David Boaz writes Cruz Makes Play for Libertarian Voters. Is Anybody Game? Here’s a reason they shouldn’t be:
Get beyond economics and some constitutional issues, and Cruz’s record is far less libertarian. … Cruz has been embracing a truly startling array of antigay extremists. … Those are not alliances likely to appeal to libertarians…or anyone who wants a president with a modicum of judgment.
31 Comments for “Cruz Is No Libertarian”
posted by Doug on
You, the GOP, brought these wing nuts to the party. . . so now you have to dance with them. No sympathy here. You clean out your own party first, Stephen, then you can complain out Democrats/Progressives.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Can any of the Republican candidates be fairly described as “libertarian” in any real sense?
Trump is clearly not of a libertarian mindset. Neither is Carson. Cruz (as Boaz points out) is an interventionist who fits the “mean-spirited, intolerant and smug authoritarian” descriptor Stephen used in the immediately preceding post. Rubio, the “establishment moderate”, is even more interventionist than Cruz, an advocate of government coercion on abortion, and while Rubio may not have “embraced] a truly startling array of antigay extremists”, his views on Obergefell and other LGBT issues are as are extreme.
Oddly, Bush, Christie and Kasich may be the best bet for “libertarian” Republicans this election cycle. Although none of them exhibit anything close to libertarian positions on the issues overall, each of them avoids the authoritarian extremes exhibited by Cruz and Rubio.
So much for bringing the party around to libertarian ideas.
I’m with Doug on the “no sympathy” reminder. Reagan invited the religious wing-nuts into the party, and the party made their issues the party’s issues for the next decade and a half in a cynical tradeoff of values for short-term political advantage. At this point religious conservatives have chased out moderates on social issues, and the party is stuck with what it has created. Galatians 6:7 and all that …
posted by JohnInCA on
Call me when libertarians/Libertarians don’t go ahead and vote for the eventual Republican nominee anyway. Until then, they’re in the same boat as LCR in my eyes: your rhetoric is sometimes nice, but you can’t convince me you’re serious about it until you *do* something about it. And if you’re not serious about your own positions, why should I take your positions seriously?
posted by Lori Heine on
Okay, consider yourself called. I’m not voting for any of the Republicans.
Whatever poll you’ve taken inside your head, you might want to get out more and try taking it again.
posted by JohnInCA on
By the data I was able to find in five minutes, Libertarians/libertarians reliably vote for Republicans in the 70-80% range. That’s comparable to how hard gay voters go for Democrats.
So you can chastise me for not using sufficient weasel words if you want†, but it won’t change the fact that, based on past behavior, libertarians/Libertarians are going to overwhelmingly vote Republican no matter who that candidate actually is.
________
†Which would be funny since, in the past, you’ve chastised me for using too many.
posted by Lori Heine on
By the data you were able to find, a lot of people who are calling themselves libertarians are voting for Republicans. That’s not surprising. In Repub circles, throwing around the term “libertarian” has become the cool thing to do.
They don’t like the current regime. When the GOP is in the White House, the same thing happens on the other side. Entirely predictable.
Libertarians believe in freedom for EVERYONE. Including people they dislike and with whom they disagree. Partisans unhappy with who’s in power at the moment think that because THEIR liberty feels threatened, that makes them libertarians. Again, no great surprise. But the word means something, no matter how often it is counterfeited.
Most of the libertarians with whom I am acquainted–and I know a hell of a lot of them–are not voting Republican this time because they don’t think any of that party’s candidates are libertarian. Many libertarian-ish conservatives will definitely vote GOP, because they never vote for anybody else.
For those of us supporting Gary Johnson, that is our bane. We know the situation all too well, because we deal with it daily.
And as far as weasel-words are concerned, I’m neither offended nor concerned. Your comments are likely to be as informative or entertaining as anyone else’s.
posted by JohnInCA on
Lori, I’m no more interested in deciding whether someone is a true libertarian/Libertarian then I am in deciding whether someone is a true Christian or a true Scotsman.
posted by Jorge on
By the data you were able to find, a lot of people who are calling themselves libertarians are voting for Republicans.
I voted for Rick Santorum in 2012. Oh no! My gay wore off and now I’m attracted to Ted Cruz.
This dispute reminds me of a rather vile training I went to this week that barely steered clear of similar biased nonsense.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I voted for Rick Santorum in 2012. Oh no! My gay wore off and now I’m attracted to Ted Cruz.
I’m surprised. Robio is a lot cuter than either Cruz or Santorum.
posted by Jorge on
Wha?
“He’s even prettier!”
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FvfnQvExY8)
That was very well timed, Tom. I don’t even know if it was intentional.
I am referring to Donald Trump’s gutter insult.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
The only actual libertarian candidate in the presidential election is going to be whomever the Libertarian Party nominates.
A person does not have to agree with the libertarian philosophy, in order to be able to identify what it does and does not believe. The fact that we have people in the media who do not seem to understand basic philosophy 101 is sad, but, alas, not to surprising.
Sometimes, I suspect that people use, “libertarian” as trendy shorthand for someone who is socially liberal, and fiscally conservative (the later often seems to translate into someone who is is friendly to chamber of commerce/corporate business interests).
It would certainly be interesting if such a candidate were to emerge as a serious candidate in the Republican presidential primary.
Donald Trump COULD have been such a candidate, simply because he has got quite a bit of money…. but he decided to shoot for some sort of deranged, bully with delusions of being a crazy populist.
posted by Jorge on
and while Rubio may not have “embraced] a truly startling array of antigay extremists”, his views on Obergefell and other LGBT issues are as are extreme.
I am sure he knows exactly what he’s doing.
Oddly, Bush, Christie and Kasich may be the best bet for “libertarian” Republicans this election cycle. Although none of them exhibit anything close to libertarian positions on the issues overall, each of them avoids the authoritarian extremes exhibited by Cruz and Rubio.
Umm… I think that’s just your deep suspicion of the frontrunners showing.
From their histories in office, Bush’s and Christie’s m/o’s have been anything but libertarian. Look, Christie’s “taking on the teacher’s union” spiel, tough guy persona, and especially his repeated insistence that an executive’s job is to solve problems really doesn’t strike me as one that’s compatible with treating the Constitution as a delicate shrine that the government must not dirty up. Quite the opposite. Maybe he’s not extreme ideologically, but I do not think he holds much sacred, either. At the other extreme, people have pointed out Bush’s history on the Schiavo caseThe worst I can say about Kasich is that he’s a mean partisan.
posted by tom jefferson 3rd on
If enough “libertarians” believe that Cruz is a libertarian – to warrent the Reason article, I got to wonder how sane such people are?
posted by Lori Heine on
So, John in California, the data you were able to find in five minutes suffices for truth. And the “No true Scotsman” thing is again being twisted to mean what it does not mean.
You could look it up. But that might take longer than five minutes.
People whose word you wouldn’t trust on any other issue claim to be libertarians–and on that and that alone, their word is gold. That’s because you’re indifferent to the truth on the matter.
Which is fine. Just don’t be surprised if a libertarian points it out.
posted by JohnInCA on
All you’re pointing out is that your personal experience doesn’t match the data. Something I do not contest.
If you have better data, feel free to share it. But until and unless you do, you shouldn’t be surprised if I trust polling and surveys to describe broad trends of a population rather then take, on faith, that your anecdote is representative.
And you’re right. When it comes to how people self-identify, I am more likely to take them at their word. That said, I largely take people at their word anyway. I may question their *judgement* or their *motives*, but on the things they say they’ll actually do? Lacking a history of reneging on their commitments, I have no reason to doubt someone on what they’ll do, even if I question their stated motives for doing so.
I’m not sure why you think that’s unreasonable.
posted by Lori Heine on
Libertarianism is a philosophy. Being a Scotsman means having a particular ethnicity. Apples and oranges. Switching one for the other doesn’t work.
Libertarianism is a belief in liberty for all, based on non-aggressive principles. It has a standard, widely-recognized definition.
If I decided to start identifying myself as a Zoroastrian, I could certainly do that. But that wouldn’t make me one. If five hundred thousand people all took it into their heads to do the same, it still wouldn’t change the definition of the term.
I have explained why so many social conservatives have taken to using the term “libertarianism.” They don’t know what it means, any more than most leftists do. That does not change the definition.
It’s of no consequence to me if people are determined to go on misusing a word even when they’ve been informed what it really means. But as I write for a wide libertarian audience, and they all accept that my views correspond with libertarian views, I would be much inclined to think I know something about it.
posted by JohnInCA on
If you think the “No True Scotsman” fallacy is about ethnicity/nationality, then you’re missing the point.
posted by Houndentenor on
I can’t take this seriously. Who thought Cruz was a libertarian? Paul I can see. At least he has some libertarian views but Cruz? Of course Republicans like to talk about smaller government but once in power they are all about different government, just with different priorities from the big government that Democrats want. No one in their right mind ever thought Cruz was a libertarian and if they said so you should feel free to ignore them from here on out.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The controversy among “libertarians” ignited after Rand Paul dropped out. Cruz adjusted his New Hampshire set-speeches to spotlight “libertarian” positions, more or less laying claim on being the “libertarian” among the candidates then standing. Today he’s doing a similar shape shift (through Limbaugh) on Reagan. Its all politics, and, like you, I think that it is all nonsense.
Within the Republican-aligned constituency of the “libertarian” community, though, Cruz is taken more seriously. Cato, as Stephen’s links show, takes a dim view of Cruz’s posturing. Others, like Ted Gebhard over at American Thinker, beg to differ.
As best I can make out, the controversy is about “libertarian” branding among Republicans who claim the “libertarian” mantle, and has nothing at all to do with the libertarian movement or the Libertarian Party.
Stephen is obviously right — “Cruz Is No Libertarian”. Nor are any of the other Republican candidates still standing.
I don’t know what that means about the future of the “libertarian” constituency within the Republican Party, and that may be irrelevant. The Koch brothers and other “libertarian” mega-donors in the party seem to be doing quite well for themselves through the influence of ALEC et al, with the willing cooperation of funded politicians.
posted by Jorge on
Was grandpappy Barry Goldwater a libertarian? I don’t think he was, but whatever he was, that’s what Ted Cruz is. Only Cruz apparently has a bigger frown.
posted by Lori Heine on
Bless your heart, Jorge. You’ve just won the Jorge Word Salad Award. That is the most nonsensical comment you’ve ever made.
As a lifelong Arizonan and admirer of Goldwater–who was, indeed, a prototypical libertarian–I must take umbrage that you could possibly mention Ted Cruz’s name in the same pixel-breath as Goldwater’s.
Ted Cruz is a social conservative, with a religious-whacko father. He avidly courts that crowd. Goldwater, on the other hand, had no truck with those people and wasn’t shy about standing up to them. He spoke out in favor of gay rights at a time when almost no other Republican would. He also, quite famously, remarked that Jerry Falwell needed a good kick in the a**.
Cruz will toady to those people ’til Doomsday.
posted by Doug on
To paraphrase Lloyd Bensen, “Ted Cruz is no Berry Goldwater”. Goldwater was an honest conservative. Ted Cruz is a sleaze bag.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Goldwater was a determined and consistent foe of “preacher politicians” like Cruz.
A quick refresher (assuming you ever knew anything about Goldwater in the first place), looking at Goldwater’s “farewell” speech to the Senate on September 15, 1981 (see Congressional Record, September 16, 1981):
Now compare that with Cruz and what he has to say.
Let me simply put it this way, Jorge: Goldwater understood what was likely to follow when President Reagan invited the Religious Right into the Republican Party in a Faustian bargain for political advantage, and he warned against it, loud and clear. Today’s Republican Party is dominated by the conservative Christians Goldwater warned against, and is rapidly devolving into a cesspool of xenophobia, faux morality, scapegoating, fear-mongering and right-wing authoritarianism.
The party today is not the party that Goldwater would have built, and Cruz is the antithesis of Goldwater in just about every respect.
The fact that you think otherwise is yet another indication of the depth of your ignorance about American history.
I would recommend two books to you. The first is Conscience of a Conservative, written by Goldwater in the 1960’s. The second is Conservatives without Conscience, a book that Goldwater planned as a followup, but did not complete before his death, and which was eventually written and published by John Dean.
posted by Jorge on
The party today is not the party that Goldwater would have built, and Cruz is the antithesis of Goldwater in just about every respect.
The fact that you think otherwise is yet another indication of the depth of your ignorance about American history.
Wow! The claws sure came out on that one. I’m almost becoming convinced I’m onto something.
So Goldwater was a pariah for different reasons than Cruz is. Evidently the Republican party of today is nothing like the Republican party of the 1960s. I suppose it makes sense their Barry Goldwaters would be different.
Today’s Republican Party is dominated by the conservative Christians Goldwater warned against, and is rapidly devolving into a cesspool of xenophobia, faux morality, scapegoating, fear-mongering and right-wing authoritarianism.
How about intolerance of political diversity?
I’m not taking any suggestion you may have after making that rant, even if all of it except the word cesspool is true.
posted by Doug on
‘The claws sure came out on that one.’ No, Jorge, not claws. . . just facts.
posted by Jorge on
I have nothing against fact-checking, Doug.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
‘The claws sure came out on that one.’ No, Jorge, not claws. . . just facts.
I assumed that Jorge was actually comparing Goldwater and Cruz on the facts. Instead, I should have assumed that Jorge was just off on one of his mental wanders, connecting dots that only he can see and let it go. My bad.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Tom: Today’s Republican Party is dominated by the conservative Christians Goldwater warned against, and is rapidly devolving into a cesspool of xenophobia, faux morality, scapegoating, fear-mongering and right-wing authoritarianism.
Jorge: How about intolerance of political diversity?
Absolutely. That too. Try advocating making these two statements to Republicans and see what happens in today’s Republican Party:
(1) “I believe a woman has a right to an abortion. That’s a decision that’s up to the pregnant woman, not up to the pope or some do-gooders or the Religious Right.”
(2) “The big thing is to make this country, along with every other country in the world with a few exceptions, quit discriminating against people just because they’re gay. You don’t have to agree with it, but they have a constitutional right to be gay. Gays and lesbians are a part of every American family. They should not be shortchanged in their efforts to better their lives and serve their communities. As President Clinton likes to say, ‘If you work hard and play by the rules, you’ll be rewarded’ and not with a pink slip just for being gay.”
Both were statements made by Goldwater.
posted by tom jefferson III on
Barry Goldwater — clearly rejected the “religious right” , and its growing influence within the conservative wing of the Republican Party. Agree or disagree with what he stood for, in whole or in part, but he was very clearly of the opinion that church and state should be kept separate, and that the government itself should treat all its citizens in a fair and equal manner.
Ted Cruz — clearly supports the “religious rights”, and is more then happy to take their money and promise them to deliver just about whatever they want. He would be more then happy to marry church — whichever one is the most powerful — to state — his state — and has little to no interest in the concept of “equal means equal”.
posted by tom jefferson III on
Jorge;
I am not sure that Cruz could be called a “pariah” within the current Republican Party, given the the fact that is a major player in the presidential primary.
posted by Jorge on
Hmm. No.