Dems Will Find Libertarian Voters a Hard Sell
Democrats are actively seeking to expand upon the gains they made in last month's Congressional elections, and some high-profile columnists are suggesting that the party court libertarian-leaning voters. Looking at the exit polling data from the last few election cycles, it's easy to understand why strategists would find libertarians to be an enticing demographic. After all, Kerry more than doubled the 16% that Al Gore received from self-identified libertarians back in 2000. Congressional Democrats fared even better in 2006, fighting the GOP to a near 50-50 split among libertarians. Nonetheless, relying on libertarian voters as a long-term strategy towards Democratic Congressional majorities is unlikely to yield the intended results, and may in fact push away elements of the Democratic base. Here are only a few of the reasons why:
1) Libertarians are far from a monolithic group, and the ideology's disparate factions have consistently kept it from being a cohesive force in American elections. Take a look at Bill Maher and Larry Elder, both self-proclaimed libertarians, and see if you can piece together a platform that both men can agree upon. One segment of libertarians is primarily interested in the legalization of narcotics, while another is concerned with protecting civil liberties and property rights at all costs, and another believes the Republican Party is not conservative enough in its defense of the free market religion. My suspicion is that the majority (or plurality) of libertarians fit in the latter category, and they are the least winnable demographic of voters around other than in "teach them a lesson" elections like we saw in 2006.
2) The excesses of George Bush in regards to civil liberties issues have driven many libertarians to the Democratic Party out of protest, but once the bogeyman is no longer a factor in 2008, I'm skeptical that these voters will remain in the Democratic fray. A Republican like Arizonan John McCain is likely to be viewed very favorable by most libertarian voters should he be the GOP Presidential nominee in 2008. On the other hand, if the GOP nominee puts his stamp of approval on Bush's various assaults on the Constitution, Dems have the ability to live on borrowed time with the support of a disproportionately high number of libertarians a little longer. But still, does anybody believe that self-described libertarians would stand by the Democratic Party if Hillary Clinton was President and the Democrats still controlled the Senate? Or, for that matter, a Hillary Clinton candidacy at all, considering she's the public face behind national health care, an idea that is deplored by economic conservatives.
3) The agenda of the Democratic Party is contradicting libertarian dogma on fundamental issues of personal freedoms and property rights. I consider myself something of a libertarian and am appalled and downright frightened over the exponential growth of the authoritarian nanny state pushed primarily by the political left. Nanny-statism has almost become the left's equivalent to conservative wedge issues like gay marriage, with smarmy and self-congratulatory pols (disproportionately Democrat) pushing the envelope on new anti-smoking regulations with each legislative session and directly undermining bellwether libertarian positions on personal freedoms and private property rights in the process. The city councils of New York City and Chicago recently enacting a prohibitions against "transfat" in their cities' restaurants confirms my long-standing fears that the authoritarian left would not long be content with simply pressing their nanny-state bootheels into the necks of smokers, and you can bet libertarians are taking note as well. While the national Democratic Party hasn't been on the forefront in "saving us from ourselves", the Democratic Party at the state and local level has been, and eventually it will catch up to the national party at the current rate that the nanny state is growing.
And on top of all of this, the Democrats will have to climb further into bed with the business community if they want to sell libertarians in large numbers on the premise that Dems are their ideological soulmates. In so doing, labor unions, urban blacks, and other economic populists in key states will no longer have a reason to vote Democratic, much like white working class Southerners left the party in droves in 1993 when Bill Clinton signed NAFTA
None of this is to say that Democrats shouldn't TRY to expand the ranks of libertarians into the party fray, and I wholeheartedly recommend the party abandon its assault on personal freedom and property rights in the name of health-and-wellness purity. But for the most part, Democrats and libertarians are not a natural union, and Democrats are only gonna get so far by pretending that they are.
1) Libertarians are far from a monolithic group, and the ideology's disparate factions have consistently kept it from being a cohesive force in American elections. Take a look at Bill Maher and Larry Elder, both self-proclaimed libertarians, and see if you can piece together a platform that both men can agree upon. One segment of libertarians is primarily interested in the legalization of narcotics, while another is concerned with protecting civil liberties and property rights at all costs, and another believes the Republican Party is not conservative enough in its defense of the free market religion. My suspicion is that the majority (or plurality) of libertarians fit in the latter category, and they are the least winnable demographic of voters around other than in "teach them a lesson" elections like we saw in 2006.
2) The excesses of George Bush in regards to civil liberties issues have driven many libertarians to the Democratic Party out of protest, but once the bogeyman is no longer a factor in 2008, I'm skeptical that these voters will remain in the Democratic fray. A Republican like Arizonan John McCain is likely to be viewed very favorable by most libertarian voters should he be the GOP Presidential nominee in 2008. On the other hand, if the GOP nominee puts his stamp of approval on Bush's various assaults on the Constitution, Dems have the ability to live on borrowed time with the support of a disproportionately high number of libertarians a little longer. But still, does anybody believe that self-described libertarians would stand by the Democratic Party if Hillary Clinton was President and the Democrats still controlled the Senate? Or, for that matter, a Hillary Clinton candidacy at all, considering she's the public face behind national health care, an idea that is deplored by economic conservatives.
3) The agenda of the Democratic Party is contradicting libertarian dogma on fundamental issues of personal freedoms and property rights. I consider myself something of a libertarian and am appalled and downright frightened over the exponential growth of the authoritarian nanny state pushed primarily by the political left. Nanny-statism has almost become the left's equivalent to conservative wedge issues like gay marriage, with smarmy and self-congratulatory pols (disproportionately Democrat) pushing the envelope on new anti-smoking regulations with each legislative session and directly undermining bellwether libertarian positions on personal freedoms and private property rights in the process. The city councils of New York City and Chicago recently enacting a prohibitions against "transfat" in their cities' restaurants confirms my long-standing fears that the authoritarian left would not long be content with simply pressing their nanny-state bootheels into the necks of smokers, and you can bet libertarians are taking note as well. While the national Democratic Party hasn't been on the forefront in "saving us from ourselves", the Democratic Party at the state and local level has been, and eventually it will catch up to the national party at the current rate that the nanny state is growing.
And on top of all of this, the Democrats will have to climb further into bed with the business community if they want to sell libertarians in large numbers on the premise that Dems are their ideological soulmates. In so doing, labor unions, urban blacks, and other economic populists in key states will no longer have a reason to vote Democratic, much like white working class Southerners left the party in droves in 1993 when Bill Clinton signed NAFTA
None of this is to say that Democrats shouldn't TRY to expand the ranks of libertarians into the party fray, and I wholeheartedly recommend the party abandon its assault on personal freedom and property rights in the name of health-and-wellness purity. But for the most part, Democrats and libertarians are not a natural union, and Democrats are only gonna get so far by pretending that they are.
posted by Mark at 9:46 PM
8 Comments:
I agree that reaching out to Libertarians is not effective for maintaining a long term Democratic majority. One of my libertarian friends from college is to the right of me on economics and foreign policy, but is close to me on social issues, at least on Terri Schiavo. I don't expect him to vote Democratic; he voted Bush in 2004 and likely will vote GOP again in 2008 (or Libertarian if the GOP nominee does not have libertarian leanings).
And I agree that banning smoking or trans fats is not the answer to improve this country's health in the long term. It will just become another Prohibition, and will just add more inmates to our way-too-overcrowded prisons (this is a big problem in California) and form a black market not unlike those from Prohibition.
Not to mention that these issues are not what most voters want to see Dems tackle; they want to see the pols come up with solutions that the pols campaigned on this election.
I wholly support unions (they are a significant resource for California Democrats) and will be mightily disappointed if the Dems sell out the unions by developing a greater affinity for the despised (at least by me and some friends) big biz.
We libertarians wish to have nothing to do with the Democrat Party. This whole meme of a "Libertarian-Democrat" alliance is just made-up pablum cooked up by the liberal media, and a couple smart cookies at Cato and Reason wanting to play "hard to get" for a while with the GOP. There's little if any truth to it, whatsoever.
If there was, then how does one explain the fact that the Republican Liberty Caucus (GOP's libertarian wing), just had one of its greatest years EVER!! This is the under-reported news story of the 2006 election cycle. RLC-backed candidates kicked ass! According to RLC Chairman Bill Westmiller, over 80% of RLC-backed candidates won this year.
And Ron Paul, America's leading Libertarian Republican, easily won his Congressional seat in Texas with 65% despite being severely targetted for defeat by the Democrats.
Sure, Republicans have pissed libertarians off a bit, especially with the idiotic last minute Internet Gaming Ban.
But a Giuliani candidacy will win libertarians for the most part back to the GOP fold, even some more hardcore Libertarian Party people.
Don't fall for the lies. There's no attraction for the Democrat Party amongst libertarians.
After all these are the very same people (like that SOB Brian Schwietzer) who kicked us off the ballots for our Property Rights petitions in Montana, Missouri, Nevada and other States in 2006.
Eric at www.mainstreamlibertarian.com
eric, while some of your points on this topic are valid, your core thesis is contradicted by exit polling data that has shown Democratic numbers increasing among self-identified libertarians in each of the last three election cycles. They rose from Gore's 20% in 2000 to the 45% for Congressional Democrats in 2006. "A couple smart cookies" at the Cato Institute aren't personally responsible for that surge in Democratic support.
As described in the thread, libertarians are hardly a monolithic bunch. A self-proclaimed libertarian like Bill Maher would never go along with the Cato Institute bilge you seem to believe defines libertarianism.
As a Democrat, however, I'm hoping your Republican Liberty Caucus has more of these "greatest years ever!" if the result is 29 more Democrats in the House and six more Democrats in the Senate.
sean, libertarians have their own party, but they are so disunited that they can't coalesce their various factions around a coherent party platform, so are thus a permanently nominal force in American politics and will likely continue to be.
One more update from the election front, this time TX-23...
CIRO RODRIGUEZ UPSET HENRY BONILLA!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA121206.voter.e-n.2eb2e45.html
Take THAT, Hammer!!!!!
You seem confused. I said the Republican Liberty Caucus, meaning the libertarian wing of the GOP, had one of its "greatest years ever." I did not say the Republican Party did.
As a matter of fact, we libertarian Republicans are absolutely thrilled by the prospects of now taking over the drivers seat of the GOP.
Think about it. For the last few years the religious conservatives have been running things, with the moderates going along, not even throwing us libertarians a bone.
Now the religious cons have suffered a defeat. The mods did, as well.
Who does that leave standing?
The libertarians and fiscal conservatives.
We're gonna take our Party back to its Goldwater roots for 2008!!
This is a very exciting time to be a libertarian Republican.
And btw, take a moment and look at all the libertarian-leaning Republicans who won election this year. Don't just buy into what the leftist media is spoon feeding you.
How do you explain that Mark Sanfrod, easily won reelection as Governor of SC despite the fact that he was slammed severely in the last few days for being a... Gosh! "libertarian."
And the Dems tried the same thing on Cong. Ron Paul in Texas, slamming him for being an "extremist libertarian." He won with 65%.
Go ahead Democrats. Keep slamming us libertarians. You're just going to help us to get elected.
Lovin' life!
Eric, CEO at www.mainstreamlibertarian.com
Libertarians taking over the Republican Party? Because Ron Paul was re-elected? In fact, the Old Confederacy, theocrats and all, stand as an even larger faction of the Republican Party caucus than they did on November 6.
And Mark Sanford re-elected? He's a Republican from freaking South Carolina and he only managed 55% against a fourth-rate opponent. Is this really as good as it gets for you guys?
And Eric, Bill Maher is a self-described libertarian. Do you consider him to be an ideological soulmate? This is the problem with libertarianism. You guys are way too fractured to consolidate any numerical strength to your movement and every slight insurgency you mount will quickly go the way of Ross Perot's Reform Party.
Mark Sanford "not a libertarian." Is that why the liberal Democrats and the liberal Media slammed him in the last few days of the election with the "libertarian" label?
And as far as Ron Paul, I happen to live in his District. I've seen what the Democrats have done to him. Hitting him cause he supports altnernatives to the Drug War, and supports civil liberties.
Eric at www.mainstreamlibertarian.com
Post a Comment
<< Home