Posted on 07/14/2014 6:21:19 AM PDT by Kaslin
This week another Reason/Rupe poll came out, this one on the political leanings of my generation, the Millennials. One interesting thing to note for people concerned with how we vote is that a plurality of Millennials surveyed who described themselves as “liberal” express support for downright libertarian positions.
Liberal, to many Millennials (33 percent), just means belief in “social tolerance, openness, and personal freedom.” And far from preferring a leviathan state, many Millennials said they were liberal because people should have freedom to do what they want in their personal lives without government interference.
So how does that impact our voting? More liberal millennials than conservative ones indicated support for a classically “libertarian-leaning candidate,” by a margin of 60 to 27 percent. But nearly half of conservative millennials oppose a “fiscally conservative, socially liberal” candidate.
Here’s the deal. Conservative Millennials won’t vote for a Democrat. They especially won’t vote for any of the Democrats being floated. But what this poll is showing is that liberal Millennials are fed up with a Democratic party which has been anything but liberal. Consider that 60 percent of Hillary Clinton voters and 56 percent of those who approve of President Obama say they would support a fiscally conservative, socially liberal candidate. They’re open to free markets, as long as they get their personal freedoms.
In total, a majority—53 percent—of millennials say they would support a candidate who described him or herself as socially liberal and economically conservative.
So what does that mean?
Young people were key to Obama’s election and re-election. Ignoring their wishes not only harms the GOP now, but also going forward.
Traditionally, the GOP has had an all-too-testy relationship with its libertarian wing. Mediaite’s Andrew Kirell:
To wit: There’s the GOP’s historically poor convention treatment of Paul supporters; the incessant scapegoating of Libertarian candidates for GOP losses, even despite mathematical impossibility; the perpetual misunderstanding of what libertarians believe in; the conservative belittling of libertarian causes; the penchant for selecting terrible candidates and then getting pissy when libertarians hesitate to get behind the false choice; and plenty of embarrassing moves that make libertarians want to crawl under a rock.
The personal freedoms we Millennials want in no way violate small-government principles. In fact, they are full expressions of that idea that that government which governs least, governs best. Ending the War on Drugs, fixing our broken immigration system, no longer allowing the state to discriminate against gays in marriage, reining in domestic spying, and protecting whistleblowers are all, fundamentally, small-government positions which would all result in a net decrease in the state.
Nominating truly small-government politicians, who want the government out of the bedroom and the boardroom, isn’t just the only principled path forward for the GOP. It’s also the best way to attract my generation to the party. It’s the GOP, not the Democrats, who Millennials should associate with “social tolerance, openness, and personal freedom.”
In order to be socially liberal the policy maker has to extract largesse from the public coffer to promote said socially liberal programs.
How does, for example, "stop arresting people for selling, buying, or using marijuana" require extracting largesse from the public coffer?
Your example is a non-sequitur. Not enforcing laws
I meant, of course, stop arresting by repealing the underlying law - I focused on the arresting only to highlight the lack of extraction from the public coffer.
Someone has to support the dopers
Says who?
Are you sure about that? As a senior data analyst, I've never worked for a company that drug tested.
The laws on the books.
If they can’t work those that do are forced to support them.
Not really. They will always like entitlements, and there will never be enough we can do for the downtrodden.
“As a senior data analyst, I’ve never worked for a company that drug tested.”
Of course you haven’t! Your options are limited to those that don’t.
My proposed compromise on drug policy is decriminalization rather than legalization. Its better to pay a ticket once in a while than to pay a tax every time. Plus it doesn’t tie up police resources with arrests and incarceration.
Obviously there will have to be under the influence laws like there are with drunk driving.
(I don’t do either anymore)
Of course you haven’t! Your options are limited to those that don’t.
I haven't used drugs in decades - but your immediate stoop to personal smears reflects the emptiness of your pro-drug-war position.
Someone has to support the dopers
Says who?
The laws on the books.
Then it's that law - not legality of marijuana - that extracts largesse from the public coffer.
I agree that decriminalization is better than the status quo. (Although not for the reasons you give - whether an occasional ticket is cheaper than a tax depends on amounts and frequency, and detecting ticketable violations and issuing tickets would still tie up police resources.)
The biggest problem with decriminalization is that it doesn't address the biggest problem with the status quo: the illegality of production and sale enriches criminals.
“Then it’s that law - not legality of marijuana - that extracts largesse from the public coffer.”
So...your platform will be to repeal every law on the books that covers SS, welfare, unemployment, food stamps, Medicaid, Medicare, public transportation, public housing, etc etc?
That is why Libtardians can’t get elected to any office, their ideas only work in fantasy land.
That's the conservative position. Which welfare programs do you support?
Like I said fantasy land. That is the only place all those programs will be repealed.
The conservative position is to cut them back and resist their growth.
It takes a long time to get rid of them.
Not really. For example abortion. Since the overwhelming women having abortions are Liberals, the more abortions the bigger reduction in "the pool of Liberal voters"
No, that's the right-lite position - a shade less wimpy than the RINO 'grow them less rapidly than the Dems' position.
Of course social liberalism creates more liberal voters, we have 60 years of history that makes that obvious, don’t look to abortion to eliminate the voters that social decay and social liberalism creates more of, abortion just kills babies.
Everything else being equal, yes.
But consider for instance that the disproportionate numbers of abortions by black women (Liberals) is being offset by the mass importation of Hispanics (Liberals). You don’t have a net reduction in the numbers of Liberal voters, just a slowing in their rate of growth.
That is why Libtardians can’t get elected to any office, their ideas only work in fantasy land.
The fantasy is that we can keep the laws on the books that cover SS, welfare, unemployment, food stamps, Medicaid, Medicare, public transportation, public housing, etc etc and survive as a free nation in any sense. With these programs in place and with the voting ability of those who receive more from the state than what they will ever put in, the programs WILL expand. That is an economic fact.
This may not win elections, but following your prescription is like treating the rash while ignoring the herpes that caused the rash. The truth is almost always unpopular. Just because the majority wants to ignore reality doesn't mean that I must.
Unfortunately, what the majority ignores kills us all. I will not, therefore, be silenced by the unpopularity of my correct position simply because reality doesn't win elections.
You do have to admit though, that there will be some real societal costs to allowing more addicts to get an easy fix. I don’t believe for one minute that drug decriminalization (let alone legalization) will benefit society and outweigh the social costs of said policy.
I’m willing to be proven wrong on this point, but I have my doubts that free flowing drugs of all sort will provide a better socioeconomic trend overall.
No doubt the war on drugs has had a lot of negative unintended consequences and seems to enrich all the wrong people. I don’t know what the answer is, but more zombies doesn’t seem to be the trend we need.
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.