for taxpayers' money and individuals' right to be left alone -- is either to organize existing libertarians more effectively to vote and contribute time and money as a bloc or to identify new constituencies with an overriding interest in remaking the time bomb we call the New Deal (everyone under 40 comes to mind).

So, libertarians: It's time to get out of that hot tub! Put down that wrench! And start thinking about how you're going to reclaim your rightful place in the conservative coalition.



http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...bertarians.html

__________________
I want to live and I want to love
I want to catch something that I might be ashamed of

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 05-16-2006 01:41 PM
Smug Git is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Smug Git Click here to Send Smug Git a Private Message Find more posts by Smug Git Add Smug Git to your buddy list [P] Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
fubar
ignorami ginormi

Registered: Apr 2005
Location: wookin pa nub
Posts: 10792

My wife and I had this conversation a month or so ago. We called a libertarian representative in this area and asked what we could do to help. His said he wasn't sure. They don't normally start doing much until a year or so before the election.

It's time for the US to turn its eyes back on itself for a while. Pay down the deficit and get rid of social programs that inspire dependence on the government. Set a cutoff date for eligibility for Social Security. Set a limit on the number of years a person can be on welfare. Quit funding research on the flow rate of ketchup with tax dollars. Quit fighting a losing battle against drugs.

It's time to get things right (or at least better) over here before we go building a foreign empire.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 05-16-2006 06:43 PM
fubar is offline Click Here to See the Profile for fubar Click here to Send fubar a Private Message Find more posts by fubar Add fubar to your buddy list [P] Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Smug Git
Arrogance Personified

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35656

The research funding bugbear is mostly a bunch of populist shite. Social Security and Medicare spending is a huge potential problem, although the worst of it can't be avoided because the Largest Generation are about to start needing it. I don't know what the real solution to that is, except cutting spending elsewhere to prevent disaster. The pain is probably going to have to be shared around somewhat.

As I said, I think that the main thing is to run a balanced budget, so that people can see how much this is all really costing.

__________________
I want to live and I want to love
I want to catch something that I might be ashamed of

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 05-16-2006 06:54 PM
Smug Git is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Smug Git Click here to Send Smug Git a Private Message Find more posts by Smug Git Add Smug Git to your buddy list [P] Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
fubar
ignorami ginormi

Registered: Apr 2005
Location: wookin pa nub
Posts: 10792

Social Security needs to go away. Even though its goal is admirable, it's far from a retirement. Tell everyone born on or before June 31, 1990 that they will not receive SS benefits, and that they are responsible for their own retirement. Tell LaToya that however many kids she has the first time she applies for welfare, that that is all the kids she will be allowed to enroll. And set the limit for how long any one person can be on welfare to 8 years. After that, even if you were on welfare because your parents couldn't pull it together, tough.

Anyway, those are the two main issues I see. At least they are the main issues because a balanced budget can't fund a war. So it won't happen.

I vote Libertarian because Republicans vote however they're paid to vote, and Democrats want to take my money and give it to people who didn't/won't work for it.

Live and let live. Take responsibility for your own actions. Don't make someone else pay for your poor judgment.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 05-16-2006 07:09 PM
fubar is offline Click Here to See the Profile for fubar Click here to Send fubar a Private Message Find more posts by fubar Add fubar to your buddy list [P] Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
loser
oxymoran

Registered: Dec 2004
Location: Beringia
Posts: 5262

Latoya?
Jesus.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 05-16-2006 07:31 PM
loser is offline Click Here to See the Profile for loser Click here to Send loser a Private Message Find more posts by loser Add loser to your buddy list [P] Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Smug Git
Arrogance Personified

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35656

Ending Social Security for those young enough to plan on not having it may be a good idea, but it won't solve the actual, impending, problem.

__________________
I want to live and I want to love
I want to catch something that I might be ashamed of

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 05-16-2006 09:46 PM
Smug Git is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Smug Git Click here to Send Smug Git a Private Message Find more posts by Smug Git Add Smug Git to your buddy list [P] Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
fubar
ignorami ginormi

Registered: Apr 2005
Location: wookin pa nub
Posts: 10792

The problem with many Americans is that they want a solution that feels good to everyone. That can't happen where Social Security or welfare is concerned. The sooner these programs end, the sooner we get on with things. It won't be pretty, but things aren't pretty now.

Do you have a suggestion for a quick fix that adversely affects a minimum of people?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 05-16-2006 09:57 PM
fubar is offline Click Here to See the Profile for fubar Click here to Send fubar a Private Message Find more posts by fubar Add fubar to your buddy list [P] Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Paint CHiPs
Viva Le Me

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 26420

quote:
Originally posted by fubar
Social Security needs to go away. Even though its goal is admirable, it's far from a retirement. Tell everyone born on or before June 31, 1990 that they will not receive SS benefits, and that they are responsible for their own retirement.


Presumably, you'd give them back the what, 20% of lifetime wages the government's already stolen from them?

__________________

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 05-16-2006 10:05 PM
Paint CHiPs is online now Click Here to See the Profile for Paint CHiPs Click here to Send Paint CHiPs a Private Message Visit Paint CHiPs's homepage! Find more posts by Paint CHiPs Add Paint CHiPs to your buddy list [P] Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Smug Git
Arrogance Personified

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35656

quote:
Originally posted by fubar
The problem with many Americans is that they want a solution that feels good to everyone. That can't happen where Social Security or welfare is concerned. The sooner these programs end, the sooner we get on with things. It won't be pretty, but things aren't pretty now.

Do you have a suggestion for a quick fix that adversely affects a minimum of people?



But Social Security won't end, under your plan, for 50-odd years. We have to learn to live with it (and, indeed, it may still not have ended when we die). Also, you're going to have to take SS taxes from those people who aren't going to get Social Security to pay for the older people who are getting Social Security, thanks in part to continual government raiding of the unlocked Social Security lockbox.

Medicare is a big(huge) problem, especially now that the administration have driven through (with some rather extraordinary tactics) the Medicare Prescription package. Even if you do away with that in a similar way, there's still a huge problem with the insane costs of US healthcare (and the 'it's frivolous personal-injury litigation that makes it so expensive' just isn't true; it's not a big enough factor).

My 'quick fix' is to balance the budget. That way, either taxes go up and people get hit in the pocket, or else government spending has to fall; in this case, the Social Security and Medicare obligations then work for us in that they increasingly force the other spending down. The old idea that you can drive spending down in the long term by spending like crazy in the short term just doesn't work with the current political dynamic (it's not the only crazy thing that some of the Reaganites believed, but even if you do think that it worked then, it's not working now) where balanced budgets aren't any sort of priority.

__________________
I want to live and I want to love
I want to catch something that I might be ashamed of

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 05-16-2006 10:07 PM
Smug Git is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Smug Git Click here to Send Smug Git a Private Message Find more posts by Smug Git Add Smug Git to your buddy list [P] Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Smug Git
Arrogance Personified

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35656

Hmmm, I thought that he said 'on or after' not 'on or before'.

'On or before' is just not going to work, people would starve.

__________________
I want to live and I want to love
I want to catch something that I might be ashamed of

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 05-16-2006 10:08 PM
Smug Git is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Smug Git Click here to Send Smug Git a Private Message Find more posts by Smug Git Add Smug Git to your buddy list [P] Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
loser
oxymoran

Registered: Dec 2004
Location: Beringia
Posts: 5262

Only Latoya's kids, though, so don't worry.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 05-16-2006 10:12 PM
loser is offline Click Here to See the Profile for loser Click here to Send loser a Private Message Find more posts by loser Add loser to your buddy list [P] Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
fubar
ignorami ginormi

Registered: Apr 2005
Location: wookin pa nub
Posts: 10792

quote:
Originally posted by Smug Git
Hmmm, I thought that he said 'on or after' not 'on or before'.

'On or before' is just not going to work, people would starve.



Should have been after.

And Latoya's kids are on welfare, not Social Security. I think you actually have to work a certain amount of time before you can benefit from Social Security.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 05-16-2006 11:23 PM
fubar is offline Click Here to See the Profile for fubar Click here to Send fubar a Private Message Find more posts by fubar Add fubar to your buddy list [P] Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Smug Git
Arrogance Personified

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35656

I'm not sure. You might get your Social Security dues paid if you're on welfare?

__________________
I want to live and I want to love
I want to catch something that I might be ashamed of

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 05-16-2006 11:46 PM
Smug Git is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Smug Git Click here to Send Smug Git a Private Message Find more posts by Smug Git Add Smug Git to your buddy list [P] Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
fubar
ignorami ginormi

Registered: Apr 2005
Location: wookin pa nub
Posts: 10792

That would make, sense?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 05-17-2006 04:51 PM
fubar is offline Click Here to See the Profile for fubar Click here to Send fubar a Private Message Find more posts by fubar Add fubar to your buddy list [P] Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Paint CHiPs
Viva Le Me

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 26420

RCP is dealing some with the article, at their blog (not Bevan, but that Ryan guy). Their argument, of course, is that libertarians should stick with the GOP because it represents their best chance of bringing small government; that the GOP represents a fusion of social cons with libertarian cons. That's hogwash, and I'm at the point of saying that case can better be made with the Democratic party (indeed, I have). But, they do have a couple of good slams, including this one:

quote:

This is, of course, an extremely common view among libertarians: We don't have enough clout within the GOP, so let's not invest any energy in the GOP. The problem, though, is that this logic is circular. The GOP ignores libertarians because they're unengaged in politics, and they're unengaged in politics because the GOP ignores them. Libertarians can blame this on their numbers, but even the conservative estimate from Pew that they make up 9 percent of the American ideological spectrum robs them of such excuses. Libertarians are politically impotent because they're petulant and factious (and I say this as a libertarian), not because there aren't enough of them.


I, oddly enough, mostly agree with that, though change "GOP" to "any party". I've been involved with Republican libertarians, Democratic libertarians (even have an online correspondence with a Feingold guy that ran for Congress as a "Green Libertarian"), and Libertarian libertarians. At least the latters tend to vote, but all of them share a common....how to put it?....mass defeatism in their view of politics generally. Even some of the most vehement Libertarian libertarians can tend towards the theoretical and philosophical and balk at the practical (not all of them, certainly, but a good number). I believe that libertarians probably make up closer to 25% of the potential electorate--I think a libertarian ideology is one basically shared by a huge swath of Americans (even if they don't know it), but I think the great bulk of that swath don't vote at all--some vote LP, and about an equal number vote Republican. That latter number might well be starting to turn Democratic (they should, if they're going to be voting Big Two at all), but the result is the same. Trying to explain this to them, though, can be like pulling teeth.

Anyway, thought it was worth sharing. "Petulant and factious" is a good way to describe the political character of a great many right-leaning libertarians, in my view, and RCP is right that no wonder none of the parties responds to them anymore. When 5% of evangelical big-governmenters or humanist socialists can carry more water than 25% of libertarians, why should they?

__________________

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 05-17-2006 05:11 PM
Paint CHiPs is online now Click Here to See the Profile for Paint CHiPs Click here to Send Paint CHiPs a Private Message Visit Paint CHiPs's homepage! Find more posts by Paint CHiPs Add Paint CHiPs to your buddy list [P] Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
CHiPsJr
Ginger-headed Troll

Registered: Sep 2000
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 7504

Which is kind of why I'm interested in seeing a fusion of the Libertarian view on government with the Etzioni views on personal responsibility and an active, engaged civil society.

Libertarianism has in some respects painted itself into a corner, where it's not about being left alone BY GOVERNMENT, but being left alone ALTOGETHER. We want to sit in our shacks and smoke pot, not make money by finding holes in the market and providing services. Libertarians idolize the Atlas Shrugged types who build vast personal fortunes through innovation and plain hard work, but pitifully few of us actually attempt to BECOME that sort of person.

Far more compelling, in electoral terms, would be a Libertarianism that recognizes the many flaws of central planning, but which seeks to replace them with active citizenship at the community level--enhanced willingness to judge and condemn bad behavior, enhanced involvement in charity and civic enterprises, attention to public affairs.

This doesn't mean we shouldn't also smoke pot or collect guns or even lounge around in the hot tub, of course; but there does come a time for a person who is averse to government to nonetheless involve himself in its affairs. Not because it's fun, necessarily, but because rights are best guaranteed in an environment in which people attend to their responsibilities.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 05-17-2006 05:48 PM
CHiPsJr is offline Click Here to See the Profile for CHiPsJr Click here to Send CHiPsJr a Private Message Find more posts by CHiPsJr Add CHiPsJr to your buddy list [P] Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
SocialParasite
100% pure failtanium.

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Beatrice, Nebraska
Posts: 18808

quote:
Originally posted by fubar
Should have been after.

And Latoya's kids are on welfare, not Social Security. I think you actually have to work a certain amount of time before you can benefit from Social Security.



Not for disability.

__________________
The pinnacle of Failbot technology.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 05-18-2006 03:19 PM
SocialParasite is offline Click Here to See the Profile for SocialParasite Click here to Send SocialParasite a Private Message Visit SocialParasite's homepage! Find more posts by SocialParasite Add SocialParasite to your buddy list [P] Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
SocialParasite
100% pure failtanium.

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Beatrice, Nebraska
Posts: 18808

quote:
Originally posted by Smug Git
I'm not sure. You might get your Social Security dues paid if you're on welfare?


Only if you have a job.

__________________
The pinnacle of Failbot technology.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 05-18-2006 03:21 PM
SocialParasite is offline Click Here to See the Profile for SocialParasite Click here to Send SocialParasite a Private Message Visit SocialParasite's homepage! Find more posts by SocialParasite Add SocialParasite to your buddy list [P] Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Paint CHiPs
Viva Le Me

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 26420

quote:

“libertarians, though the smallest of the ideological groups, represent a substantial percentage of the population.”

...Libertarians are 50 percent more likely to declare themselves “secular” than the general population. Still, only about 12 percent of the libertarians surveyed identified themselves this way. Libertarians are also more likely than the general population to identify as a “white Catholic.” Finally, almost two-thirds of the libertarians said they go to church at least once a month. That’s a little less than the general population, but a lot more than I would have guessed.

...One-third of Pew’s libertarians are between 18 and 29 years of age. Libertarians are thus fifty percent more likely to be found among the young than in the population as a whole. They are also much more likely to be found among the youngest cohort than are conservatives or populists.



I wonder if that bodes well for us, demographically.

__________________

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 05-19-2006 03:21 PM
Paint CHiPs is online now Click Here to See the Profile for Paint CHiPs Click here to Send Paint CHiPs a Private Message Visit Paint CHiPs's homepage! Find more posts by Paint CHiPs Add Paint CHiPs to your buddy list [P] Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Smug Git
Arrogance Personified

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35656

Yes and no. It means years of bitterly resenting paying taxes to look after the ageing nanny state dependents, then maybe killing off the nanny state just in time for needing it themselves.

On the plus side, less senile drooling.

__________________
I want to live and I want to love
I want to catch something that I might be ashamed of

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 05-19-2006 03:59 PM
Smug Git is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Smug Git Click here to Send Smug Git a Private Message Find more posts by Smug Git Add Smug Git to your buddy list [P] Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Smug Git
Arrogance Personified

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35656

Hey, we're white catholics.

And Jr wishes he was.

__________________
I want to live and I want to love
I want to catch something that I might be ashamed of

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Old Post 05-19-2006 04:00 PM
Smug Git is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Smug Git Click here to Send Smug Git a Private Message Find more posts by Smug Git Add Smug Git to your buddy list [P] Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
All times are GMT. The time now is 10:54 PM. Post New Thread    Post A Reply
 </