Posted on 11/08/2006 8:08:12 AM PST by Matchett-PI
Has Our Time Come? http://www.hereticalideas.com/
A **new study from the Cato Institute [see link below] suggests that libertarians might be the new swing vote.
The libertarian vote is in play. At some 13 percent of the electorate, it is sizable enough to swing elections. Pollsters, political strategists, candidates, and the media should take note of it.
After examining the relevant polling data, Cato concludes that libertarians and libertarian sympathizers constitute somewhere between 10 and 20% of the American population. Some explanations are offered as to why libertarians constitute such a bigger constituency than one might expect. First is that libertarians tend not to be as well-organized as other interest groups. Most groups that organize and try to exert political influence want some sort of government action: unions want favorable labor laws passed, the Christian Coalition wants abortion outlawed and anti-homosexual laws passed, environmentalists want pollution restricted and ecosystems protected, businesses want favorable tax and commercial laws. Libertarians generally don’t want government to take action, and are therefore less likely to organize into a pressure group because of that. It also argues that the difficulty people have in breaking out of the left-right liberal-conservative paradigm of politics keeps “populists” (authoritarians) and libertarians underrepresented. While most political scholarship accepts the inadequacy of a simple one-dimensional view of politics, it hasn’t sunk down into popular culture as strongly. Often talk shows and debate programs on television and radio will feature someone “from the left” and someone “from the right”, squeezing libertarians out of the picture.
An unexplored reason that might contribute is the higher prevalence of libertarianism among younger people than older people. The Cato paper notes this statistic but doesn’t explore its relationship to voter turnout. It explains the phenomenon this way. Younger people were more influenced by 2 of the most significant individualist movements of the 20th century: the ’60s counter culture and the ’80s Reagan Revolution. As a result, younger generations have seen both the socially liberal and the economically conservative side of individualism and turn to libertarianism as a way to emulate both ideals. The downside is that since younger people in general are less likely to vote, libertarians wind up underrepresented at the polls.
But don’t libertarian have to swing their votes to become a swing vote? Well, more and more frequently libertarian-minded people are losing the loyalty to the party they usually vote for (mostly the GOP), which puts their vote as a bloc in play.
Many commentators noted the high turnout in the 2004 election. Nationally, voter turnout increased 6.1 percent. That might help explain some of the swing in 2004. According to ANES data, libertarians reported turning out to vote at higher percentages than total respondents in 2000 and even higher in 2004.
This libertarian swing trend is particularly pronounced by age. Libertarians aged 18–29 many of whom were new voters in 2004 voted 71–42 for Kerry. Libertarians aged 30–49 voted almost completely the reverse, 72–21 for Bush.
Going back to the generational argument, I imagine that older individuals who can remember a time when the religious Right wasn’t nearly as omnipresent of a force in the Republican Party and therefore don’t automatically associate it with tirades about the moral dangers of homosexuality and feticide. So I can understand younger libertarians leaning more democratic than older ones who might remember the time of more Goldwater-like or even maybe Reagan-like Republicans.
What does all this mean in practical terms? What will we see coming out of the major political parties Conservatives resist cultural change and personal liberation; liberals resist economic dynamism and globalization. Libertarians embrace both. The political party that comes to terms with that can win the next generation.
It would really be great to see both political parties converge to a libertarian center. But as the article points out, the nature of libertarians makes them much harder to corral than other groups, which makes attracting us to their political parties a far more expensive and riskier proposition than going after churchgoers and soccer moms. Perhaps in time it will happen. But I doubt it will happen very soon.
** http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1718392/posts
Libertarians see the bigger picture than the one painted by the simple Republican/Democrat duopoly.
Which ones will you say we can do without?
80% of what we want? Or more soclialism form Dems and RINO appeasers.
Read my tagline.
The Libertarian Party is for totally open borders and not defending our country. They are a problem, not a solution.
Im with you DC, fortunately I had very good choices so my Senate and House voted went Republican but I will be no means vote RINO..
That, is an outright lie. In fact, allowing completely unrestrained RKBA would do more to prevent crime and terroism here in the US than Bush's TSA and Homeland Security Departments ever could.
I'm deep in the Blue Heart of Red State Texas.
Maybe so, but people who vote L in elections are generally not R voters. They're voters who look for a change but won't vote D. Or the "anti-Republicrats" crowd. I wouldn't be surprised -- in Montana, with Burns having that ethical cloud (nobody can tell me what he did, actually, but there you are) -- if most of those voters would have left it blank or stayed home.
I know we like to think that the L's are our voters, but when it comes to big-L libertarians, they are that way because they hate Republicans with a passion that is (hee hee) irrational.
I bow to noone in my loathing of libertarians, but I think the Green, Constitution or Silly parties would have gotten almost the same numbers.
Start with the 10th. It's been relegated to toilet paper status anyway thanks to our big-government duopoly party.
That's a good point. They gave the fort to Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Shumer...........
Thanks for nothing, libertarians. You had a temper tantrum and cut everyones throat.
Very interesting points raised about Libertarians.
I have voted Libertarian on many occasions.
They kind of lost me in the 2004 election aftermath when it looked like they were helping a Kerry recount in Ohio.
But, if there is a lesson to be learned, maybe Repubs should re-evaluate cooperating and working bipartisanly with Liberals. Maybe they should be looking at how they can be more bipartisan with Libertarians.
Always.
Big-L libertarians are unappeasable. They are not worth "going after".
What we need is for everybody to stop blaming each other for the loss, find common ground (the military, terrorism, constitutional judges - but not theocratic ones) on which we can agree, then work our butts off to turn things around.
Scheezch...are we to be blamed for the 12 year majority too?
The further away you guys run from the Constitution and conservative principles, the more you'll give us to complain about as well.
But to be fair....at least the Libertarian party would allow you to protect YOUR own boarders.
The 10th Amendment was made meaningless by Abraham Lincoln, and the 14th Amendment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.