Ted Cruz Speech Nods to Increasing Libertarian Views within Republican Party

Cato Institute ^ | 9/26/13 | David Kirby

[shego]

During his Ironman 21-hour speech, Sen. Ted Cruz read excerpts from Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, name-dropped "libertarians" at least six times, and yielded to Sen. Rand Paul, who invoked Frederic Bastiat's "What is Seen and Unseen," a favorite among libertarians.

Ted Cruz, who retained remarkable composure over the long night, seems in all things deliberate. Political leaders seem to have become more comfortable talking about libertarians, even identifying themselves as such. Libertarians may have reached a tipping point within the Republican Party.

Last week, a FreedomWorks study on public opinion found that libertarian views within the Republican Party are at the highest point in a decade, today representing 41 percent of Republican voters....

We define libertarians as those who favor "smaller government" and think government should not promote "traditional values." Using this method, FreedomWorks data show that 41 percent of Republicans and Republican leaning independents are libertarian today.

Two separate data sources, Gallup and ANES, show the same trend: that libertarian views are at the highest point in a decade....

Of course, as I've have noted previously, not all these libertarians self-identify as such and many don't know the word. But even that seems to be changing, and it's not just Ted Cruz.

Sen. Rand Paul calls himself a "libertarian-leaning Republican." Glenn Beck now considers himself libertarian, saying "I'm a lot closer to Penn Jillette than I am to Chuck Hagel." Matt Drudge recently tweeted his frustration with Republicans on Syria, saying it's now "authoritarian vs. libertarian." According to FreedomWorks' poll, only 10 percent of Republicans "don't know" the word libertarian, compared to 27 percent nationally.

The data confirm that libertarian views may well have reached a tipping point in the Republican Party.

[manc]

LOL got that right.
During the elections my wife and I would look at the crowd and see at Obama’s rallies girlie men and the women had scruffy t shirts on, very ugly and hair which looked to not have been combed in days. In contrast to a republican rally the women were classy, well dressed and the men were men , real men not the limp wristed soft never done a dirty job in their life kind, probably couldn’t even change a light bulb.

[SUSSA]

The objection I have to homos in the military is that they are thrown in with straights. If they had separate units for queer men and for queer women let them serve. However, don’t make straight guys and girls shower, etc. with them.

As to marriage if government didn’t give special privileges to married couples it wouldn’t be an issue. But we already have a problem with Mohammidans insisting on their religious laws be recognized in civil matters.

[bamahead]

This country began on Social Conservatism that would make your head spin today, and conservative economics.

No, actually this country began on and was fueled by Classical Liberalism in both Economic and Social Policy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

In the United States, liberalism took a strong root because it had little opposition to its ideals, whereas in Europe liberalism was opposed by many reactionary interests. In a nation of farmers, especially farmers whose workers were slaves, little attention was paid to the economic aspects of liberalism. Thomas Jefferson adopted many of the ideals of liberalism but, in the Declaration of Independence, changed Locke's "life, liberty, and property" to the more socially liberal "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".[35] As America grew, industry became a larger and larger part of American life; and, during the term of America's first populist president, Andrew Jackson, economic questions came to the forefront. The economic ideas of the Jacksonian era were almost universally the ideas of classical liberalism. Freedom was maximised when the government took a "hands off" attitude toward industrial development and supported the value of the currency by freely exchanging paper money for gold. The ideas of classical liberalism remained essentially unchallenged until a series of depressions, thought to be impossible according to the tenets of classical economics, led to economic hardship from which the voters demanded relief. In the words of William Jennings Bryan, "You shall not crucify the American farmer on a cross of gold." Classical liberalism remained the orthodox belief among American businessmen until the Great Depression.[36] The Great Depression saw a sea change in liberalism, leading to the development of modern liberalism.

Doubtful you'll comprehend this. You probably won't even read it and just live your life thinking 'Classical Liberalism' is just another brand of Statism.

Sometimes I wonder whether you are actually just a bot which has basically taken some of the Big L-Libertarian Party platform and turned it into one big bundle of anti-slogans. It's all I've seen you repeat for the last 6 years. Do you really enjoy being that intellectually dishonest?

[Gene Eric]

See 138.

FWIW, ansel12 is correct regarding the LP platform’s idiotic social and border views, but I vigorously disagree with his uniform typecasting of things identified by terms that begin with the letters: liber

I’m done with this subject for tonight.

Welcome to FR, lurker.

[ansel12]

I don’t know why you bother with that post, I know that i don’t really care about the nuances of your personal beliefs, my interest is in that you are promoting the libertarian ideal of homosexual equality in the military, among all the other stuff.

Marriage has been an issue to government for thousands of years, and in the American military since the very beginning, in fact since the Continental Congress.

“”Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government’s treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws.””

[SUSSA]

Well, you’re entitled to your beliefs and it is always a pleasure to read your posts. Have a very pleasant evening.

[Rodamala]

I promoted no such thing. I see what you did there.

[Gene Eric]

>> Classical Liberalism

A lengthy article was posted recently written by a “Classic Liberal” of the David Horowitz kind. It was written in the ‘90s, but topical nonetheless:

LEFTISTS
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3070625/posts

“It is classical Liberalism, not conservatism (whatever that entails), nor Libertarianism, which can mount an ideological counterattack on Marxist collectivism.”

[ansel12]

Read the Cato article and how all of the surveys define libertarianism and that Cato agrees with.

It is defined as I define it, and how we all know it really is, economically conservative and socially liberal.

****As David Boaz and I have noted in our two studies on the Libertarian Vote, and ebook with Emily Ekins, Gallup has tracked “libertarian” beliefs since 1993 using a combination of two questions on the role of government:”

“”Some people think the government should promote traditional values in our society. Others think the government should not favor any particular set of values. Which comes closer to your own view?””

---

****”Gallup defines libertarians as those who think government is doing “too many things” and should not “promote traditional values.”

---

****Using American National Election Studies (ANES) data, a stalwart in political science, we duplicated Gallup’s methodology, using two questions on the role of government:
“”Do you agree strongly, agree somewhat, neither agree nor disagree, disagree somewhat, or disagree strongly with this statement? We should be more tolerant of people who choose to live according to their own moral standards, even if they are very different from our own.””

---

**** we added similar questions to a national poll FreedomWorks commissioned in August to see what percentage of Republicans hold libertarian views today.
“”We define libertarians as those who favor “smaller government” and think government should not promote “traditional values.” Using this method, FreedomWorks data show that””

[ansel12]

I believe the point is that the federal government should have no part of what brand of shoe you wear, what sort of medical coverage one elects to have, or how often a man may have sex with his wife... or go out for ice cream.

The place for evaluating stuff like homos in the military is in open society.

Why not explain it better then.

First you seemed to be clumsily defending the libertarian goal of ending laws discriminating against homosexuals in the military, and then you seemed to be saying that you are personally OK with the idea and have the appropriate politics for that approval.

I took you as defending the libertarian position.

[Rusty0604]

1906:The Pure Food and Drug Act requires that certain specified drugs, including alcohol, cocaine, heroin, morphine, and cannabis, be accurately labeled with contents and dosage. Previously many drugs had been sold as patent medicines with secret ingredients or misleading labels. Cocaine, heroin, cannabis, and other such drugs continued to be legally available without prescription as long as they were labeled. It is estimated that sale of patent medicines containing opiates decreased by 33% after labeling was mandated.[2]

1911: United States first Opium Commissioner argues that of all the nations of the world, the United States consumes most habit-forming drugs per capita.[3]

1914: The first recorded instance of the United States enacting a ban on the domestic distribution of drugs is the Harrison Narcotic Act[4] of 1914. This act was presented and passed as a method of regulating the production and distribution of opiate-containing substances under the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution, but a section of the act was later interpreted by law enforcement officials for the purpose of prosecuting doctors who prescribe opiates to addicts.

1919: Alcohol prohibition in the U.S. first appeared under numerous provincial bans and was eventually codified under a federal constitutional amendment in 1919, having been approved by 36 of the 48 U.S. states.

1925: United States supported regulation of cannabis as a drug in the International Opium Convention.[5] and by the mid-1930s all member states had some regulation of cannabis.

[carlo3b]

Hey My FRiend, perhaps I should explain what problems I have with my own side of the equation.. I have been steadfast against any legalization of any currently controlled drugs.. That included POT, especially POT..

However, this stuff is being smoked by so many people, even some my age telling me that it helps their cancer treatment, and being legalized in several states, I am willing to trade off something I feel is much more important, like Energy Freedom..

Same with Abortion.. It’s legal, I absoloetly hate that it is, but if we can limit it to say 12 weeks, I could live with it.. Thats me, and maybe I am getting mellow in my old age.. Whats your thoughts?

[dowcaet]

We can’t beat the liberals if we’re always split three or four ways. Divide and conquer is how the Dems always defeat us. I’m one of those libertarian leaners but I supported Santorum in the primaries and even volunteered to walk precincts for him. Look, I had disagreements with him but fixing a wrecked economy and regaining our perch on the world stage was a helluva lot more important to me than legalizing drugs and supporting gay marriage. Those of us who share a view of a less intrusive government have to stop biting each other’s noses off if we find disagreement on a couple of issues. The common enemy is and always will be the liberals. Let’s fight them instead of brawling with each other all the time. I’m sick of dealing with Democratic presidents, aren’t all of you?

[ansel12]

I admire your rare honesty, something that we never see from libertarians at freerepublic, but post 104 was about how social liberalism cannot lead to economic conservatism in America.

Social liberalism guarantees fiscal liberalism, regardless of what libertarians claim or fantasize about.

Voting is universal in America, the war against traditional American values, Christianity, and morality destroys individuals and families and communities, and creates more and more liberal, big government voters.

Look at who votes how, social conservatives vote conservative, social liberals vote liberal, with rare exceptions.

[ansel12]

Those of us who share a view of a less intrusive government have to stop biting each other’s noses off if we find disagreement on a couple of issues.

Aside from thinking that America becoming a despised and vile Sodom and Gomorrah being about merely a couple of issues, your social liberalism also creates economic liberalism and big government.

See post 154.

[ROCKLOBSTER]

look up the difference between progressive and libertarian.

A progressive is a drug-crazed, baby-killing, boy-raper who wants bigger government.

A Libertarian is a drug-crazed, baby-killing, boy-raper who wants smaller government.

[carlo3b]

I admire your rare honesty,..

Funny, I'm no Shrinking Violet, nor is there any reason for you or anyone on these boards to say that to me.. but, whatever.. I have to say I agree with most everything else you wrote..

I surely never thought I fell into anything close to Libertarianism, but I may be changing my opinions, because I am fearful that we, hardliners, may becoming irrelevant, and FRiends like you may just make that move easier than I expected..

[RginTN]

Isn’t this a Fiscal & Social Conservative site? What are Libertarians doing trashing it by attacking Social Conservatives? This site is Pro-Life, Pro-Family & for small govt.

If Liberatarians want to win over Social Conservatives engaging in namecalling like statist won’t help.

Link from FR’s founder Jim Robinson-

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1103363/posts

[ansel12]

I was praising you being so open about your pro-abortion views, most libertarians here will fight tooth and nail against conservatism without ever actually saying what they are disagreeing about.

[ConservativeMind]

“Libertarians have always ‘split’ what could be an overwhelming vote.”

Really? Can you give an example of the huge portion of Republicans or conservatives they've peeled off to cause RINOs to lose in recent (or, any) year?

I think you are talking from a position with no proof.