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 a free society, the liberties of individual adults take precedence over collectivist criteria like the socioeconomic trend. If Joe wants to make himself unproductive (and accept the consequences) with alcohol, or other drugs, or staying up until the wee hours every night playing Minecraft - his productivity belongs to him and not to the collective.
Sorry I inserted myself into your conversation. I responded in 59 above.
No apology required - that's how FR was designed to work. (For private exchanges, there's FReepmail.)
I responded in 59 above.
Good reply!
You live in fantasy land, as all libtardians do, that is why zero of them get elected.
You can’t undo the past 60 years instantly, we don’t elect Kings.
I’m saying you are usually a waste of bandwidth to even respond to, because it’s clear to anyone with a brain that you have an obvious agenda here.
One only has to see your posting history to figure out what it is...
Case in point - the flak I am taking from you now, along with others on this post.
Post 36 is “flak”? Because it disagrees with your post implying that freerepublic has abandoned conservatism and is now libertarian?
Look at your posts and your reliance on personal attacks and on this thread pretending that FR is anti-conservative and pro-libertarian, I don’t think it is.
I believe your strategy that the liberals, rinos, romneybots, Paulites, and libertarians use to just pretend that they are the norm, even here at FR, is silly, and it sure isn’t accurate.
What is a waste of bandwidth, is your non responsive, non useful posts such as that one.
First and foremost, I didn’t mean it as a smear. It’s just a saying meaning “unduly alarmed.” I can’t of course define legitimacy of anybody else’s level of alarm, there are just some things I can’t really get too worked up about.
To address your specific points:
1) I assume that by an attack on religious freedom, you mean gay rights. It’s unfortunate that the way things are playing out, it’s a zero-sum game, and the homos and their enablers in the government are taking things way, way, WAY too far with the forcing of private businesses to comply with their way of thinking.
But it doesn’t have to be that way. I wouldn’t wish to deprive anybody of their rights at any time for any reason. I can think of a million ways accommodations can be reached and find it sad and sometimes pathetic that they aren’t.
2) I have absolutely no idea what you mean by “abusing natural laws.”
3) What precisely do legalizing a product and a dependency cycle have to do with one another? Are you saying that marijuana somehow inevitably and inexorably leads to dependence on government? If so, that’s just plain not true.
You may have any objections you wish to the sexual revolution and its effects. It’s certainly your right and I’m sure we could find lots of agreement on specific issues. On the whole, though, I think it’s been more beneficial than harmful and the ills that it has created are (or could relatively easily be) manageable. Just my opinion, of course.
“I’m willing to be proven wrong on this point, “
as am I. Therefore, remove all federal laws related to the WOD and let the states pursue different courses of action to see what works. That was the American system. It was brilliant.
How did he imply that by opposing those "trying to drive a wedge between conservatives and libertarians"?
“If Joe wants to make himself unproductive (and accept the consequences) with alcohol, or other drugs, or staying up until the wee hours every night playing Minecraft - his productivity belongs to him and not to the collective.”
The problem with Joe’s lack of productivity is that it doesn’t just effect him. Joe’s liberty stops at the beginning of my nose, or wallet as it were in this case. We would have to repeal every law on the book that cover’s Joe’s butt in the eventuality that he wants someone else to sustain his lackadaisical existence.
Joe will eventually look to someone else to sustain his existence unless forced to deal with the consequences directly (which is where reasonable law comes into play). Joe might look for any way to sustain his existence including breaking other laws and becoming a net drain on society. That really is the point I’m trying to make.
Read post 25 and then post 36.
Why are libertarians opposed to conservatism?
If we don’t dump the last 60+ years of insanity NOW the Republic is gone. That’s a fact, and it’s nobody’s fantasy. It’s a nightmare. Whether or not we can convince the leeches to let go is another question. I’m almost certain we will fail. I will not stop trying.
However, if you think we will save the Republic by keeping all our social programs, you are the one living in a fantasy land.
They voted for Obunga, that tells me all I need to know about them........
“Look at your posts and your reliance on personal attacks . . .”
“I believe your strategy that the liberals, rinos, romneybots, Paulites, and libertarians . . .”
The irony is strong with this post.
That doesn’t make sense, you think that pointing out the commonality of the strategy that he used in his post is a personal attack?
It is a strategy that the liberals, rinos, romneybots, Paulites, and libertarians use, just as it was used on this thread.
“However, if you think we will save the Republic by keeping all our social programs, you are the one living in a fantasy land.”
Don’t act like it’s everyone else’s fault. No conservative wants to keep that crap, but you have to live in the real world, not fantasy land where you wave a wand and they go away.
That kind of stuff has to be cut back to the point that it is very uncomfortable for anyone using social programs, then you keep cutting until the go away.
It takes time to roll it back. You can do nothing if you can’t get elected, libtardians can’t get elected because they never get passed the dope smoking part of their plan.
How did he imply that by opposing those "trying to drive a wedge between conservatives and libertarians"?
Read post 25 and then post 36.
I did - that's where I got "trying to drive a wedge between conservatives and libertarians."
Why are libertarians opposed to conservatism?
Those posts don't say that.
The problem with Joe’s lack of productivity is that it doesn’t just effect him. Joe’s liberty stops at the beginning of my nose, or wallet as it were in this case. We would have to repeal every law on the book that cover’s Joe’s butt in the eventuality that he wants someone else to sustain his lackadaisical existence.
Which of course is what we should do anyway. In the meantime, should we ban alcohol, or other drugs, or Minecraft?
Joe will eventually look to someone else to sustain his existence unless forced to deal with the consequences directly (which is where reasonable law comes into play).
Nothing is more direct than "I have no food in the cupboard."
Joe might look for any way to sustain his existence including breaking other laws
If and only if he does, then government has a legitimate role to play.
Welcome to freerepublic, I asked you why libertarians are opposed to conservatism, I didn’t say that posts 25 and 36 said that.
Those two posts were about the implication that conservatism had died here and would no longer be opposing libertarians but supporting them, except for a “half dozen” “clever agent provocateurs... “
As far as I know, conservatives are still allowed to oppose libertarianism at freerepublic.
Did you read the thread topic? “”So how does that impact our voting? More liberal millennials than conservative ones indicated support for a classically “libertarian-leaning candidate,” “”
I will always be opposed to libertarianism, especially the weirdest ones I call Libertopians.
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.