Skip to comments.It's You, Not Me (Liberals and libertarians finally break up.)
Posted on 02/13/2010 12:53:00 PM PST by Cheap_Hessian
One mini-saga of the past decade in American politics has been the flirtationwith talk of a deeper partnershipbetween progressives and libertarians. These two groups were driven together, in the main, by common hostility to huge chunks of the Bush administration's agenda: endless, pointless wars; assaults on civil liberties; cynical vote-buying with federal dollars; and statist panders to the Christian right.
This cooperation reached its height during the 2006 election, in which, according to a new study by David Kirby and David Boaz, nearly half of libertarian voters supported Democratic congressional candidatesmore than doubling the support levels from the previous midterm election in 2002. (As Jonathan Chait noted after the first Kirby/Boaz study of libertarian voting, their definition is overly broad, encompassing 14 percent of the electorate.) At the time, left-wing blogger Markos Moulitsas hailed the influx of "libertarian democrats" into the Democratic coalition. Soon, even the Cato Institute's Brink Lindsey was proposing a permanent alliance of what he called "liberaltarians."
Well, you can say goodbye to all that. The new Kirby/Boaz study reports that libertarian support for Democrats collapsed in 2008, despite many early favorable assessments of Barack Obama by libertarian commentators. Meanwhile, the economic crisis has raised the salience of issues on which libertarians and Dems most disagree. And there's no question that during Obama's first yearwith the rise of the Tea Party movement and national debate over bailouts, deficits, and health carelibertarian hostility to the new administration has grown adamant and virtually universal. But what progressives need to understand is that the end of this affair is actually a good thing.
(Excerpt) Read more at tnr.com ...
Libertarians tire of being the useful idiots.
The author is an epic moron, and there are numerous instances of unintended humor in his article.
When the liberals became leftists - supporting the unlimited growth of the state - they lost whatever links they might have had with the libertarians.
Is this breakup because the Libertarians have finally figured out that big brother Marxism isn’t really compatible with their world view?
The author never does get around to explaining why the trend is “a good thing” - though it no doubt is, and I can explain why. Any self-ascribed libertarian who thinks they can find common cause with liberty-hating progressives needs to get their heads out of the sand. Bush’s casual acquiescence to statism may have been annoying, but it can’t hold a candle to what the actual statists have in mind.
What a strange, strange article...
The author states “But what progressives need to understand is that the end of this affair is actually a good thing.” and then explains why the break-up has brought Obummers progressive agenda to a screeching halt.
I have some libertarian blood in me - can’t stand the nanny state. One thing I don’t like is the Patriot Act. I’d rather accept the risk of the occasional terror attack than live in a police state. The Dumocrats complained bitterly about the Act and promised to kill it if they got elected... haven’t heard much about THAT lately. And here we thought it was Bush that represented police-state Big Government...
My, we were typing the exact same post at the exact same time.
BTW luv yer tag line!
I will never forget the grinning sneer on George Will’s face the night of Obama’s election.
It's easy to understand the confusion — liberals aren't liberal. They just co-opted the label.
Warns against the party system.
It serves to distract the Public Councils, and
enfeeble the Public Administration...agitates the
Community with ill-founded jealousies and false
alarms; kindles the animosity of one.. against
another.. it opens the door to foreign influence
and corruption.. thus the policy and the will of
one country are subjected to the policy and will
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find only things evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelogus
Phony anarchists have been and always will be the advance guard of confusion and lies for communists.
Throw in a return to Constitutional governance and you describe this libertarian to a "T".
Yes, that makes sense, but please tell me what's Lew Rockwell's problem.
He's supposed to be a Libertarian.
Christian Conservative and Republicans: social conservative, fiscal conservative.
Libertarian: social liberal, fiscal conservative
Democrat: social liberal, fiscal liberal.
Various libertarians find they can break bread with one or the other party depending on issues and their mood. Usually giving up one of their two positions. For instance as a Christian Conservative I could be : social conservative and fiscal liberal in good times, although I am staunchly both.
Any other accomodations by me wouldnt happen.
‘although I am staunchly both’ referring to both social and fiscal conservatism.
When you think of Castanza (Can't standya), he is a perfect metaphor for democrats.
I think that’s why they left the Republican party in 2006. Testing the waters on the other side of the pool. Found out they didn’t like the Marxism there, either.
Which is probably why you see the Tea Party movement. Too many Kool-Aid drinkers who believed that you’ve got only the Republican/Democrat choice have stopped drinking that Kool-Aid.
probably lost his mind while he dated Cindy Sheehan
yup you can look it up
IF there was no such thing as ‘party affiliation’, then when we ‘elected’ someone and they turned out to be a mistake, then we could concentrate on solving the problem, instead of just pointing fingers at the other side.