The Libertarian Party is a mistake
Are Democrats better than Republicans on personal liberty? Neither has been great on that score, but Democrats have been the bigger disappointment. When I took the medical-marijuana case to the Supreme Court in 2004, I got zero votes from the left side of the court while garnering the votes of Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Clarence Thomas and Sandra Day O’Connor. And President Obama’s Justice Department has reneged on his campaign promise to refrain from going after medical-marijuana dispensaries.
Neither party wants to question the futile and destructive “war on drugs.” But Republicans have been much better on free speech in recent years. With respect to economic liberty, the Environmental Protection Agency has restricted land use throughout the nation and would do more if not stopped. Dodd-Frank has amped up restrictions on financial services.
Libertarians need to adjust their tactics to the current context. This year, their highest priority should be saving the country from fiscal ruin, arresting and reversing the enormous growth in federal power—beginning with repealing ObamaCare—and pursuing a judiciary who will actually enforce the Constitution. Which party is most likely to do these things in 2013?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
I could swear I just read this same article, by a different author, about 90 minutes ago.
Dextrous on November 6, 2012 at 11:00 AM
The Libertarian Party is joke. Totally wasted votes.
I remember Harry Browne and other LP Party people predicting in 1996 that in 15 years, The Libertarian Party would be contending for the presidency.
Well, here we are, and they’d be lucky to get 1% nationally.
Norwegian on November 6, 2012 at 11:00 AM
98.5% of liberterians care about only 3 things:
1. Legalized Drugs – specifically pot
2. Gay marriage; and three
3. Abortion.
The vast majority of “liberterians” could care less about economic freedom, property rights, or any other issues.
Yes, there are a few – very few- principled Liberterians who care very much about those things, but the vast majority of Liberterians are liberals who want to claim something “edgier”. That’s why most liberterians for the last 20 years always vote for the most liberal – gov’t enlarging democrat they can.
Monkeytoe on November 6, 2012 at 11:01 AM
Huh?
davidk on November 6, 2012 at 11:02 AM
I find that many people who call themselves libertarian aren’t really that when you start asking them about specific issues. They just think it sounds cool to be called libertarian I guess.
Mark1971 on November 6, 2012 at 11:04 AM
That’s pretty much my assessment, too.
They seem to be more antinomian than libertarian.
davidk on November 6, 2012 at 11:05 AM
Kinda like when you ask a Conservative like John Roberts what he thinks of ObamaCare
Notorious GOP on November 6, 2012 at 11:06 AM
So what you’re really saying is that Libertarians are really Liberals who just vote for Democrat because they want to expand government. . .just at a large pace that GOPers?
Notorious GOP on November 6, 2012 at 11:09 AM
Because they’re all on the take?
trigon on November 6, 2012 at 11:10 AM
You forgot #4: Total abandonment of force projection or support of allies militarily. I swear they do that just to bait pacifists.
I’m a “small ‘L’ libertarian”. The libertarian that wants pot legal not because I smoke it but because I’m tired of paying for the enforcement of drug laws. The libertarian that wants gay marriage legal, not because I support homosexuality but because I believe government has no business regulating marriage. The libertarian that abhors abortion and believes that the sooner the pro-abortion genes are knocked out of the gene-pool (by abortion) the better off our species will be. The libertarian that believes in a strong national defense, not so that we can play policeman to all the crappy parts of the world but so the crappy parts of the world know without a doubt that they can’t win a war against us. Unfortunately I’m in minority when it comes to being a “libertarian”.
Browncoatone on November 6, 2012 at 11:14 AM
Plenty of red meat for the “Big L” Libertarians today.
Giving them a place to play so they don’t trash the rest of the house?
cozmo on November 6, 2012 at 11:16 AM
I’m a libertarian mostly concerned with Fiscal issues.
Bush spent years raising discretionary spending with a Republican Congress… and most Republicans either supported this, or didn’t care at all.
But it was a mistake to ditch the party? I should have done what then? Supported massive spending under a Republican out of solidarity with the (R)? Pretended that being mocked and ignored for being concerned about government growth and spending was acceptable?
Bullpuckey.
I did vote for Romney this cycle, but I did not vote downticket for R over L… the Republicans cannot be trusted with fiscal responsibility.
Being more responsible than the town drunk isn’t really laudable, although if it looks like the town drunk might win I’ll vote for you to avoid that.
If the Republican party starts actually BEING fiscally responsible while in power; maybe I’ll come back… but I don’t see leaving a party that has ditched my personal top issues as a “mistake”.
I see the party ditching responsibility and principle as a mistake; but that wasn’t my mistake to make.
gekkobear on November 6, 2012 at 11:17 AM
Why would libertarians want to vote for their own candidate when they have a choice between Hard Core Socialism (in the Dim party) and Soft Core Socialism (in the Republican party)?
What a bunch of idiots. Hey guys … get in line and vote for your favorite Socialist today!
HondaV65 on November 6, 2012 at 11:18 AM
The Libertarian Party is, has been, and will remain, irrelevant.
farsighted on November 6, 2012 at 11:22 AM
Then why did this dude write a whole article calling them a mistake?
A bug in the street is “irrelevent” … you don’t pay attention to it. Clearly, the libertarians are much more than a bug in the street since they DO get attention.
HondaV65 on November 6, 2012 at 11:23 AM
Republicans might get a *slight* edge on this but when it comes to dumping on the constitution they can be entirely bi-partisan. Barky, who thinks of himself as a cross between Martin Luther King and Jesus, adopted W’s anti-terror policies wholesale. As did all his Democrats. And there’s a whole ton of anti-liberty badness in that steaming pile (see the NSA’s Thin Thread project which is still ongoing).
Libertarian ideas extend beyond drugs and gays.
CorporatePiggy on November 6, 2012 at 11:24 AM
Why not? You’re not basing that off of 60 years of promises from them to cut government but doing the opposite at every opportunity are you?
HondaV65 on November 6, 2012 at 11:25 AM
Most don’t understand the difference between libertinism and libertarianism and want the former to be the basis for our society.
single stack on November 6, 2012 at 11:27 AM
The Libertarian Party is a big help to the Democrats.
Democrats give to the Libertarian Party to split a few votes off the Republicans. Indiana went for Obama because of the Libertarian in 2008. Also Joe Donnelly would have lost his congressional seat in 2010 if the Libertarians had voted for the Republican. He might now become a Senator.
zmdavid on November 6, 2012 at 11:27 AM
Al Franken in 2008. Over 22k votes for Libertarian and Constitutional party candidates. 10% of those voters decide to suck it up and vote for Coleman and he wins.
Rep: Norm Coleman 1,211,590 41.988%
Dem: Al Franken 1,211,375 41.981%
Ind: Dean Barkley 437,404 15.158%
Lib: Charles Aldrich 13,916 0.482%
Con: James Niemackl 8,905 0.309%
But who cares, right? Coleman was a RINO so what’s the difference? It’s not like Franken was the 60th vote for Obamacare… oh wait. he was. It would have been 59-41 if Coleman would have won.
But vote for the perfect instead of the good, because logic has no place in deciding who to vote for, just emotion.
strictnein on November 6, 2012 at 11:38 AM
Newt cut parts of government. Actual cuts. He got tarred, feathered and railroaded out of town. He is the only politician outside maybe Sarah Palin (damn, almost forgot her name LOL) that as president would factually cut government.
Romney will not, not one dime of actual cuts.
astonerii on November 6, 2012 at 11:40 AM
TWO PARTY SYSTEM ÜBER ALLES
Jeddite on November 6, 2012 at 11:41 AM
Yes, libertarians are inconsistent, but so are conservatives. I couldn’t believe the libertarians mooning over George McGovern on his recent passing. But conservatives excuse the Republican party, time and again, for behaving exactly like the Democrat party. Obviously, fiscal responsibility isn’t high on their list of priorities, as it must be. I hate to see it, but I’m afraid we’re getting another liberal Republican in Romney. The status quo will continue.
rickv404 on November 6, 2012 at 11:45 AM
Conservatives support the GOP because it is the best option available, not because we believe the GOP is conservative. I have no illusions about Romney, but he is far closer to anything a libertarian could want then Obama. Those who claim “libertarianism” but always vote for increasing the size and scope of gov’t are laughable.
there’s a big difference between supporting a party b/c it is closer to your ideas, although not perfect, then supporting a party that is the opposite of your ideals, but somehow is acceptable b/c of abortion and gay marriage. It makes no sense and cannot be argued with any logic.
Monkeytoe on November 6, 2012 at 11:57 AM
Nailed it. I used to call myself a libertarian. I stopped a few years ago for exactly the reasons this article lays out.
Republicans may not be as committed to individual freedoms as libertarians on some social issues, but the Democrats have become downright abysmal all across the spectrum. It is Republicans who defend individual liberty, not Democrats, and Libertarian party candidates, especially my local ones, sound more and more like urban liberals with every election.
Caiwyn on November 6, 2012 at 11:59 AM
Basically. One cannot vote for today’s democrats and claim to want smaller, less intrusive gov’t. Now, that is not the same as saying that the GOP is great on the issue – obviously not. But, looking at platforms and actions, the dems are far, far worse.
there is almost no issue on which one can argue that the left is more open to freedom than the right. The only possible arguments are abortion and gay marriage. The left is worse on free speech, freedom of association, right to bear arms, property rights, contract rights, etc. The left would like to regulate what you eat and how much you eat. There is no arena of life that the left does not seek to regulate.
So, yes, the religious right wants abortion to be illegal and is against gay marriage. In what world does that make the GOP worse than the Dems on liberty issues and small gov’t issues?
Even if you look at foreign affairs, there is no major difference between the parties in terms of where our bases are, how much aid we give out in foreign aid, where we meddle. And, frankly, I have never heard a coherent argument about how libertarianism applies to national security or foreign affairs – unless it is simple isolationism. We should do nothing, have no army and hope for the best.
So, all the hip libertarians who vote for Obama are deluding themselves. They are liberals.
Monkeytoe on November 6, 2012 at 12:05 PM
I say we’re going to need another option soon, because we’re spinning our wheels in mud with the Republican party. And I don’t necessarily mean a third party option. We cannot withstand too much more of the likes of Bush and Nixon, not to mention the likes of Obama, Johnson or Roosevelt, but I can’t see how Romney is not more of them.
rickv404 on November 6, 2012 at 12:16 PM
Wow. The Establishment is really making its push.
Dante on November 6, 2012 at 12:18 PM
May I suggest reading Rollback, by Tom Woods? I wouldn’t say you are in the minority at all.
Dante on November 6, 2012 at 12:19 PM
What? As recent as the G.W. Bush administration? If we hadn’t gotten Bush, we wouldn’t have gotten Obama. This ping-ponging between political parties is not getting us anywhere but down. There’s got to be another way. I think conservatives and libertarians will ultimately have to have a divorce.
rickv404 on November 6, 2012 at 12:20 PM
Dante, you never said how stopping the U.S.S.R. before it gets established in Canada isn’t in the U.S.’s best interest and something our military should do. You’ve avoided that twice now.
cptacek on November 6, 2012 at 12:21 PM
And if Gary Johnson is the difference between victory and defeat in CO, NV, and IA?
JohnGalt23 on November 6, 2012 at 12:24 PM
The Libertarian Party is to “theoretical” and idealistic. We want a new realistic, pragmatic strain of small L (I guess) libertarianism that can be successfully integrated into a conservative party, whether it be the tarnished brand (tranished because Repub seen as “country club” not the Joe the Plumber) Republican party or, better yet, a new party to replace the R party.
And as far as the costly and immoral war on drugs, and the police state that it spawns, it part of what is ruining this country, we better start thinking about what we are doing. And the Portugal evidence is that legalizing drugs actually REDUCES addiction. But that point is not going to stop the inertia and political correctness sustaining this idiotic archaic policy. It’s not clear what the point of the failed war on drugs is. But it’s not to stop drug use.
anotherJoe on November 6, 2012 at 12:34 PM
All third-party campaigns work this way.
However, judging from the comments, L(l)ibertarians don’t seem to agree on what their interests are, so they are draining from both sides.
AesopFan on November 6, 2012 at 12:36 PM
Um, I want smaller government, the GOP gives me bigger government… that isn’t “good”.
That is more “vote for the crappy who will not give you anything you want, to avoid possibly MORE crappy results from the other guy”… not really a rallying call.
You want libertarian votes? you have two choices.
1) Insult them and attack them and hope this plan will make them like you somehow… which hasn’t worked yet, but you keep trying.
2) BE LESS CRAPPY!
I’m not sure why you’re unwilling to attempt #2, but good luck attacking people and wondering why they don’t like you. It’s like a marriage where you beat your wife and she leaves you… incomprehensible… right?
But yeah, keep attacking Libertarians and calling them names; how else can you persuade someone to support you… you catch more flies with vinegar than honey.
Oh, is that backward? Are you sure? Based on your actions you don’t seem to be sure at all.
gekkobear on November 6, 2012 at 12:39 PM
Wow, lots of anti-libertarian trolling going on at HotAir today. Maybe Republicans should have thought of us when they were voting in the primaries instead of voting for an empty suit.
Benaiah on November 6, 2012 at 12:43 PM
Actually what I’ve seen in recent years.
Republicans in power are as bad for liberty as Democrats. (Patriot act, discretionary spending, executive orders & privilege under Bush)…
Republicans out of power are better for liberty than Democrats (either in or out of power for this comparison with Democrats).
And the goal is to get more Republicans in power? Why?
…
To be fair I DID vote for Romney this time around; but if this turns out like Bush (Patriot Act, huge discretionary spending boost, more government power and control, less freedom and liberty) you can write me off forever.
If the only way to get Republicans to care about liberty and freedom is for them to be in the minority I’m good with encouraging that outcome. If you want to have any chance of getting Libertarian votes, what you do IN power is more important than what you do OUT of power.
gekkobear on November 6, 2012 at 12:45 PM
Instead of backing a 3rd party you should back a primary challenge in one of the major parties. If you can’t win in a primary, you’ll never win a general election, the most you can do is play spoiler.
zmdavid on November 6, 2012 at 12:50 PM
I tried that… and I found that 70% or so of the Republican party doesn’t care about smaller government or reduced spending; so I can’t get a candidate elected in a primary… but I should support that anyhow?
Nope, switched parties on registration so I don’t get counted as supporting the “lets use big government to gain more power and ‘fix’ society” brigade.
If I can’t win… that isn’t a reason to give up my principles and beliefs. Would you throw away your principles and beliefs for a chance to “win”? Did you vote for Obama in 2008 as he was clearly going to win?
Or did you put principles over winning?
gekkobear on November 6, 2012 at 12:55 PM
You quoted me extensively from a thread in which I discussed this and in which I made my positions known. I suggest you read it.
Dante on November 6, 2012 at 12:56 PM
Republicans gave us the Patriot Act, the TSA, the DHS, lightbulb bans, and a Chief Justice who incorrectly ruled that Obamacare is constitutional.
Give me a break with your lie that Republicans defend individual liberty when they most certainly do not.
Dante on November 6, 2012 at 12:59 PM
Another one of the common, lazy arguments. Your use of the word “spoiler” indicates that you believe it is the right of the major party candidates to win an election. There is no such thing as a spoiler.
Dante on November 6, 2012 at 1:18 PM
I guess I can’t wrap my head around how stupid you have to be to allow a threat like that to bump against our borders without trying to stop them before it gets to that point.
cptacek on November 6, 2012 at 1:46 PM
Yeah sorry, I guess spoiler is not fair. Voting 3rd party is the same as not voting at all, not really spoiler.
If you really think there are no differences between the Rs and Ds, go ahead, but if there’s even a tiny difference between them it makes more sense to choose a side.
I’m happy to be rid of Lugar, but to do it, people had to vote against him in a Republican primary.
zmdavid on November 6, 2012 at 2:09 PM
Casting a vote is the same as not voting at all????
Why do you continue to push intellectual dishonesty?
Dante on November 6, 2012 at 2:11 PM
Unless your candidate wins it doesn’t matter how many votes he got. There’s only 1 winner in an election.
If I knew for certain who would win each election, I would not vote, and it would make no difference to the outcome.
zmdavid on November 6, 2012 at 2:19 PM
On the other hand, Chris Matthews thinks it’s dumb to vote 3rd party.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/06/chris-matthews-rips-idiots-numbskulls-that-vote-third-or-fourth-party/
It pains me to agree with him.
zmdavid on November 6, 2012 at 2:58 PM
Then quit lying and pretending I didn’t answer the question just because you don’t understand the answers.
Dante on November 6, 2012 at 2:59 PM
Hey Big Ls, you have four years to make something of yourself. Go!
thebrokenrattle on November 6, 2012 at 3:10 PM
I was up front with you in saying that I didn’t understand your reasoning, and asked you for more clarification. Why can’t you explain it more? Because you know that your ideology ran head first into itself and keeled over?
cptacek on November 6, 2012 at 3:20 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »