Conservatives and Libertarians: Can This Marriage Be Saved?

On February 23 (next Wednesday), America's Future Foundation is hosting a roundtable forum titled "Conservatives and Libertarians: Can This Marriage Be Saved?"

More info:

During the Cold War era, conservatives and libertarians united around hostility toward communism and liberalism. The National Review's Frank Meyer called this union "fusionism," and argued that it wasn't just a marriage of convenience, but a union based on the deep compatibility of liberty and tradition. Increasingly, however, that ideological marriage has been punctuated by long, sustained spats: over war, gay marriage, stem-cell research, and a host of other issues. Just another rocky patch, or is it time for a divorce?

Arguing to keep the marriage together will be W. James Antle III of The American Conservative and Jeremy Lott of the Cato Institute. Amy Mitchell of The American Spectator and Nick Gillespie of Reason will take the side of divorce.

The event will take place on Wednesday, February 23rd, at the Fund for American Studies (1706 New Hampshire Ave. NW). Drinks will begin at 7:00 p.m., with dinner and discussion following at 7:30.

To RSVP and for more information, go here.

Comments

Adam | February 16, 2005, 4:39pm | #

Nick - yes or no?

Gary Gunnels | February 16, 2005, 4:40pm | #

I want a divorce!!! :)

kevrob | February 16, 2005, 4:42pm | #

Back during Nixon's first term, many a Ms. Liberty decided that her Mr. Order had bitch-slapped her one time too many - wage & price controls, conscription - and divorced his ass. There's been no real marriage since then. Sure, some go crawling back to their conservative friends, to endure the War on the Users of Some Drugs, unjustified interventionism abroad, rigged "free trade" agreements, and a myriad of violations of civil liberties. I imagine such "fusion" makes them feel cheap and dirty. :)

Kevin

Gary Gunnels | February 16, 2005, 4:45pm | #

I don't believe that conservatives and libertarians have much in common ideologically.

MikeP | February 16, 2005, 4:46pm | #

If you're not a libertarian when you're young, you have no heart. If you're not an anarchist when you're old, you have no brain.

c | February 16, 2005, 4:55pm | #

well, if there has to be a divorce, then at least we can be thankful there were no children of this marriage.

K EVANS | February 16, 2005, 5:01pm | #

I WANT HALF!!!!

Ron | February 16, 2005, 5:05pm | #

I will be very surprised if this debate yields up anything new. Conservatives will always argue that libertarians have more in common with them than with liberals. Most liberals I know don't distinguish libertarians from conservatives. I've almost concluded that "radical centrism" makes more practical sense as an ideology than libertarianism. But I'm open to persuasion...

another steve | February 16, 2005, 5:07pm | #

Gary,

The problem is, "conservatism" is usually so broad a term as to be almost meaningless. Libertarianism is very close to small-government conservatism, very far from traditional conservatism, openly hostile to religious conservatism, and really unrelated to neoconservatism, which is all about foreign policy. Of course, there are always some gaps--even limited-gov conservatism is basically fiscal conservatism, with no real concern for many non-economic liberties.

Sometime the type of conservatism that's prominent in the Republican Party is limited-government conservatism, like it was with Goldwater, Reagan, and Gingrich. Right now, neoconservatism and religious conservatism are stronger in the Republican Party. That's why things look so shitty for libertarians.

another steve | February 16, 2005, 5:09pm | #

And what I meant to say was, libertarianism has a lot in common, ideologically, with most types of conservatism. Any convervatism that's in the Lockean classical-liberal mold is certainly compatible with libertariansim.

David | February 16, 2005, 5:13pm | #

Modern conservatism, and liberalism are both so riddled with contradictions that we are better off on the outskirts anyway.

SPD | February 16, 2005, 5:18pm | #

I think it depends on whether this is one of those new-fangled "covenant marriages." 'Cuz if it is, we're all just wasting our breath, so to speak.

matt | February 16, 2005, 5:31pm | #

"Conservatives and Libertarians: Can This Marriage Be Saved?"

No.

Francisco Torres | February 16, 2005, 5:53pm | #

I am a Libertarian; my ideas have nothing in common with current, modern conservative ideology.

Conservatives are too enamored of the state to be even in the same vicinity as libertarians. I say the same about some liberals, although other liberals can still be saved.

The Wine Commonsewer | February 16, 2005, 5:54pm | #

Sorry guys, this is more like the fleas divorcing the dog. There's 50 billion repubs, some conservative, some libertarian leaning.

And for the respondent there's 36 libertarians plus the staff of Reason, Cato, and some of IJ.

We talk about strategic alliances and proceed to bed Nadine Strossen, whose organization is openly hostile to 90% of what libertarian philosphy stands for........But we gotta get divorced from the Repubs because they don't share our ideals, go figger.

Ron: good points. All my liberal friends see libertarians as republicans who smoke pot and like Mexicans.

Hey, GWB likes Mexicans too.

dlc | February 16, 2005, 5:55pm | #

Marriage is all about complimentary styles. A man typically does not marry a women who is exactly like him and vice versa - humans are too self-loathing to want to spend all their time with a clone. Libs keep the cons from going overboard on infringing on personal liberties and the cons keep the libs from excess.

In that sense, I think the marriage between libs and cons is probably sustainable, even if the conservatives sometimes beat their wife. The libs always come back saying "but he only did it 'cause he was drunk (with power)." Then the libs withold sex (er, money) for a while, but the cons always come back with a "baby - you know you want me - I know that your relationship with that Howard Dean didn't really mean as much as what we share - c'mon baby."

I wonder, if libs and liberals got married, would that be a gay marriage?

Kirsten | February 16, 2005, 6:06pm | #

Libs keep the cons from going overboard on infringing on personal liberties

Apparently not. Maybe you've missed what has happened in the last three and a half years, but nobody (let alone Liberatarians) has kept the cons from systematically decimating personal liberties.


and the cons keep the libs from excess.

How exactly?

micah | February 16, 2005, 6:16pm | #

I was hoping "Reason" could do some sort of follow up commentary/analysis on this debate. I’ve been very interested in the Libertarian movement for about a year now and I’ve always wondered how more Libertarian thinking Republicans could handle the ideological shifts within the party over the past 20 years.

Prove me wrong, but I think "big tent Republicanism" simply can’t work. I don't see how the marriage of big government social conservatism and global militaristic tendencies vs. small government and localized mind your own business peacefulness can last under the same party banner for much longer. The Republican Party is moving in an authoritarian big government direction. The state’s power keeps growing and moderate/Libertarian leaning Republicans aren't doing anything about it. It seems the “your with us or against us” attitude goes a long way within the Republican ranks in order to please the social conservatives who are growing in power and want their ANTI-freedom social issues on the table sooner or later.

I say divorce the CONservative movement…

Captain Awesome | February 16, 2005, 6:29pm | #

I always considered myself a Democrat before a Republican if I couldn't be Libertarian, because in my mind personal freedom trumps economic freedom (I know they're really the same thing) in importance. But my fascination with Economics makes my liberal friends see me as an enemy rather than friend. Why does economic freedom scare the shit out of Dems?

dlc | February 16, 2005, 6:37pm | #

First off, Kristin, I was not talking about big "L" Libertarians (they have zero influence), but rather libertarians within the Republican party. Second, the point may, in fact, be a bad one, but it was in furtherance of trying to be clever...not intelligent.

Granted, libertarian Republicans have had no success controlling infrigements upon liberty lately, but that has not always been the case, and I suspect the chorus of more libertarian voices will rise again someday.

As for "controlling excess," I had nothing witty to say there. I suppose by that, I meant that the conservatives consistently remind the more libertarian wing of the party that, say, virtue is a good thing, or that you can't just completely dismantle the government all at once and expect things to be okay right away. Maybe that's stupid, but whatever, just making a joke....

Roup | February 16, 2005, 6:41pm | #

"Why does economic freedom scare the shit out of Dems?"

Because they don't understand economics. Usually because of the zero-sum fallacy. If you are rich, it is because someone else has been made poor.

Seriously, in my debates about economics with Dems, this is 90% of it is about.

dlc | February 16, 2005, 6:49pm | #

"Why does economic freedom scare the shit out of Dems?"

I've had some success in convincing smart Democrats that economic freedom is a good thing and that it is a neccesary element of personal freedom.

I've had absolutely no success convincing religious conservatives that gay people are born that way, God does not have a hard-on just for America, or that giving your money to Pat Robertson does not equal salvation.

Would you want to align with people who are smart and well-intentioned, but misguided; or with people who are stupid, literally hate people not like them, and couldn't be convinced of the wrongness of their position even if Jesus himself came back to discuss it with them?

Rex Little | February 16, 2005, 6:51pm | #

"The problem is, 'conservatism' is usually so broad a term as to be almost meaningless."

Perspective is interesting. I've been browsing the forum at an Objectivist website (objectivismonline.net) lately, and there's a thread there about why Objectivists are hostile to libertarianism. Their main complaint amounts to that "libertarianism" is too broad.

Captain Awesome | February 16, 2005, 6:54pm | #

dlc,
Although the generalization is a bit coarse. There are definate things I agree with you on.

"and couldn't be convinced of the wrongness of their position even if Jesus himself came back to discuss it with them?"

Try explaining Jesus' distaste for violence especial when it comes to retaliation, and I've met not an evangelical that believes it.

Captain Awesome | February 16, 2005, 6:55pm | #

But that still doesn't excuse the Dems understanding of wealth generation.

Gunnar Hegel | February 16, 2005, 7:06pm | #

You could draw some pretty compelling overlap between conservative and libertarian ideologies. It is the marriage between the conservative ideology and the Republican Party that has fallen into disrepair.

But since Dubya doesn't negotiate with himself, I doubt he'll go to marriage counseling with himself, either.

Mo | February 16, 2005, 7:06pm | #

I think the marriage of convience is over. Nixon's Southern Strategy worked and he turned the Southern conservatives into Republicans. Now they're a huge bloc and they no longer need us. On the plus side, the Dems are missing a huge chunk of their former base and they're starting to realize they need a new coalition. The fact that the DNC chair had a 100% rating from the NRA rating is positive. The op-ed in the Washington Examiner that was posted here last week is another positive sign. The fact that the Dems need us in the worst way helps (especially since union membership is dwindling to almost nothing and plenty of union members vote Republican anyway).

I think it's time for the libertarians to find a new sugar daddy. Sure it's that old self-righteous prick that we swore we'd never let touch us, but our current hubby has turned into him and the other guy may change his stripes. Republican control of the three branches of government is teaching Dems to love federalism, maybe we're ripe for a new marriage of convienence.

tim | February 16, 2005, 7:10pm | #

The question I think is not whether there should be a divorce between consevatives and libertarians, since modern liberarians have very little in common with modern conservatives, but why libertarians continue to thinks that modern conservatives are a friend of liberty. We saw this with Badnarik, and we all had an opinion on his "stategy" of wooing disgruntled conservatives. Badnarik had as much chance of getting conservatives to vote for him as Hillary Clinton.

Modern conservatives are hostile to liberty and love the state. Conservatives also refuse to think for themselves, and will vote Repub. no matter what. It's time for Libertarians to form a partnership with liberals, and at least get them to agree on some free market principles. Conservatives and Libertarians no longer agree on anything.

Ken Shultz | February 16, 2005, 7:17pm | #

Here's the old saw.

Back in the Reagan era, I thought being a conservative meant that you didn't want the federal government involved in your life. I thought it meant that you wanted to cut government services, that you wanted to cut taxes, that you believed that Free Trade and Capitalism--as opposed to Central Planning and Trade Protection--would eventually solve America's economic problems.

I thought it meant you believed in an America First foreign policy--of course we'd stand up to the Soviet Union or anyone else that threatened us. But I though it meant that we wouldn't squander the lives of Americans on foreign pipedreams.

Jack Kemp was a conservative. Phil Gramm was a conservative. Among the "conservative" Republicans, who are the Jack Kemps and Phil Gramms of today?

...Well, I'm glad I asked. The answer is that there aren't any.

I still think most conservatives in the general population believe in those things--I suspect we'd all be surprised by the number of people who would list Free Trader and Budget Cutter as some of Bush's positive attributes. If Republican "conservatives" who still believe in the things I listed want my support, then they should turn their backs on what President Bush has done with the word "conservative". President Bush, as far as I'm concerned, has betrayed every one of my "conservative" beliefs, and the argument that the alternative is worse than he is just isn't enough to bring me back into the fold.

How likely are Republican conservatives to turn their backs on the President? Well, that isn't very likely. So I suspect I'll have to wait until they nominate their next President before I even think about supporting Republican "conservatives" again.

P.S. I heard on the radio today that President Bush said that although he wouldn't raise the rate of payroll taxes to fix social security, he would consider raising the portion of payroll that is considered taxable.

Kirsten | February 16, 2005, 7:24pm | #

I don't suppose that there is any chance this little shindig will be recorded and available on the web after the fact for those of us who don't happen to live anywhere in the area- or is there?

battered libertarian | February 16, 2005, 7:52pm | #

He told me that everything would be alright if I trusted him. He'd spend more money on public schools, but it was OK because he was going to enforce accountability and responsibility on the public schools.

He had to spend more money on Medicare, but it was OK, because he was only doing it to make his social security reforms politically feasible.

Then he told me that he'd have to take charge of my retirement account, but only because voters wouldn't trust a purely market-based reform where they manage their own accounts or hire somebody to do it for them. He said that if he controlled everything it would be OK and we'd get more market forces in the system.

He told me that my kids would have to pay for a lot of his schemes, but it was OK because he was cutting taxes so they'd be more prosperous. I believed him when he said that by spending lots of money now he could make government smaller and pass on the bill to a more prosperous future generation.

He told me he'd have to put some people in prison without trial, but it was OK because he would never abuse the powers that he uses to fight terrorism. And he told me that he'd have to create a massive bureaucracy with a vaguely defined mission, but it was OK because he'd be running it rather than those shifty Democrats.

He increased his control over every aspect of domestic policy and made it all more expensive. And I kept going back to him. I just had no self respect.

My name is Jane Doe, and I am a battered libertarian voter.

Gary Gunnels | February 16, 2005, 7:58pm | #

another steve,

Conservativism as embodied by the Bush administration is in the main incompatible with libertarianism.

Take the issue of religion for goodness sake. The Bush administration's goal is to wed government and religion together in as tight a fit as possible so as to create the sort of society they see as "best" or most "appropriate." That's all fine and good to do so long as its in the private sphere, but when it flows into the realm of government sponsorship and mandates, well that's another story.*

How in the hell is that remotely compatible with a libertarian worldview? It isn't.

I say divorce the fuckers.

*BTW, this is the enevitable outcome of the Democratic political ideology that dominated America for decades; except in this instance its government being wedded to religion rather than a "social welfare."

James Anderson Merritt | February 16, 2005, 8:10pm | #

I never really considered the alleged alliance between Libertarians and conservatives as a "marriage," much less one in which the conservatives played the male role and the libertarians the female one. That sounds like an analogy that provocateur propagandist Jonah Goldberg would make: feh.

I suppose that the question, "can this marriage be saved?" is less depressing for the faithful than the question asked at the Commonwealth Club last December 8th: "Is Envrionmentalism Dead?" Adam Werbach's answer in the affirmative can be found in audio form at http://www.commonwealthclub.org/archive/index.html?fromtime=1075622400&totime=1107244800&sortby=date-descend

Before listening to Werbach's speech, ask yourself these questions:

* Who is thought to be "married" to a larger party that always takes the votes of those same true believers for granted, yet proceeds to spurn them after electoral victory?

* Who is generally thought of as being misanthropic, nerdy, and even a little whacko?

* Who is continually chided for promoting a "utopian" vision, when they should be selling the public on the economic benefits of their proposals?

* Who had their best heyday during the late 1970s and early 1980s and have been slowly sinking into irrelevance ever since?

* Who was absolutely crushed in the last election cycle, partly because their core constituency responded to the siren call to hold their noses and vote for an "electable" candidate who was "closest to their views"?

* Who is encouraged to abandon their independence from the two-party system and actively attempt to take over the larger party that already takes them for granted?

Around here, the answer to those questions is always "Libertarians." But listen to Werbach's speech and you will think you are in Star Trek's mirror universe.

Swamp Justice | February 16, 2005, 8:16pm | #

Even though I'm the one who is libertarian, I have lefty friends who tell ME that Bush is a libertarian "because he believes in using his political power to help his and his friends' companies profit." As many lefties don't understand economoics, they believe the libertarianism = corporate rule.

dlc | February 16, 2005, 8:48pm | #

"who believes that John Kerry's first budget would have been as lean as Bush's"

Lean?

Bush proposes to cook the bacon in olive oil; Kerry would say cook it in lard. Neither would have suggested eating tofu.

Now for another silly question: Who believes Gore would have gotten a $1.2 billion medicare drug handout/boondoggle passed through Congress?

Gary Gunnels | February 16, 2005, 8:58pm | #

Andrew,

Can you give us some examples where the Republican party has allowed libertarians to participate in governing in the Bush administration? When has the Bush administration actually reached out to libertarians? Can you name a libertarian on his staff or in his administration? Does he have any libertarian friends?

NOBODY is going to make abortion illegal.

The Roe, Casey, etc. decisions are essentially one vote shy of being overturned in the SCOTUS. Once that happens, expect 30-40 states to ban abortion outright.

A.) exagerrated

Its not exagerrated at all.

B.) subject to change.

That's hardly comforting. :)

matt | February 16, 2005, 9:02pm | #

"That Republican leaders are "big-government conservatives" is

A.) exagerrated

B.) subject to change."

Dude, are you serious?

Also, divided gov't worked fairly well in the 90's if I remember correctly.

Rick Barton | February 16, 2005, 9:16pm | #

"I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism".(Ronald Reagan in a interview with Reason-July 1975)

I'm a libertarian, but I'm ok with the label "libertarian conservative" There are many good (small government) conservatives with whom libertarians find much to make common cause. Bush isn't much of a conservative at all and has led the GOP down many big government paths. But, that is no reason to divorce the small government conservatives. Once the affair with the neocons is finished, the ideological marriage can again be strong.

The real case for divorce is the conservatives from the neocons

The neocons and their organs, such as The Weekly Standard, speak very little for individual liberty, and sometimes they even speak against it. Also, check out what Bill Kristol told the New York Times:

"If we have to make common cause with the more hawkish liberals and fight the conservatives, that is fine with me," The Weekly Standard editor added that the neoconservatives may just abandon the Right altogether and convert to neo-liberalism!

Rick Barton | February 16, 2005, 9:19pm | #

...Oh yeah, I meant to add that Kristol said that back when Bush was looking vulerable to Kerry in the polls.

Brett | February 16, 2005, 9:19pm | #

It is the marriage between the conservative ideology and the Republican Party that has fallen into disrepair.

Ding ding ding ding ding! Short, to the point, dead on.

Ken Shultz | February 16, 2005, 9:35pm | #

"...they aren't likely to repeal Patriot, either."

I suspect the Trial Lawyers, among others, are big time against Patriot.

"NOBODY is going to make abortion illegal."

Some states would make abortion illegal tomorrow if they could. BTW, I lean Pro-Life.

"That Republican leaders are "big-government conservatives" is A.) exagerrated B.) subject to change."

If we don't judge the Republicans by their last budget, what should we judge them by? They might not be such porky pork pork pig pigs next time? Oh please! Why would they stop feeding at the trough now? The last time, it didn't cost them a thing.

"That Democrats are Big-Government Liberals is A.) indisputably true B.) about as immutable as anything in the universe of politics."

Isn't this where thoreau is supposed to pipe up with, "If Kerry had been elected, it would be much worse."

...and then everyone laughs?

"BTW for you divided-government theorists...who believes that John Kerry's first budget would have been as lean as Bush's, or that the final reconciliation would have been less costly?"

Until Bush's brand of conservative treason loses an election, there's no reason for the rest of the Republican Party to stop following his lead.

Mo | February 16, 2005, 9:40pm | #

It is the marriage between the conservative ideology and the Republican Party that has fallen into disrepair.

Ding ding ding ding ding! Short, to the point, dead on.

Comment by: Brett at February 16, 2005 09:19 PM

Brett and Gunnar,
The question is will the Republicans ever look back to the old small government ideology. Now that they have a winning coalition, they see that they only have to pay lip service to small government types to keep them. Either we leave to send a message or we become the black people of the Republican party (by this I mean a group wedded to the party that only gets lip-service rather than actual policies supported by our group see: African Americans and vouchers).

Maybe the departure of Dubya will lead to a return of small government conservatism (unlikely), but the new coalition including former Southern Democrats (not exactly a small government group) means that we're likely to see more of the same.

kevrob | February 16, 2005, 9:43pm | #

Before any Ms. Liberties out there decide that Mr. Equality is a possible refuge from that beast, Mr. Order, better do a mental check-up. He's no likelier to let you drive the family car than your old ol' man was, he'll be just as likely to squander the family paycheck, even if on a different set of vices, and while he's probably not going to demand you join him at Church every Wednesday night and twice on Sundays, if you say anything rude about any of his weird or shiftless relatives, he'll castigate you forever about it. His Big Brother is every bit as annoying as Mr. Order's was, if fixated on other things, and his Mama will second-guess you on your housekeeping until Doomsday. You won't even be able to throw out your trash without a lecture on the right way to do it, and you'll be lucky to get off with a scolding.

Seriously, let me give you the number for the Isabel Patterson Home for Battered Wives. You should use it.

Kevin

N.B. Jack Kemp was a conservative. - Ken S.
Kemp stopped being a small-govt. conservative when he took the HUD job. He was captured by the bureaucracy. The Phil Gramms and Bob Barrs are no longer welcome in the GOP, and I doubt they'd even listen to Dick Armey nowadays.

Gary Gunnels | February 16, 2005, 9:47pm | #

Mo,

There's a reason why the Moral Majority shuttered its doors in 1989; Christian "conservatives" have control of the Republican party. These people have very little in common with libertarians as a rule.

Rick Barton | February 16, 2005, 9:54pm | #

Andrew,

I agree with many of your points at 08:06 PM but not:

That Republican leaders are "big-government conservatives" is exagerrated.

In the case of Bush, much of his agenda is certainly big government.

Also:

for you divided-government theorists...who believes that John Kerry's first budget would have been as lean as Bush's, or that the final reconciliation would have been less costly?

The government grew a shameful 23 or 26% under Bush's first term. Now, I assume you mean Kerry's first budget vs. the budget that Bush just announced. I think that your probably right; Kerry's would have been even worse. (Even though this Bush budget is 31% bigger than his very first one) However, as to the final reconciliation of Kerry's budget, I think that with the GOP in control of congress, it would very likely be less costly. It had better be, or there isn't much to your point that the GOP leaders are not big government types. And, as matt pointed out 09:02 PM: Divided government worked to throttle Clinton's big government ways.

Rick Barton | February 16, 2005, 10:00pm | #

Not to put to fine a point on it but; "big-government conservatives" is indeed an inaccurate label for many Republican leaders, but certainly not Bush...It's that corrupting neocon influence.

jimmy | February 16, 2005, 11:39pm | #

if libertarians were to be "divorced" from conservatives, would anyone notice? who are we kidding here? there is no libertarian movement in this country to speak of. i'm not saying i could have done any better than all that cane before, but you gotta admit that libertarianism is dead or dying.

The Wine Commonsewer | February 16, 2005, 11:47pm | #

Tim,

"It's time for Libertarians to form a partnership with liberals, and at least get them to agree on some free market principles"

You better bring your lunch AND your sleeping bag because it's going to take you a while.

TWC

The Wine Commonsewer | February 16, 2005, 11:53pm | #

Gary,

"Christian "conservatives" have control of the Republican party."

Doubt. They WISH they had control of the party, and if they did all the fag boys would be locked up, cheating wives would be stoned (naked) in the streets, fornicators and stoners would be in jail. Wait, stoners are already in jail, so that wouldn't change. AND, it would be legal in Texas to kill your old lady if you found her with another man.

Cameron | February 16, 2005, 11:55pm | #

I am a recent convert from a sort of liberalism. I was for drug legalization (this is the primary force that moved me to read libertarian literature), against the war in Iraq, for gay marriage, and was thus reflexively anti-Republican. It would take a lot of changes for me to vote Republican. However, I became increasingly disillusioned with the Democrats, who seemed to me to be ill-informed braying asses who fancied themselves big-hearted. I had not fallen into their anti-market values, so the move to libertarianism was relatively natural for me. Democrats have absolutely no vision right now as far as I can tell, and are therefore almost entirely negative, but libertarianism may be able to appeal to a wide swath of people who are currently forced to vote Democratic. It's a long shot, but it might be worth a try. Maybe the party of F.D.R. could turn back into the party of Jefferson.

watchmeworkit | February 17, 2005, 12:17am | #

another steve,

I could not have said it better myself.

Keep em coming!

Randolph Carter | February 17, 2005, 12:24am | #

look at the people who show up at democrat rallies. Look on college campuses and see who the voices of the Democratic party are. There isn't a snowball's chance in hell that most of these people will EVER look fondly upon "free markets and free minds." Sadly, in many people's minds ideas like drug legalization and anti-war sentiments are inextricably linked to anti-globalization and socialized medicine (I know those are sort of random examples, but look at an ANSWER rally and you will see all of the above, but never a "end government monopoly on schools" or whatever sign). Frankly, most people are too busy with their lives to give two shits about nuanced political ideology, and prefer to stick to red or blue.

Randolph Carter | February 17, 2005, 12:26am | #

Oops, "free minds and free markets."

Patrick D | February 17, 2005, 12:38am | #

Jimmy,

"if libertarians were to be 'divorced' from conservatives, would anyone notice? who are we kidding here? there is no libertarian movement in this country to speak of. i'm not saying i could have done any better than all that cane before, but you gotta admit that libertarianism is dead or dying."

You got that right! Andrew's point about libertarians influencing the Republican party from within is worth about as much as the goo my greyhound squeezed out this afternoon. Libertarians, small 'l' or capital 'L', did not win the last election for the Republicans, the socially conservative statists did. Republicans have nothing to gain from letting libertarians influence anything.

Let's face it. Libertarians have avoided hard political work and relied for too long on the notion that they can just ride along with the Republicans. Irrelevance is the result.

The "divided government" strategy is not much better and further erodes representative government. Last election I checked. No way to qualify my vote. Vote Democrat or Republican and they assume I completely support their agendas.

I've voted straight Libertarian the last 2 elections even it meant voting for a whackjob. It seems idealistic but is actually the only practical solution I can think of. I figure that if anyone cares to analyze voting patterns they will see it as support for libertarian ideas rather than support for the individual in question.

Rick Barton | February 17, 2005, 12:57am | #

Cameron,

Welcome!

Eric the .5b | February 17, 2005, 1:41am | #

Would you want to align with people who are smart and well-intentioned, but misguided; or with people who are stupid, literally hate people not like them, and couldn't be convinced of the wrongness of their position even if Jesus himself came back to discuss it with them?

I'd love to, but all I have are the Republicans and Democrats.