Maybe so, but the British Conservative Party is not a consistently libertarian or classical-liberal party, like the American LP. Neither is the French Conservative Party or the German Christian Democrats or any other European political party, so far as I have been able to determine. I would speculate that the American LP’s ideological purity and consistency exists because (1) there is a libertarian, antistatist strand in the American political tradition that is unique in all the world, and (2) the LP has never been a governing party in any state or locality, nor won significant representation in Congress or any state legislature, and therefore has never come under any pressure to make compromises to get things done.
I’ve known libertarians who see nothing to choose between federal, state and local government and who consider it a dangerous canard to identify decentralized government with small government or libertarian government. State and local governments can also encroach on liberty, and have.
Furthermore, proportional representation does not necessarily “erode the power of the states” – it merely allows a wider range of viewpoints to be represented at any level of government where the PR system is used. PR could allow Libertarians (and Greens, Socialists, America Firsters, etc.) to win seats in Congress, state legislatures, county commissions, city councils and local school boards.
The GOP is plenty libertarian for most of us, as are wings of the Democrats. Mainly those who are pure ideological libertarians are disenchanted enough with the majors to vote for the Libertarian Party. The major parties are less ideological than self-interested/pragmatic. This appeals to a lot of people: if you’re a laissez-faire businessman, why vote for a libertarian principle when you can get pro-business policies justified by libertarian arguments but mixed with subsidies & kickbacks for you you you?
And of course, some people (like me) strongly disagree with pure Libertarianism.
Mainstream American liberals are to the right of the Conservative Party in the UK. Only the nutty edge comes close to what Europe considers left-wing.
When Americans talk about liberals, unless they’re talking about the very bleeding psycho edge of the spectrum, they’re definitely not talking about anything the UK would consider “socialist”…
Thanks to Brutus for the link. I was one of those people who thought libertarianism was all about low taxes and legal weed but after looking at that platform I can only say :eek: . I guess that answers my question:Most people don’t vote Libertarian because Libertarians are friggin nuts (the party that is, not small l libertarians.) Not all of course but enough to scare off the average voter, even one who is sympathetic to “small l” libertarianism. aahala’s post bears this out. I’d heard of but forgot about Stan Jones.
Also, astorian is right. Too man people hate entitlements for the other guy, but cling to their own with great tenacity.
Where I think there is a huge gap that could be filled with a new party would a moderate ‘freedom’ party. One that picks up the social liberalism of the Democrats, and marries it with the economic conservatism of the Republicans. I think the God/relligion/anti-gay/anti-stem cell platforms of the Republican party keep a LOT of otherwise sympathetic Democrats from joining them. And I think the big government, more-entitlement and regulation, nanny-statism of the Democratic party keeps away a LOT of Republicans who would support Democratic social ideals.
Create a party that supports low taxes, regulatory reform, strong defense, secular government, tolerance for gays and other lifestyle choices, strong support for the 2nd amendment, and an emphasis on personal responsibility.
That party should work hard to keep the nutbars out. The ‘fringes’ of their thought and policies should be moderate. For instance, it can tolerate the economic fringe wing of the party advocating a flat tax or replacing income taxes with sales taxes. It cannot tolerate the fringe talking about abolishing taxes and selling off government assets to pay for it. It can tolerate the social wing talking about allowing the states to choose whether to legalize marijuana or not. It can’t tolerate that wing talking about legalizing all drugs for everyone, everywhere.
Keep it moderate and sane, and back up every policy with sound research. The CATO institute or Brookings are acceptable research cites. PETA or the Ayn Rand Institute are not.
Now go and find a charismatic, popular leader for this party. Arnold Schwartzenegger comes to mind, if that amendment could be repealed. Or someone like him. Perhaps a respected ex-politician like Newt Gingrich could step back into the fray (probably not Newt himself - his negatives are too high).
A party like that isn’t going to win the election, but it could do well enough to pull maybe 15%-20%. Enough to get federal election funds, get a seat in the debates, and act as a check on the grossest abuses of both parties. If it were moderate enough, it could be the natural refuge of independents whenever the mainstream parties go too far in one direction or another. Eventually, it could elect a few representatives and have direct influence in government. It would be very healthy for everyone.
Really? You don’t think strong defense is a mainstream issue? You don’t think moderate conservatives and moderate liberals don’t both support a strong defense?
I’m talking about building a party that takes over the area of intersection between the two parties - the area where there is common ground. A strong defense certainly fits into that.
And besides, if you take a party like I described and throw in the anti-war peacenik side, you’ll lose EVERYONE. Sorry, but the doves are definitely on the fringes. Why do you think Kerry had to scramble back to the center after he won the nomination and start saying things like he would have voted for the war resolution even if he knew there were no WMD?
My point was, every Libertarian I’ve ever known, big-L or small-l – and I’ve known quite a few – hated our bloated national defense establishment and military-industrial complex every bit as much as the Greens do. And this is not incidental to their world-view. They are not pacifists or “doves” in principle, but they are in principle opposed to “big government” – that’s what libertarianism is all about – and the U.S. Defense Department is the most obvious example of “big government” there is.
Having lived and studied politics in both countries, I disagree. There are a couple specific issues that the Tories–in general, with a number of exceptions–tend to be left on by American standards, but your average mainstream American liberal would be much more comfortable in New Labour than in the Conservative Party.
Sam Stone, are you familiar with Israeli party politics? Becaue the theoretical party you presented is nearly identical to Israel’s “Shinui” (change) party, which reinvented itself a few years ago by choosing a charismatic leader (former newspaper editor and TV pundit Tommy Lapid) and took 15 seats - out of 120 - in last year’s elections. Here is some background and here is their platform.
Not true at all. Libertarians are split right down the middle on the matter of interventionist foreign policy. First, Libertarians accept that one of the valid roles of government is to provide for the national defense. The sticking point is the ‘non-initiation of force’ concept, which some have embraced to mean a strictly isolatonist foreign policy. But others (such as myself) feel that this is one of those ‘purist’ positions that simply don’t make sense in the real world. I’d say at least half of the people who consider themselves ‘libertarian’ strongly support at least the war in Afghanistan, and many support the war in Iraq.
I read Libertarian journals and web sites. This debate over foreign policy is at least as contentious among Libertarians as it is between Republiicans and Democrats.
But I never SAID they would be Libertarians. The whole point to my post was to suggest a new party that was able to advance the cause of smaller government and personal freedom, without carrying the extremist baggage on either side that prevents a strong nationwide following.
Alessan: Thanks for the link. That’s an interesting party. Certainly something along the lines of what I was thinking about, although their platform also consists of free health care for everyone and free education for everyone, both of which would be considered more socialist than I would like. They sound more like social democrats, or the type of government that you’d get from the Democrats if they had been wise and turned towards the Bill Clinton / Democratic Leadship Council wing of the party instead of embracing the moonbat left.
Oh, not that again. Look, I know what a moderate looks like. I know that right now Kerry is trying to play one on TV. I also know how he actually behaves when the cameras are elsewhere. His voting record is very liberal. Far more liberal than average for Democrats. But more to the point, they embraced the moonbat left. That was Michael Moore sitting with Jimmy Carter at the convention, wasn’t it? You can’t get much farther to the left or to the moonbat cave than Michael Moore. MoveOn.org is out on the left end of the Democratic spectrum, and that organization has had a revolving door with former campaign officials for Kerry.
Look at Al Gore - reduced from being a fairly moderate Vice President into a shrieking crazy man.
You should blame Howard Dean and the media. That screaming freak came out of nowhere and jumped to an early lead, and the media proclaimed him the saviour of the Democratic Party, and the rest of 'em bought that line of BS and started moving his way.
Imagine how much easier it would be on Kerry today if he didn’t have that NO vote on the 87 billion hanging over him. It’s hanging over him because Howard Dean pulled him to the left at a very inopportune time. If Kerry had said at the time, “I understand the anti-war point of view, and I respect it. However, having voted for the war authorization it would be irresponsible to vote against the funding for it,” then today he could parlay that whole episode into an example of resolute leadership rather than having to constantly play defense on the whole issue.
To answer the OP, simply to to the Libertarian home page and look at some of the positions they advance: Link
Here are some basic positions:
In a nut shell, many of their policies are unrealistic, though interesting. However, the crux is that their positions are all over the board, and while a conservative might agree with, say, the position that ‘Gun Control Means Being Able to Hit your Target’ (got to love this :)), and with some of the fiscal positions privatization (though certainly not all), they aren’t going to go for the dismantling of the military or the withdrawl of troops from Iraq and everywhere else. Liberals may like the stances on gay marriage and legalization of drugs and other vices, but they aren’t going to like the completely free market ideas, dismantling and privatization of social programs etc. So, while SOME of the ideas the Libertarians have appeal to the majority of Americans, taken as a whole it appeals to a very few.
This calls to mind a quote by (I think) George Bernard Shaw: “A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul.”
I get into countless arguments with “conservatives” who, after much thought, have decided that it’s OK that I (a childless, self-described fiscal moderate) should pay taxes to fund the education of their children.
But they want vouchers, because, “Dammit, people deserve choice!”
Sam, I think you are confusing John Kerry with Dennis Kucinich. Kerry is only one or two degrees further left than Clinton was.