The Cato Institute has published a new paper by David Boaz and David Kirby titled "The Libertarian Vote," analyzing exit poll data. A finding of interest:
The common story line these days is that there are conservatives who support lower taxes, less regulation, gay marriage bans, and the war in Iraq and voted for President Bush in 2004, and liberals who support bigger government, national health insurance, gay marriage, and withdrawal from Iraq and voted for Sen. John F. Kerry in 2004-and not many true independents or swing voters who cross those categories. But it's not so hard to find counterexamples if you look. ...
According to the [2004 exit] poll, for instance, 25 percent of respondents support same-sex marriage, of whom 22 percent voted for Bush, with 77 percent perhaps understandably for Kerry. Another 35 percent support civil unions, and 52 percent of those voted for Bush. That means that 28 million Bush voters support either marriage or civil unions for same-sex couples-not your stereotypical "red" voters. ...
Why would gay-union supporters vote for Bush? Presumably because they don't like Democratic positions on such issues as taxes and regulation (or, of course, on terrorism and national security ...).
Meanwhile, our leading GLBT lobbies insist on promoting a broad leftwing "progressive" big-government agenda-and only supporting candidates who do the same.
More. Yes, I agree that there are too few politicians willing to put both economic and personal liberty ahead of special interest political pandering. But it doesn't help when GLBT groups commit only to "coalition building" on the left. How about a pro-liberty agenda: school choice, flat taxes...and marriage equality. Now there's an idea!
12 Comments for “Perils of Putting the Left Foot First.”
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
I talked to Boaz briefly the other day, and I think he has an important insight. Like it or not, a significant percentage of gay voters disagree with the standard leftist program. While the harm Bush has done to conservatism, and the discredit he has done to the GOP, may distract from this in the short run – and indeed, the harm he and the GOP have done may require their loss of an election or two by way of course correction – in the long run there are going to be perfectly self-respecting gays who believe in free markets and smaller, less intrusive government. It is easy to pretend otherwise at a moment when Log Cabin appears utterly irrelevant and marginalized within its party. But that’s just one organization, and this is just one moment. There could well be a party realignment about to break on the country.
If a serious attempt were made to organize what Boaz and Kirby call libertarian voters, I might well join it despite my differences with libertarians. After all, I sure have my differences with Democrats. Of all the Democratic presidential candidates in 2004, the one closest to my own views (though still not congruent with mine) was Lieberman. I have a hard time believing that the sort of people who lionize the maker of “Fahrenheit 9/11” could ever in any meaningful or useful sense be considered my allies. Both major parties are too strongly influenced by their respective “wingers.” It would be good to see a serious alternative formed that is not merely or primarily a vehicle for one person’s ego, as with Ross Perot. There are a lot of us in the center who would welcome an alternative. In the meantime, we have to look to those in either party who are willing to take on the extremists in their party, or at least finesse them, so that we get more responsible hands on the reins of power.
posted by ETJB on
The fact that 25% of Republicans support gay marriage/civil unions begs the question; how much do they really care?
Major LGBT equal rights organizations work with progressive organizations and groups for the simple reason that they support equal rights in theory, if not in practice.
Their is noting stopping Libertarians or Conservatives from trying to lobby their fellow libertarians or conservatives to support equal rights. In fact their is the Log Cabin Republicans and the Outright Libertarians.
Furthermore, I would hesitate to view the findings as being a trend to libertarianism or to suggest that Joe Liberman was a libertarian.
Libertarianism has a specific set of moral principles that lead to a certain set of policy conclusions. You can agree or disagree with the principles or policy conclusions but most people that claim to be a libertarian are not one by any reasonble standard.
A Libertarian is not the same thing as being a ‘centrist’ or a ‘moderate’ or a ‘social liberal, & fiscal conservative’.
Liberman is something of a ‘centrist’ but he is not a libertarian and I would be hard pressed to call him a social liberal.
posted by Craig2 on
You’d have to watch out for neocons masquerading as libertarians, however.
Craig2
Wellington, NZ
posted by Mark on
Perhaps you can put me in touch with Washington conservatives who actually support less government. Aside from Ron Paul, this is an urban myth.
posted by Becky on
It\\\\\\’s not progressives who create \\\\\\’big government.\\\\\\’ Bush and Reagan\\\\\\’s spending is and was astronomical, creating massive deficits and ultimately tragic economic instability, some of which will only be revealed in the future. Tens and tens of billions of dollars have gone to Iraq, starving our government of programs that might actually be useful. Worse, American actions have to led to the suffering of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians and American solidiers. If you want a Big government, vote in a neonconservative candidate…conservatism just isn\\\\\\’t what it used to be.
posted by dalea on
Mark says: ‘Perhaps you can put me in touch with Washington conservatives who actually support less government. Aside from Ron Paul, this is an urban myth.’
Absolutely true. Thank you for pointing this out.
‘or, of course, on terrorism and national security …)’ Ahhh, the militarist libertarians. Rothbard called them ‘anarcho-patriots’. Those who would support any and all foreign adventures. It is high time IMHO that these people be excluded from the designation ‘libertarian’.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Both “progressives” and “conservatives” like big government — their primary disagreement is how that big government power should be used against people they don’t like, and which groups should be out of favor.
I do note that “libertarian” has become a new cool word for socialists like Daily Kos and neocons like Boaz and co. Unfortunately, neither are particularly “libertarian” — they just latch on to a couple of policy planks which they like, without understanding the underlying logic/philosophy.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Just to be clear, I did not for a moment mean to imply that being a centrist is at all the same as being a libertarian, nor did I for a moment mean to suggest that Lieberman is a libertarian. My point was that (A) I am open to alternatives, and (B) the organizing that Boaz was suggesting looked like it might be promising in that regard. To say that I am a centrist and that I might be interested in a new organized effort labeled “libertarian” is not to say that I consider myself a libertarian nor that the new effort would in fact be libertarian as understood by libertarian thinkers.
David Boaz, however, has written at least one book on the subject of Libertarianism, and I heard him last week refer to himself as a classical liberal, which I gather he considers compatible with his self-professed libertarianism. I very much doubt that David would accept the label “neocon.”
In any event, I would hope that any organizing would be focused on accomplishing something rather than getting bogged down in endless disputes over theory. This is not to knock theory; if one truly thinks that people are horribly wrong, then one should of course say so. But if all that one does is sit back and find fault with others, that would be rather pathetic.
posted by ETJB on
Just to be clear, I was not suggesting that you were suggesting that being a centrist is at all the same as being a libertarian, nor did I for a moment mean to suggest that Lieberman is a libertarian.
However, when I read articles by such people as David Boaz, I get the impression that is similar to what is going on.
It is good to be open to alternatives, although Joe Liberman ran such an indept and poor releection campaign that he may have lost much of his goodwill.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
I would hope that any organizing would be focused on accomplishing something rather than getting bogged down in endless disputes over theory
This is curious — people who demand that those of us who are actually driving change stop “focusing on theory,” while those who claim to be making a difference keep voting for and endorsing the same old Democrats and Republicans who create the problems we’re trying to overcome as a society to begin with.
This election year is proving to offer a number of opportunities for grassroots gays to get involved, from the Friedman independent campaign in Texas to local, state and federal elections with strong non-old-party candidates. Getting in, contributing and doing some heavy lifting will help send a message to the old parties that it’s time for change.
posted by kittynboi on
I don\\’t feel like getting in to this, but I do want to second the half-expressed idea here that the term Libertarian is one of the most overused and abused terms out of all political positions. NEL has gone in to more depth before about this, when he once listed how to spot a fake libertarian.
posted by etjb on
If gay Americans or any other group of Americans want more candidate choices then not only should they be a voter, but they should also support the work of Ballot Access News and the Center for Voting and Democracy.