# Is the rise of libertarianism in the U.S. good for the left wing? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 19, 2010, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-rise-of-libertarianism-in-the-u-s-good-for-the-left-wing/533051 "2010-03-19T19:52:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2010, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-rise-of-libertarianism-in-the-u-s-good-for-the-left-wing/533051/1 "2010-03-19T19:52:56Z")
Some would say – I’m sure **Sam Stone** would say – that libertarianism is on the rise on the American right. But does that herald a great new age for libertarianism in America, or a force that will do for the GOP what the 1960s New Left did for, or, rather, to the Democrats? In [this article,](http://www.salon.com/news/politics/republican_party/index.html?story=/opinion/feature/2010/03/15/ayn_rand) Michael Lind argues that the recent emergence of hard-libertarian figures such as Ron Paul and Paul Ryan (who openly cite Ayn Rand as an intellectual hero) as serious voices of the American right is the best thing that could happen to the American left. The libertarians have been around a while, but William Buckley et al. read the Randians out of the modern conservative movement early on – and **then** the movement went from success to success. “The coalition survived the end of the Cold War, but not the presidency of George W. Bush.” Lind takes it as established that in the past few years both the neocons and the religious right have been marginalized, or soon will be. (Anyone disagree on that, BTW? I think it’s fairly obvious on both counts.) That leaves the libertarians. (Lind seems to blur the distinction, here, between the libertarians and the nativist-isolationist paleoconservatives such as Pat Buchanan, but let that pass for the moment.) > [@](#): > > All of this is great news for American progressivism. In the last third of the 20th century, many liberals who supported New Deal economic policies defected to the right on the basis of the Cold War or the culture war. Now that the Cold War and the culture war are over, what remains is the class war. And in the class war, the libertarians are on the side of the classes. > > Consider Ryan’s “Roadmap for America’s Future.” As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has pointed out, it would raise taxes on middle-class Americans while dramatically lowering them on the über-rich. Ryan would use a national value-added tax (a good idea) to replace income, capital gains and estate taxes (a terrible idea). He would privatize Social Security and replace Medicare with vouchers, and then allow inflation to eat away at the value of the vouchers. Oh, and despite his claims, his Rand-inspired redistribution of income upward to the virtuously selfish rich would not eliminate the deficit. > > The media is building Ryan up as a serious thinker. Build him up even more, I say. Give him a Nobel Prize, like Obama’s. Make him the face of the Republican Party. Progressives should want Ryan and Paul and the Cato Institute to define the next American right. That will ensure its minority status for decades. > > Before Buckley and the movement conservatives took the right in another direction in the 1950s, this country had a libertarian, isolationist right, the right of Robert A. Taft and Alf Landon. Thanks to their opposition to the New Deal, U.S. entry in World War II and the Cold War, the libertarian isolationists turned the Republicans into the minority party between 1932 and 1968. The only Republican to be elected in that era, Dwight Eisenhower, ran for the presidency in 1952 to save the GOP from Taftian isolationism and dismissively rejected suggestions that the Republicans try to repeal New Deal programs like Social Security. > > Richard Nixon, like Ike, was a modern Republican whose formula for a Republican majority was big government on behalf of the middle class plus a hawkish foreign policy and moderate social traditionalism. The neoconservative writer David Frum has argued that this is the only possible combination that can produce an enduring Republican majority. I agree, and it is therefore with delight that I observe the rise of radical libertarianism in the GOP. > > True, thanks to the popular backlash against the bailouts and the unpopular healthcare bill, the Democrats will suffer losses in the midterm elections. The Randian right will claim that Republican gains in Congress are proof that the American people share their goal of abolishing Social Security and Medicare. They should be encouraged in that belief. > > After all, the public has repeatedly rejected any attempts to privatize Social Security or slash Medicare benefits. Reagan denounced both entitlements, but as president he raised taxes to support Social Security and refused to touch Medicare. Under George W. Bush, a Republican Congress passed the Medicare drug benefit, which, for all its concessions to the pharma lobby, was the biggest expansion of socialized medicine in the U.S. since Lyndon Johnson signed Medicare into law. > > When Bush supported the partial privatization of Social Security, the proposal was so unpopular with the public that the Republican majority in Congress never allowed it to come to a vote. Bush touched the third rail of American politics – and was promptly electrocuted. Last but not least, one of the arguments that Republicans opportunistically used to mobilize popular opposition to the Democratic healthcare bill was the claim that it would lead to cuts in Medicare for the elderly. > > AARP vs. the objectivists. That’s not a fight, it’s a massacre. > > \ > > So bring it on, geeky disciples of Ayn Rand. Gird thy loins and put on thy Spock ears. Demand the abolition of Social Security and Medicare! Call for reducing the U.S. military to the Coast Guard! Insist on tolling every highway and street in America and selling America’s infrastructure assets to foreign corporations and foreign sovereign wealth funds! Go Galt! > > Bring it on! Even confined to a wheelchair, Franklin Roosevelt can defeat Ayn Rand. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2010, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-rise-of-libertarianism-in-the-u-s-good-for-the-left-wing/533051/2 "2010-03-19T20:01:18Z")
A certain amount of libertarian leaning is OK. However, I’ve noticed a more extreme and more frequently happening form of libertarianism. The sort that seems to be cropping up looks less like a political or social theory, and more like simple selfishness, taken to extremes. Selfishness is like greed or ambition. They are good things, in moderation. In excess, not so much. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2010, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-rise-of-libertarianism-in-the-u-s-good-for-the-left-wing/533051/3 "2010-03-19T20:03:09Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > A certain amount of libertarian leaning is OK. OK for the country, or OK for the right’s electoral prospects? (The latter is what Lind is talking about.) ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2010, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-rise-of-libertarianism-in-the-u-s-good-for-the-left-wing/533051/4 "2010-03-19T20:20:05Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > OK for the country, or OK for the right’s electoral prospects? (The latter is what Lind is talking about.) OK for the country. As to the Right’s political prospects, they (just as the left does) have some positions or goals that a libertarian would not be likely to support. It would be a bad bet to count on the libertarian vote as a permanent or dependable vote. If they stuck to “small government”, individual liberties, etc, it would work. But then again, any “true libertarian” would never ever support some “projects” such as the Patriot Act. Cross them once, and they’d drop the Right like a bad habit. As to the left, chances are slim, because there is more emphasis on social programs. ---
**Author:** ![code\_grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f4b2a3/32.png) [@code\_grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/code_grey)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2010, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-rise-of-libertarianism-in-the-u-s-good-for-the-left-wing/533051/5 "2010-03-19T21:02:07Z")
political ideologies don’t strengthen and weaken in isolation. They respond to events in other political camps and in the country overall. It’s dialectics, the push and the shove. E.g. if everyone is disgusted with the direction of the reigning GOP, you can get the rise of libertarians. But if as a result there is the rise of the left wing, which you allege is inevitable, the Conservatives will stop infighting and close ranks. In general, political fragmentation is likely to happen in victory or a quiet situation, a stasis, when everybody is happy and can spend time settling scores and arguing minor points. By contrast, in defeat and rout people don’t argue, they unite to fight back. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2010, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-rise-of-libertarianism-in-the-u-s-good-for-the-left-wing/533051/6 "2010-03-19T22:46:58Z")
> [@code\_grey](#): > > political ideologies don’t strengthen and weaken in isolation. They respond to events in other political camps and in the country overall. It’s dialectics, the push and the shove. E.g. if everyone is disgusted with the direction of the reigning GOP, you can get the rise of libertarians. But if as a result there is the rise of the left wing, which you allege is inevitable, the Conservatives will stop infighting and close ranks. When the New Left electorally weakened the Dems in the 1970s, paving the way for the ascendancy of movement conservatism and the election of Reagan, the Dems did not stop infighting and close ranks. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2010, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-rise-of-libertarianism-in-the-u-s-good-for-the-left-wing/533051/7 "2010-03-19T23:08:10Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > OK for the country, or OK for the right’s electoral prospects? (The latter is what Lind is talking about.) What’s “The Right”? The currently well-established “right” in American politics is most certainly not libertarian, and so presumably the rise of different people to political influence and power in their place would be bad for “the right,” since they would no longer have that power and influence. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-rise-of-libertarianism-in-the-u-s-good-for-the-left-wing/533051/8 "2010-03-20T19:36:04Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > What’s “The Right”? For practical purposes, whoever predominates in the GOP. Lind’s point is that ideological libertarians such as Paul and Ryan are supplanting the neocons and the religious conservatives in that role. ---
**Author:** ![AClockworkMelon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aclockworkmelon/32/10803_2.png) [@AClockworkMelon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AClockworkMelon)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-rise-of-libertarianism-in-the-u-s-good-for-the-left-wing/533051/9 "2010-03-20T19:40:06Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > The currently well-established “right” in American politics is most certainly not libertarian Definitely. I’m a Libertarian and I’m not part of the ‘right.’ I hate Republicans as much as I hate Democrats. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-rise-of-libertarianism-in-the-u-s-good-for-the-left-wing/533051/10 "2010-03-20T20:21:41Z")
I do think the religious right and the neocons are losing ground to the libertarians. What effect this will have overall is hard to say, because it’s hard to draw a bead on exactly where the political center in the U.S. is. Not long ago, progressives were saying that America is progressive, that the people would support a wide array of progressive policies if only a strong progressive leader could be elected along with majorities in the House and Senate. They were talking about a permanent re-alignment of the country along progressive lines. That clearly didn’t happen. In fact, what we’ve seen is a strong pushback from the political ‘center’ against most of the progressive agenda. Health Care reform is polling badly. Cap and Trade and Card Check are polling badly. Congress’s approval rating is back down near single digits, and Obama’s disapproval rating is now higher than his approval rating. But does that mean the true center in America is libertarian? That’s not clear at all. People are gravitating that way because it’s currently the main opposition force to the progressives. But I suspect that if a truly libertarian president were elected, and he had a majority in the House and Senate, and he tried to move the country as far to the right as Obama is trying to move it to the left, there would be an equal hue and cry, and the ‘center’ would start shifting left again in opposition. But maybe not. Maybe Bush was unpopular for the same reason Obama is unpopular - he was really a big-government Republican, willing to cut deals with special interests and make grand compromises on important matters like fiscal sanity in order to get his own agenda passed (in this case, the Iraq war). Maybe a principled, small-government conservative who’s a social moderate would resonate in the country and become wildly popular. But I have my doubts. The special interests in America are just too strong. The unions, large corporations, organizations of retired persons, and other special interests are able to rally huge crowds and raise large amounts of money to oppose anything they don’t like. In my more cynical moments, I think that large democracies are simply doomed. Once the people figure out they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury, it’s just a matter of time before they divvy up all the wealth and continue clamoring for more until the nation is bankrupt. The U.S. has not gone as far down that path as the social democracies in Europe because its founding legal documents prevented unlimited mob rule. But that’s just a speed bump on the inevitable road to decline and fiscal ruin. The American people don’t want their taxes raised. But they also don’t want their government services cut. Right now, there’s a huge fiscal gap between the services the government offers and the money it needs to pay for them. What’s not clear is whether there is more tolerance in the country for service cuts than there is for tax increases. We’ll find out the answer to that within the next 10-15 years, because if a solution isn’t found America is in a world of hurt. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-rise-of-libertarianism-in-the-u-s-good-for-the-left-wing/533051/11 "2010-03-20T20:28:23Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > In fact, what we’ve seen is a strong pushback from the political ‘center’ against most of the progressive agenda. No, **Sam,** that’s not where the pushback is coming from. It’s coming from the right and from some of the “special interests” you talk about. > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > In my more cynical moments, I think that large democracies are simply doomed. Once the people figure out they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury, it’s just a matter of time before they divvy up all the wealth and continue clamoring for more until the nation is bankrupt. What you are describing – the [“Tytler Cycle”](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Fraser_Tytler#Quotation_-_Tytler_Cycle) or “Tyler Cycle” it’s sometimes called (based on a confused and dishonest misattribution – see [Snopes](http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/athenian.asp)) – has never actually happened to any republic in all of human history. Many republics have been destroyed or self-destructed, but not one by the path of the public voting itself largesse from the treasury. ---
**Author:** ![code\_grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f4b2a3/32.png) [@code\_grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/code_grey)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-rise-of-libertarianism-in-the-u-s-good-for-the-left-wing/533051/12 "2010-03-20T21:05:02Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > What you are describing – the [“Tytler Cycle”](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Fraser_Tytler#Quotation_-_Tytler_Cycle) or “Tyler Cycle” it’s sometimes called (based on a confused and dishonest misattribution – see [Snopes](http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/athenian.asp)) – has never actually happened to any republic in all of human history. Many republics have been destroyed or self-destructed, but not one by the path of the public voting itself largesse from the treasury. we can always be the first one. Besides, the largesse is not now being voted to the public per se. It is voted to the special interests who have convinced the public that it will benefit from giving them more money. E.g. the healthcare industry convinced a lot of the public that instead of reforming themselves by cutting exorbitant salaries and waste the thing to do is to give them more money extracted from people via the IRS. Of course, not all the public is convinced, since many do understand that the increasingly empoverished (from the failing economy) productive classes will end up robbed to pay these special interests under the flag of helping the poor. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-rise-of-libertarianism-in-the-u-s-good-for-the-left-wing/533051/13 "2010-03-20T21:15:11Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > I do think the religious right and the neocons are losing ground to the libertarians. Of course, because they want to tell others what to do and what to believe. This is the antithesis of libertarianism, which puts individual liberties ahead of the powers of the government. > [@](#): > > People are gravitating that way because it’s currently the main opposition force to the progressives. But I suspect that if a truly libertarian president were elected, and he had a majority in the House and Senate, and he tried to move the country as far to the right as Obama is trying to move it to the left, there would be an equal hue and cry, and the ‘center’ would start shifting left again in opposition. But would they move to the right? Both the left and the right have factions that want more control and regulation (though not of the same things). Libertarianism could be seen as a reaction against what people might consider increasing control and regulation of things they believe are none of the government’s business. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-rise-of-libertarianism-in-the-u-s-good-for-the-left-wing/533051/14 "2010-03-20T21:21:46Z")
I would love to believe that, because it’s the way I feel. But notice that in the middle of this ‘libertarian’ uprising, there’s an uprising in Florida over funding cuts to NASA, which will cost Florida jobs. When Reagan tried to actually cut government, he ran into huge roadblocks. The AARP mobilized against him. The unions mobilized against him. The welfare recipients and the industry that benefits from managing them rebelled against him. Or look what happened to Arnold in California. He started off as a politician much like we’re talking about - a fiscal conservative/social moderate. He was very close to being a Libertarian - he introduced Milton Friedman’s ‘Free to Choose’ on PBS when it aired in the 80’s, and he used to quote people like Von Mises and Friedrich Hayek. When he tried to implement even modest cuts in government services in California, he got completely steamrollered by the special interests and their supporters in the legislature. Now he’s just another big-government liberal. He kept the moderate social policies, and completely abandoned free markets and small government. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-rise-of-libertarianism-in-the-u-s-good-for-the-left-wing/533051/15 "2010-03-21T19:17:02Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > I would love to believe that, because it’s the way I feel. > > But notice that in the middle of this ‘libertarian’ uprising, there’s an uprising in Florida over funding cuts to NASA, which will cost Florida jobs. > > When Reagan tried to actually cut government, he ran into huge roadblocks. The AARP mobilized against him. The unions mobilized against him. The welfare recipients and the industry that benefits from managing them rebelled against him. > > Or look what happened to Arnold in California. He started off as a politician much like we’re talking about - a fiscal conservative/social moderate. He was very close to being a Libertarian - he introduced Milton Friedman’s ‘Free to Choose’ on PBS when it aired in the 80’s, and he used to quote people like Von Mises and Friedrich Hayek. When he tried to implement even modest cuts in government services in California, he got completely steamrollered by the special interests and their supporters in the legislature. Now he’s just another big-government liberal. He kept the moderate social policies, and completely abandoned free markets and small government. You seem to be saying that the **only** political obstacle to reform in a libertarian direction is that it would step on the toes of too many vested interests, and not that any significant part of the American people have any ideological commitment to the vision of general welfare that underlay the New Deal or the Great Society. Do you actually believe that? If so, on what basis? ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-rise-of-libertarianism-in-the-u-s-good-for-the-left-wing/533051/16 "2010-03-21T19:57:14Z")
My concern is the libertarians will offer a nice narrative but no real substance, and will get elected anyway. “We want to cut your taxes” = people vote them into office. However they never mention the cuts to education, health care, military, aid for the elderly, infrastructure etc. until they are in power. If they do have a damaging effect, it might take years until the effects seep down into public consciousness. Another issue is young people may feel they have to pay ever increasing taxes for medicare and social security while not benefiting from those programs. And that could create an avenue for the libertarians to appeal to young people who are currently the most progressive age demographic in the nation. Play on their resentment about paying larger and larger tax burdens for entitlement programs. It can have the same effect as the culture war did to pit middle class whites against poor blacks and latinos had to empower the GOP. So if people really knew what the libertarians truly stood for (cutting education, health care, military and pensions; corporate totalism; weakening national sovereignty), they’d never get elected. However if all the libertarians and the media offer are soundbites about cutting taxes and no policies/substance beyond that, who knows what’ll happen. Then again, when Palin first came on the scene she was extremely popular. But due to new media people quickly found out there was no substance and realized what would happen if she was really in charge. Now barely 1.5 years later she is one of the least respected public political figures. So maybe I am underestimating the media and the public’s ability to look beyond sound bites and talking points. ---
**Author:** ![kingbighair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/13edae/32.png) [@kingbighair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kingbighair)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-rise-of-libertarianism-in-the-u-s-good-for-the-left-wing/533051/17 "2010-03-21T20:06:14Z")
I believe the recent resurgence of libertarianism is mostly a conservative rebranding after a disastrous run. It is very easy to lob anti-spending bombs from the sidelines when you do not have any power and are not accountable to those relying on government funds. While there are principled libertarians, it seems libertarian is the “cool” thing to call yourself now. After a few years of Democratic rule, Republicans will no longer be anathema, and libertarians will again be 15-25 year old white college guys. To tie this into the OP, libertarianism is not good for the left because libertarian ideals are very attractive. Who does not like thinking they are rugged winners who do not need help from the government? Hell, I’d be a libertarian if society provided equal access to all. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-rise-of-libertarianism-in-the-u-s-good-for-the-left-wing/533051/18 "2010-03-21T21:29:06Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > You seem to be saying that the **only** political obstacle to reform in a libertarian direction is that it would step on the toes of too many vested interests, and not that any significant part of the American people have any ideological commitment to the vision of general welfare that underlay the New Deal or the Great Society. Do you actually believe that? If so, on what basis? That’s not really what I meant. The ‘special interests’ are often representatives of large groups of people. The AARP represents millions. I think people generally believe this: - My taxes should be low. - I don’t really care how high your taxes are. - Services -I- get from the government are a good thing - Services other people get should be cut. - My subsidies are critically important and a proper function of government. - Your subsidies are pork. - I generally want poor people to be helped. - Do not raise my taxes to pay for it. The reason so many countries run deficits is precisely because of the self-contradictory viewpoint of the voting public. Everyone wants their benefits, no one wants to pay more in tax, and therefore the most palatable course of action for politicians is to provide both and run up debt. The special interests make this process worse by feeding off the worst instincts of all sides. On the left, they scream and kick at any sign of a downsizing of government. On the right, they scream and kick at any sign of tax increases. They make so much noise on both sides that they scare politicians down the easy path. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-rise-of-libertarianism-in-the-u-s-good-for-the-left-wing/533051/19 "2010-03-21T23:44:00Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > You seem to be saying that the **only** political obstacle to reform in a libertarian direction is that it would step on the toes of too many vested interests, and not that any significant part of the American people have any ideological commitment to the vision of general welfare that underlay the New Deal or the Great Society. It seems to me that this is largely true - and not just of a libertarian movement, but ANY political movement that proposes substantial change. ---
**Author:** ![Avumede](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/avumede/32/7235_2.png) [@Avumede](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avumede)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2010, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-rise-of-libertarianism-in-the-u-s-good-for-the-left-wing/533051/20 "2010-03-24T03:16:28Z")
Is there any actual proof that the libertarian wing of the republican party is growing, or the religious right is shrinking? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-rise-of-libertarianism-in-the-u-s-good-for-the-left-wing/533051.md?page=2)