“I’d love to vote Green or Libertarian”
Can someone explain this to me? I can’t understand how someone would consider these two to be even remotely similar, other than both being underdogs. I think I’ve heard this several times in differnt threads, so I’m obivously missing something.
I’m an Independant Agnostic (former Catholic). I would consider myself to be fairly middle of the road, with some views to the right and some left. Appearently in Europe I’d be considered right wing though. At least, thats what I’ve been told on this board. 
-XT
John, I think the fact that they’re both ‘third’ parties IS an appeal to some. Shake up the system kind of thing, pehaps. But they hold a large number of opposing positions, so I’d be interested to hear it too.
Sure. Libertarians foten seem quite isolationist in foreign policy John Mace mentioned staying out of foreign entanglements. That is not necessarily a position I support. Whilst I would say ‘get the hell out of the UN’ I would also advise joinging longterm and useful strategic alliances - with nations that share fundamental principles.
An 18th-century liberal would still likely hold that prostitution ando other “victimless” crimes (yeah, like the vast majority of hookers would choose to do that if they had the choice) that damage the generall well-being of the polity should be illegal
I’m an athiest and I would probably lean towards the right more than the left but that means more here in Canada, I think. If I was an American I’d probably vote Democrat (which doesn’t count as Liberal in my books) but I’ve voted for right wing parties almost exclusively so far. Then again, I’m pro-socialized health care, anti-death penalty, pro-drug decriminalization, support reasonable gun ownership (and think most gun control laws are stupid, if only because they don’t work), pro-free trade… ie utterly confused in my politics and a model Canadian.
But, living in Buffalo, you’re a Catholic athiest, right?
In American political discourse the word “conservative” can mean several different things:
Religious-social traditionalist convervatism – “family values,” the Christian Coalition, and all that.
Racist, anti-semitic, white-supremacist conservatism – a declining force but still very real, being rooted as it is in the native political traditions of the American South, and having achieved national expression in certain (actually, most) branches of the “citizens’ militia” and “common-law courts” movements. Despite superficial resemblance, NOT a form of fascism, or militarist-authoritarian-nationalist conservatism, like they have in Europe. The American Nazis do belong in this grouping but they’re a small minority of a minority. Most American white supremacists are also very supportive of “states’ rights” or local-communal autonomy, and very hostile to any kind of national dictatorship or even a strong federal government – presenting a real problem to any would-be American Hitler. In some ways this grouping shades over into libertarianism or anarchism, the law no longer being on their side as it once was.
Nativist, isolationist, anti-immigrant, populist conservatism – a more moderate form of the above. Best represented, at present, by Pat Buchanan and his America First Party. These people hate Wall Street as much as they hate the New World Order. Unlike the overt racists, they probably will not admit to hating Wall Street because there’s all those Jews in it. (Which doesn’t mean that isn’t on their minds.)
Foreign-policy neo-conservatism – an updated name for imperialism. Dedicated to the proposition that the United States should expand its military power and global influence by any means necessary. This is an important faction as it’s pretty much running the country right now, in tandem with the pro-business conservatives, below.
Pro-business conservatism – what’s good for General Motors is good for the country, etc. Corporate welfare, union-busting, all good. Military intervention abroad also good, so long as it helps business.
Libertarianism, or classical liberalism – pro-market, which is not the same thing as pro-business. Opposed to welfare for poor people; opposed, for the same ideological reasons, to government bailouts of troubled businesses; opposed to American military intervention abroad.
Respectable elitist conservatism – best exemplified by aristocratic intellectuals such as William Buckley. Combines elements of several of the above, as the occasion requires, while honoring the Old World Tory tradition of Edmund Burke.
Obviously there’s a lot of overlap between these groupings and a given “conservative” might identify with several of them. But no rational person could identify with all of them. And for any given “conservative,” there’s probably one of the above groupings that represents his or her politics better than any of the others.
So, which of these can be atheists? Not the religious-social conservatives, obviously. And most of the white supremacists will tell you they believe in God. (Though it might not be a God Jesus would recognize. For instance, there’s the “World Church of the Creator,” but let’s not get into that!) Practically all of the nativist-isolationists, are, I’m sure, traditional religious believers. And the elitists probably believe in God just because atheism is, you know, just so gauche, n’est ce pas? But there sure are a LOT of libertarian atheists; and the religious identity is not of primary importance for the neocons and the business conservatives, so there’s probably some atheists among them too.
Brian:
“Respectable elitist conservatism”
Nice label. Did you make that one up? I like it.
I’ve got to look into the neo-con stuff. It’s a pretty new term to me, but it sure is popping up everywhere these days. I’m suspicious of labels that one group uses for another, and this seems to be taking on a broad, accusatory tone like “bleeding heart liberal” does for the left.
FYI, John Mace, I certainly am not aware of the derivation of the neocon label, but you may be interested in this description:
HL Mencken, who was in many ways conservative.
Green or Libertarian, a Clarification.
Like the two major political parties, neither of these parties properly embrace what I view. But each has a shtick which appeals to me.
I think that we are raping the environment and that we should make serious international moves to regulate our environmental policies. If I wanted to make a protest vote because I thought that the Democrats weren’t doing enough environmentally, I’d vote Green. I don’t like the Greens anti-growth streak, though.
I think that the war on drugs is an absolute sham. I think that it is creating enormous amounts of social injustice and is a large reason why IMHO we are creating a permanent underclass in this country. I think that military spending is quickly spiraling out of control, even though I support a strong military. But I think that things like NMD and some of the new weapons programs suck tens of billions of dollars a year away from other effective programs (and the taxpayer). I also think the tax code needs a good reworking. If I felt strongly enough about these, I would vote Libertarian. But as Marley23 and others have pointed out, they are a little too “brutal” (no societal safety nets) and isolationist for my tastes. I certainly wouldn’t want to live in places like Libertarian’s Libertaria where the roads and police force are privately owned.
But to get to the OP. Both parties seem to be moving more towards this anti-intellectual pro-religion (these don’t necessarily go hand in hand for the pious who are reading) faith-based shite. If the 2004 race came down to Bush versus Lieberman, I would be quite upset. If the 2000 race had turned out differently, I would have had no problem registering a protest vote.
Which goes to show another reason this stuff is so fun: I described myself as a classic liberal and I disagree with most of the above (I’m not particularly pro-market, I’m definitely not against welfare, and while I could certainly be said to oppose military intervention in most cases, I’m very much not an isolationist. I guess that’s why it’s better to listen to people’s ideas than their popular labels. 
Another conservative/libertarian type athiest checking in. Like most (all?) athiests, I can’t stand the religious right and the way they seem to be highjacking the Republican party. I like many aspects of the libertarian party, but some of their ideas are wacked.
I guess on the major issues, I’d be:
Pro-gun
Pro-choice
Small Federal Government
Less taxes
Strong military
Against the “War on drugs”
My characterizations of the Libertarians’ views was based on their party literature, website, “Reason” magazine, and conversations with many Libertarians I have known personally. I recognize, of course, that capital-L Libertarians – active members or supporters of the Libertarian Party – are an ideological hard core, a small subset of a much larger group of Americans whose thinking is generally libertarian, even if they don’t agree with party doctrine on every issue. (The Libertarian Party probably would be a lot larger, were it not for the fact that few temperamental libertarians are also temperamental joiners.)
At least the libertarian movement has mostly avoided the left’s tendency to splitting and factionalism. There are at least a dozen communist, socialist, democratic-socialist, or otherwise leftist organizations active in America. (Check out the “Political Parties” page at www.politics1.com.) There is only one Libertarian Party. If it becomes a bit more successful, who knows, factional tendencies may emerge, but I doubt it. Libertarian doctrine is so internally logical and pure that it’s hard to imagine serious disagreement over its interpretation. There would always be disagreement over its application, of course.
I think libertarianism is a very interesting case because it is the most characteristically American political tradition in the world. British philosophers may have come up with the core doctrines, but they were put in practice by the unphilosophical libertarians of the American frontier. The 20th-century movement merely gave organized political expression to an old and strong anti-government tendency in American political culture. ONLY in American poltical culture, apparently: The Libs have practically no analogue in any other country, not even in Britain where the whole classical-liberal thing started.
I’m a (not very active) democratic socialist myself, in case you were wondering. But I find other viewpoints fascinating. To the point of obsession.
Well, depending how you define “conservative,” I suppose you could count David Hume and Ayn Rand as “conservative atheists.”
Well, I am agnostic both religion-wise and politcs-wise. Just as I do not see any religion that seems to have found “the answer”, I tend to loathe both political parties equally and am generally forced to choose the lesser evil if there is no decent third party candidate to support.
Socially, I am neither liberal nor conservative in the generally understood sense. I believe in the ideal of meritocracy, but understand that some help must be given to some to get everyone to the same starting line. I have no issue with giving people a helping hand, but also have no desire to indefinitely support those who are too lazy to get off their ass and help themselves. Those who choose to not contribute to the greater good will find little willing assistance coming from me. Those who are poor or undereducated thropugh no fault of their own, or those who have made mistakes but genuinely want a place in society, have my welcoming arms and support.
Economically, I am generally pro free market, but see the necessity of governmental regulation in assuring worker’s rights (safety and working conditions), environmental isssues. and the breaking of monopolies and trusts. I see no need for government subsidization of business unless it is strictly used to ease the transition to a new economic paradigm. To prop up an inefficient and outdated one is simply exacerbating the problem.
Also, supposedly from my INTP status, I possess a pathological need to question authority, and believe public debate about public policy from a well informed populace is the heart of democracy. The current love of secrecy in government, which I do not think falls within any political party, is anathema to me. The fact that a large portion of my fellow countrymen see a relationship between Saddam and 9-11 scares the hell out of me.
If anyone can place a label on this set of beliefs, I applaud you.