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.

[shego]

From the posting instructions:

Please: NO profanity, NO personal attacks, NO racism or violence in posts.

(emphasis added on relevant portion)

[Engraved-on-His-hands]

"Social" issues are issues for society. Healthy societies are not controlled by government policy.

Like it or not, I'm part of society, and I vote...or not. If someone wants my vote, they have to respect my values.

[ansel12]

You just want to push gay marriage and homosexualizing the military and a war against Christian/traditional/conservative America.

Your claim to “trust” the American people yet instead of supporting the liberal portion of America who back your social agenda, you hang out here with social conservatives who despise your social agenda and fight a losing battle to preserve traditional America.

We aren’t on the same side, I am a conservative, a traditional American.

[Responsibility2nd]

YOU can piss off too.

(says R2 in a non-personnal attack sort of way)

[af_vet_rr]

If your views were always that Program A is bad, you were conservative because you were against expanding government to it and now you are libertarian because you want to cut it.

This is kind of how I'm seeing things now. You're right - a Republican used to be against expanding government, or wanting to scale it back. Now that Republicans in general support bigger government (and proved this under George W. Bush and the Republican-led Congress, and with all of the compromising they are doing with Obama and the Senate these days), they've decided that the small government types must be libertarians.

Doesn't matter to me though, I'm no longer a Republican, I'm simply a Conservative. Some day the Republican Party might include me if it stops moving left, and instead goes back to the right, but in the meantime, it can piss off.

[af_vet_rr]

Libertatian = legalization. If a few other freedoms flourish as a side effect they probabaly wouldn't argue, but in the end it is all about the choom. At the end of the day if all they got was the choom I suspect that they would be entirely content.

At the end of the day, regardless of our views on drugs, the WOD is being used to remove our freedoms and our privacy, and it's being used to justify the militarization of local and state police. I would support legalization of some drugs, or leave it up to the states instead of the federal government, if it would mean the government, local, state, and federal, would stop assaulting our freedom and privacy.

People are worried about Obama making some civilian military to oppress us, but they should be worried about their local PD getting weaponry and armored vehicles that belongs on the streets of Baghdad, or the valleys of Afghanistan, and not on Mainstreet USA.

[CatherineofAragon]

His website says he supports “marriage equality.” In interviews, Sarvis has talked about his “many gay friends” and promised to fight for sodomite marriage, because, in his words, according to Huffington Post, gays would be such a “credit to the institution.”

Do you agree with that view?

[shego]

At the end of the day, regardless of our views on drugs, the WOD is being used to remove our freedoms and our privacy, and it's being used to justify the militarization of local and state police.

I find jboot's handle rather ironic in this context....

[Engraved-on-His-hands]

His website says he supports “marriage equality.” In interviews, Sarvis has talked about his “many gay friends” and promised to fight for sodomite marriage, because, in his words, according to Huffington Post, gays would be such a “credit to the institution.”

Do you agree with that view?

(crickets chirping)

[carlo3b]

You have to wonder how long some of us are going to be willing to stick with Cruz when he has to take the curves, in order to grow the base, the party and most of all, grow the voters. We haven’t had to come to terms with that question, but we’re going to sooner or later.

I cherry-picked your post, but I suggest everyone read the entire message.. You have HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD, because that is the hurdle we face in this movement to win anything in the future..

Frankly, I have become a bit more pragmatic when considering we have stooped to electing a Marxist as our President and a Congress that proudly claim to be Communist, and Socialist..

The one single point we all, "ALL", agree upon is Fiscal Conservatism! That is the waters edge, where we begin to diverge into factions, and have punished those who believe in divergent social morays, and matters..

We need a coalescing force to bring these divergent views together for a temporary commitment with an agreement to desist from destroying each other to win..

[manc]

well, they can want but it doesn’t mean they will get what they want. [smiles]

[CatherineofAragon]

"His website says he supports “marriage equality.” In interviews, Sarvis has talked about his “many gay friends” and promised to fight for sodomite marriage, because, in his words, according to Huffington Post, gays would be such a “credit to the institution.”

"Do you agree with that view?"

"(crickets chirping)"

LOL, you noticed that, too? Maybe he missed the question...you think?

Shego? Still awaiting your answer on whether you agree with your candidate's views on sodomite marriage.

[Engraved-on-His-hands]

For many of us, our social conservative views are what drives us. I would not exactly be motivated to walk the streets because of different views on marginal tax rates. If the Republican Party decides that it is more important to support, as you say, “divergent social morays (sic)”, then I may decide that it is more important to work in my garden than to make it to the polling booth. You may not like it. The Republican hierarchy may not like it. But that is how it is. And that is how it will be.

[CatherineofAragon]

And thank God for that.

To see this Sarvis guy, you would think he’s exactly the kind of straight man who would brag about having queer friends....chinless, feminine-looking, with a chirpy, high-pitched little voice. The perfect example of the leftwing excuse for a male.

[Founding Nephew]

“Abortion is irrelevant”

Really?

---

Yes. If our nation devolves into a financial disaster, abortion questions will be decided at a VERY local level, and state and federal laws won’t make a difference.

[Dead Corpse]

Again...Libertarianism has always been divisive when facing the big decisions.

No. Moronic RINO's willing to flush our Country for a pat on the head from the Dems, and a slim chance at holding the whip hand themselves some day, are what is dividing us.

"Think" they stand? "Makes no difference to" you?

Then how about a nice big cup of "shut the f*ck up" and let the adults talk about solving the problems facing this Nation?

If you don't KNOW and you don't want to LEARN, then the only thing you are doing here is projecting your own need for divisiveness and we cannot afford that right now.

[Dead Corpse]

I have been on FR for a few years. I have NEVER once seen a self-described L/libertarian “rush to argue for drugs”.

Not once.

It’s brought up in EVERY thread by the detractors though. Doesn’t matter what the original subject was, you idiots always haul drugs in to the discussion to derail the original point being made.

Limited government? “Y’all jus’ wan’ drugs! N’ Drugs ‘r bad. M’KAy?”

RKBA. “Naw... Y’all just wanna protect yer’ dope stash.”

Low taxes. “Y’all just don’t want to pay sales tax on your herion.”

Repeal Obamacare? “You’d think y’all’d be for it since you’d be able to use your EBT card at the Mary Jane dispensary in Denver!”

Never fails. Sophomoric. Counter-productive. Divisive. And stupid.

[carlo3b]

Happy gardening my FRiend.. I have skin in the game, and the way to win will take a compromise, and I will not impose my view on you or anyone else..

All I was explaining why we haven’t been successful in the past, and why that condition will probably continue..

BTW, I too am a social Conservative..

[justlurking]

The Senate ran over that with a truck some time back. And outside of a few, the members of the House rubber stamped the unconstitutional legislation(s).

They get around it by taking an existing bill that "originated" in the House, gutting it and replacing it with their own.

I remember an article from long ago, where a Senator admitted they keep around some "shell" bills exactly for that purpose.

[stevie_d_64]

“Paging Captain Obvious...Captain Obvious to the Red courtesy phone for a message...”

Along with the “tactical” differences the grassroots has with the leadership of that party, the influx of libertarians that can’t seem to get anyone elected with an “L” on their names, so they have to infiltrate a conservative party and walk and soound like a duck in that regard...

None of this is news, to those of us who have tried to stave off this political disease of mediocrity, and appeasement...

The libertarians are well entrenched in the grassroots passing themselves off as “republicans” and sounding very “conservative” at times...But when the states convention processes gets cranked up, they revert to their true colors...We’ll see it again with the primaries coming up soon...Delegates who are selected will have plenty of them to have to deal with again...