From my understanding, the basic tenet of Libertarians is “keep the government off my back” (correct me if I am mistaken)
Republicans, on the other hand, want the government to
stop people from doing drugs
stop gays from getting married
stop women from getting abortions
be able to take civil liberties away from U.S. citizens in the name of “security”
On the other hand, Republicans do support a couple of things that a Libertarian might like
a) lower taxes
b) no/less gun control
In general though, Republicans seem to want to use government to impose their morals/religious beliefs on everyone, which I would think Libertarians would oppose.
Also, even though, theoretically, Republicans are for “smaller government”, just like Libertarians, in practice they have increased the size of government to unprecedented levels, besides increasing spending to obscene levels.
So, do lower taxes and the gun issue so overwhelm all other considerations that libertarians feel they must vote for the Republican candidate whenever there is a choice between a Democrat and a Republican?
In the past, Republicans such as Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan actively courted the libertarian vote. Goldwater in fact came close to being a true libertarian. Reagan balanced this with courting the “religious right”, but he balanced both factions fairly well. The elder George Bush failed to really win over both, but Clinton put many libertarians back into Republican territory.
I think many libertarians see the issue of taxes as the fundamental issue. Gun rights are also important, not just in themselves; they are seen as a bellweather on a candidates stand on other constitutional issues. A Democrat may be closer to a libertarian on eight out of ten issues, but if the Republican is a tax cutter and supports the 2nd amendment, he will still get more of the libertarian votes.
There is indeed a great deal of concern over the USA PATRIOT Act and over other such issues, and I will wager that the libertarian vote for Bush may be lower in 2004 than in 2000.
I am talking about self-described libertarians in general, not members of the Libertarian Party.
Generally, in addition to lower taxes, Republicans tend to support (or say they support) things like decreasing regulation on businesses, decreasing social spending, reducing welfare, making social security optional and more free market oriented, decreasing the role of the UN. While it’s not a perfect fit, a lot of libertarians figure the Republicans are the lesser of two evils, because, if government shrinks in size, stuff like drug legalization, gay marriage, and things like that will follow.
But, as I said, Bush has not made the government shrink in size, quite the opposite from what I understand. In fact, have other Republican presidents made the government shrink in size? If not, then the whole basis of this “collaboration” is false.
Also, even if Republicans manage to shrink the size of government, how will “drug legalization, gay marriage, and things like that” follow, since Republicans are opposed to all these?
From the above statement, if I am not misreading it, the logical conclusion is in fact that taxes and guns are important in themselves, and not as bellweathers about other issues. Your example states that a libertarian that agrees with a Democrat on all issues but taxes and guns, will vote Republican.
Republicans come in two flavors of conservative, sometimes mixed together. There are the fiscal/government conservatives, who advocate low taxes and minimal government action, and the social conservatives, who are intent on telling everyone how to live their lives (no drugs/alcohol/recreational sex). In Texas, many people are both kinds of conservative.
Libertarians are very much in love with the idea of minimal government and fiscal conservatism. They also TEND to like socially liberal policies, but those TEND to be of second priority or lower. Democrats are typically very fiscally liberal, and most libertarians just can’t stomach that.
When I mention political parties or ideals, I do not mean that every person who identifies as a member of that party or admires that ideal is 100% behind every platform plank. People are individuals, and there are plenty of instances of, for example, pro-choice Republicans and pro-life Democrats, to use just one polarizing issue.
In addition, liberal and conservative don’t mean what they used to in my grandfather’s day. I’m not going to try to explain what HE explained to me, as I feel it has little bearing on this discussion.
My husband identifies as a libertarian, and usually votes Republican. However, he works for the government and plans to take advantage of a couple of government programs for his farm (he owns 44 acres out in West Texas, which he mostly uses as a hunting area). He doesn’t agree with all of the Republican platform, nor does he agree with all of the Libertarian platform. He finds that he generally agrees with more of the Republican platform and candidates than he does with the Democratic platform and candidates…most of the time. Sometimes he gets so very disgusted with a Republican that he holds his nose and votes for the Democrat.
Does this mean I can be a pubbie?
Okay, I would first like to apologize for the hijack, I honestly though I was posting to a thread in the pit…
To address the OP, I consider myself more Libertarian than not, and as I mentioned earlier, I tend to vote for Democratic candidates.
I do agree with the Republican stance on gun control, but the Republican stance on the economy (IMHO) is not all it’s cracked up to be. A healthy economy needs more than tax cuts; something that the current administration with its spending policies does not seem to understand. The same could be said of the Reagan and Bush I administration; the deficit soared during their administrations.
Clinton, on the other hand, balanced the budget and actually ran a surplus. I believe this is important for a healthy economy in the long term. Not that the Democrats deserve any Kudos from this. I think that Clinton would have run a deficit without the bubble. I am also of the opinion that holding a president or their policies as a driving force of the economy is a bit simplistic. If anything, the economy behaves the way it does in spite of the actions of the president (true for both Clinton and Dubya in my mind).
Honestly, I really think both parties suck. That said I would never vote for a Republican candidate as long as they continue to court the religious right. I can’t stand someone trying to shove morality down my throat. In addition, both the Libertarian and Republican views of the environment leave something to be desired. Tragedy of the commons and all that…
Senggüm, only one of these sentences makes grammatical sense:
Because they IQ’s above 80 …
Read it again …
And I thought your was a crat with an IQ below 80
Normally, I don’t pick on grammatical errors, but either you are being critical of the intelligence of others while not putting much thought behind your own posts, or your insight is obscured by your…
(Sigh)
Consider these alternatives for numbers 1 and 3:
Because their IQs are above 80…
And I thought you were a 'crat ( :rolleyes: ) with an IQ below 80. (Note the use of a period.)
The OP seems to imply that it might make sense for a libertarian would vote Democrat. I don’t see why it would.
Modern liberalism is a watered down form of Marxism. The philosphy of Marxism came about during the industrial revolution in part as a reaction to the classic liberalism (i.e. libertarianism) of the age of enlightenment. While both philosphies have evolved over the years, there is still little overlap between them. Off hand I can’t think of any issues on which libertarians and modern liberals would agree 100%. Furthermore, many of the key libertarian ideas (e.g. smaller government, legalization of drugs and prostitution, and free speech) are vehemenantly opposed by the left.
So with the Republicans there is at least some overlap of ideas. With the Democrats there is none. Personally, I evaluate candidates on their merits rather than their party affiliation, but it usually comes down to either voting Republican or not voting at all. Voting for Democratic candidates is rarely a viable option for me.
A futher disincentive is the “Us versus Them” attitude of the left. There is a general attitude among liberals that their opinions are absolutly correct, and that anyone who disagrees with them is evil or ignorant. So why would anyone want to vote for a candidate who says that you’re a bad person for for holding a viewpoint that seems perfectly logical?
Well, I have strong libertarian leanings; I strongly dislike Bush’s “No Child Left Behind” or the senior prescription drug plans; but any Democrat plan in those areas would be worse(as in even more spending/government involvement), so voting for Bush(as I will probably do come November) is a case of the lesser evil. Also, I like the Tax cuts, but I wish the Repulican members of Congress, and President Bush would have cut out pork and social spending to balance the budget. A balanced budget amendment would make me very happy.
Also, many libertarians don’t mind the focus on military that Republicans seem to have; since military defense is viewed as one of the few legitimate functions of government.
And then there is gun control. The Republicans have a much better record on not passing gun control laws than the Democrats. Gun ownership is very important to me, more so than any other rights, and the Republicans don’t seem clamoring to take my guns away like many Democrats.
I have been a liberal all of my life and many of the liberals that I know support the legalization of drugs, especially marijuana, the legalization of prostitution (to make it easier to regulate for health concerns, for one thing) and certainly free speech as long as that right is preserved for individual citizens as opposed to a government official acting in an official capacity.
When the government official is acting in private situation, then she has the same rights that all of us do.
(In other words, as a teacher I had the right to worship Hindu gods if I chose, but I did not have the right to lead my students in prayer to those gods.
