the love affair between liberals and libertarians is officially over.

[maw]

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/the-liberaltarian-moment

"One mini-saga of the past decade in American politics has been the flirtation—with talk of a deeper partnership—between 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."

"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 year—with the rise of the Tea Party movement and national debate over bailouts, deficits, and health care—libertarian 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."

when i saw barney frank and ron paul agreeing with one another on several key points i had hope. but speaking as a pseudo libertarian the two biggest policies that caused me to lose faith in the big O were the wall street bail outs and continuation of the patriot act. it's back to square one i guess, a voter without a party.

[Hollis]

Some how, I just can not see Liberals and Libertarians being united. I think there is more they disagree on than a number of Bush's issues that they might have some agreement on.

[cbreedon]

oops

I hadn't realized that I had a love affair with Liberals... I hate it when that happens...:)
As a Libertarian I think both parties are as bad as each other....

[gaijinsamurai]

Agree with Hollis. Libertarian philosophy is in direct conflict with the thinking of a lot of liberals, who want government to micro-manage peoples' lives and protect them from making so-called "poor choices".

I try not to get trapped by any type of political ideology, but Libertarianism is probably my strongest influence. And of all the ideologies, I dislike that which supresses individual freedom and personal responsibility.

It was only inevitable that the temporary Libertarian-Progressive "alliance", if there ever even was one, would collapse.

[seraosha]

I read the article (thanks btw) and I still don't believe it.
What were they smoking when they thought there could be any cross-over between Libertarians and Democrats?
I mean, besides hating President Bush, what exactly was there in common?


Progressives who previously fawned over the libertarians' Jeffersonian modesty are now exposed to the unattractive aspect of libertarianism that is familiar to readers of Ayn Rand: a Nietzschean disdain for the poor and minorities that tends to dovetail with the atavistic and semi-racist habits of reactionary cultural traditionalists. After all, it is only a few steps from the Tea Party movement's founding "rant"—in which self-described Randian business commentator Rick Santelli blasted “losers” who couldn’t pay their mortgages—to populist backlash against all transfer payments of any type, complaints about people "voting for a living" instead of "working for a living," and paranoid conspiracy theories about groups like ACORN.

Wow...I knew the "left" looked down on anyone that wasn't in lock-step agreement with them, but the racism card ought to be revoked at this point. And honestly, after the video tapes of
ACORN and their confirmed shenanigans in regards to their records being thrown out to avoid subpeona's, every ounce of suspicion and skecpticism is warranted towards that corrupt cabal of douchebags.

[TheKiwi]

There were certain things that the two could agree on. Like closing Guantanamo... (nope), ending warrantless wire tapping... (nope), stopping DEA raids on medical marijuana... (nope)... etc. None of which have happened or even come close to happening. The best you can say is that some rhetoric about them has been spoken.

[Nano]

Liberals and Libertarians don't see eye to eye on much,but real libertarians being as practical about things as anyone would continue to work towards favorable legislation rather than simply sit in the corner just blaming everyone for all the problems. Though he/she is justified in blaming everyone else for ****ing it all, because they did. I don't think any real libertarians had any delusions about Obama or any democrat and republican alike beyond just the rhetoric. Libertarian commentators spoke favorably about Obama?I'd like to know who so I can revoke his libertarian id card and burn it in front him/her.It is obvious that there was no love affair between libertarians and liberals this is all just some person's fantasy article on something that never was. The tea party movement has been hijacked by the Republican party machine for their own nefarious attempt to dupe the American people once again just like the Dem machine did last time.

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

Some how, I just can not see Liberals and Libertarians being united. I think there is more they disagree on than a number of Bush's issues that they might have some agreement on.

At one point, I was hearing that the Libertarians were more of a threat to the Republican party.

While I find many of their positions on issues very interesting, (especially domestic policy, limited government and all that), I would be reluctant to abandon the Republican party.

I'm glad the Libertarian party exists and do think that they contribute to the debate and raise public awareness on issues that I think are important, but I'm not sure the Libertarians are well rounded enough in areas like foreign policy to be the leading the country.

[Hollis]

At one point, I was hearing that the Libertarians were more of a threat to the Republican party.

While I find many of their positions on issues very interesting, (especially domestic policy, limited government and all that), I would be reluctant to abandon the Republican party.

While I do think that they raise public awareness on issues that I think are important, I'm not sure the Libertarians are well rounded enough in areas like foreign policy to be the leading the country.


They are a threat in that R's and Libertarians have many shared values. Libertarians, in a way, would like to go back to a Laissez faire type of free market. Almost the antithesis of what Liberals believe in. Libertarians are more economically based. Outside of economics, they don't have much to offer. IMHO, it is like a religion, you have to believe a lot.

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

They are a threat in that R's and Libertarians have many shared values. Libertarians, in a way, would like to go back to a Laissez faire type of free market. Almost the antithesis of what Liberals believe in. Libertarians are more economically based. Outside of economics, they don't have much to offer. IMHO, it is like a religion, you have to believe a lot.

Couldn't have said it better myself, sir.

Very fascinating ideologues, but just not a practical political choice most of the time.

[gaijinsamurai]

Agreed, Lt. Col A.Tack and Hollis. While I like a lot of what the Libertarians have to say, I just don't trust "the market" and well-intentioned people to protect our environment, food and medicine, and provide for decent education without government involved. And to think we can go back to pre-WWII isolationism sounds nice, but is naive.

[Nano]

At one point, I was hearing that the Libertarians were more of a threat to the Republican party.

While I find many of their positions on issues very interesting, (especially domestic policy, limited government and all that), I would be reluctant to abandon the Republican party.

While I do think that they raise public awareness on issues that I think are important, I'm not sure the Libertarians are well rounded enough in areas like foreign policy to be the leading the country.
People say that at times rightly so only partially, because we would split the votes among Libertarian Republicans and the other "real republican" contenders. Though that is entirely flawed in some respect since no libertarian would ever vote for a "lesser" turd and would just stay home and not vote. Libertarians definitely need to start playing politics if they ever hope to have enough numbers to be able to make significant positive legislative changes. Dupe the people sell them rainbows and lollipops and then wham no lollipop, but thank you for visiting the doctor now its time to get that head injury looked at. Foreign policy wise I believe a libertarian is as "well rounded" as anyone, but he will pull the knife from under you faster than you would expect. It would have been interesting to compare a libertarian response to 9/11 as opposed to the then Republican/Democratic response. I'd bet that a libertarian president would have come close to glassing Tora Bora if that was what it took to get Osama and his cadre.

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

Agreed, Lt. Col A.Tack and Hollis. While I like a lot of what the Libertarians have to say, I just don't trust "the market" and well-intentioned people to protect our environment, food and medicine, and provide for decent education without government involved. And to think we can go back to pre-WWII isolationism sounds nice, but is naive.
I think we could rely more on "the market" if consumers were less passive. What I really like about market-oriented approaches are that they respond to the behavior of consumers as opposed to dictating it, like government tries too often to do.


People say that at times rightly so only partially, because we would split the votes among Libertarian Republicans and the other "real republican" contenders. Though that is entirely flawed in some respect since no libertarian would ever vote for a "lesser" turd and would just stay home and not vote. Libertarians definitely need to start playing politics if they ever hope to have enough numbers to be able to make significant positive legislative changes. Dupe the people sell them rainbows and lollipops and then wham no lollipop, but thank you for visiting the doctor now its time to get that head injury looked at.
That's a rather scornful attitude.

Like I said earlier, I'm glad the US Libertarian Party exists. I think it makes a positive contribution to the political process in this country.

But serious politics is about compromise. Inflexibility is a sign of commitment, definitely, but I think it would lead to greater political dysfunction.

[Nano]

Agreed, Lt. Col A.Tack and Hollis. While I like a lot of what the Libertarians have to say, I just don't trust "the market" and well-intentioned people to protect our environment, food and medicine, and provide for decent education without government involved. And to think we can go back to pre-WWII isolationism sounds nice, but is naive.
That may be the impression that libertarians are pinned with by their rivals, but in practice everyone knows there are practical compromises to various issues and people linger on catch phrases like "isolationism" and "the market" to justify their reasoning for voting for the wrong person as opposed as for the "right" person. Everyone likes the safety and warmth of their security blanket, but what happens when you grow up and you find out that the blanket can no longer keep you warm or safe, but exposes you to the cold world in plain obvious sight of everyone.

[Nano]

I think we could rely more on "the market" if consumers were less passive. What I really like about market-oriented approaches are that they respond to the behavior of consumers as opposed to dictating it, like government tries too often to do.


That's a rather scornful attitude.

Like I said earlier, I'm glad the US Libertarian Party exists. I think it makes a positive contribution to the political process in this country.

But serious politics is about compromise. Inflexibility is a sign of commitment, definitely, but I think it would lead to greater political dysfunction.
It may be scornful, but it is nonetheless true about the way politics works in this country and who gets elected and who does not. It is an oddity in this world that the "right" guy ever gets voted in because he/she is being completely honest and realistic about his/her goals once in office. The harsh and cold reality is that unless real libertarians start to play both sides for all they are worth and get elected in numbers it won't matter at all even if it does compromise certain ideals they hold in high regard. The problem has thus been that the American people are getting duped by the "wrong" people and the "right" people are just too idealistic to even attempt it. Does the end justify the means? That is the question/debate a lot of libertarians are currently having. My guess is that it will split the libertarians into two separate factions, but ideologically/legislatively they share the same goals. It will be a matter of how they get about getting there that will distinguish them from one another. Libertarians are flexible, but they draw the line where and when it matters regardless of the political flavor/tactic of the day.

[gaijinsamurai]

I wonder if Libertarians could best contribute by influencing the two mainstream parties, reducing the power of the religious fanatics in the GOP and the extreme left amongst the Democrats.

[Nano]

I wonder if Libertarians could best contribute by influencing the two mainstream parties, reducing the power of the religious fanatics in the GOP and the extreme left amongst the Democrats.
Libertarians do that as part of attaining support for their platform and most convey the views of the people in the middle of the political spectrum and thus getting them to vote based on that rather than left wing or right wing pandering. The real issue however is if it will just be hijacked/borrowed by both parties to get their con man/woman elected.
The dems and republicans especially have caught on well to that and have attempted to carry favor from said energized middle group by pretending to be for that particular view. It works on some people without a doubt, but people have to be a little bit discerning about who they are willing to vote for and on what premise they vote for them on. It is why real libertarians rarely if even vote for the lesser of two turds/evils. Though I believe that the greatest impact any libertarian can have on society in general is through academia and giving the naive college/high school student a new way to view things as a whole.

[gaijinsamurai]

Though I believe that the greatest impact any libertarian can have on society in general is through academia and giving the naive college/high school student a new way to view things as a whole.

I had a great Political Science professor who was like that. US Army paratrooper in WWII, who loved to make subtle jabs at freeloaders in just about every lecture. He was a nice guy, smart, and witty, which kept the politically correct crowd at bay.

BTW, He was responsible for the publication of this book:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-media/product-gallery/070060409X/ref=cm_ciu_pdp_images_all

RIP Professor William Mitchell. I believe he's in Heaven or Valhalla right now, in uniform and with a Thompson or M1 in one hand.....

[Nano]

I had a great Political Science professor who was like that. US Army paratrooper in WWII, who loved to make subtle jabs at freeloaders in just about every lecture. He was a nice guy, smart, and witty, which kept the politically correct crowd at bay.

BTW, He was responsible for the publication of this book:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-media/product-gallery/070060409X/ref=cm_ciu_pdp_images_all

RIP Professor William Mitchell. I believe he's in Heaven or Valhalla right now, in uniform and with a Thompson or M1 in one hand.....
He sounds like he made that class enjoyable and gave everyone a chance to view things in a different light.
Yeah no doubt people need to be made aware oddly enough that there are more than two ways to look at the world and that even a third view point is not enough to make the proper decision when it comes to voting. Just look at the percentages when it comes to voting it has been in continuous decline(until recently) and first time voters fall in large part into the naive liberal crowd.

[kimujnr]

He sounds like he made that class enjoyable and gave everyone a chance to view things in a different light.
Yeah no doubt people need to be made aware oddly enough that there are more than two ways to look at the world and that even a third view point is not enough to make the proper decision when it comes to voting. Just look at the percentages when it comes to voting it has been in continuous decline(until recently) and first time voters fall in large part into the naive liberal crowd.

What a coincidence this topic appeared today. For a while now I always thought one of my organic chemistry classmates was a hard core conservative with his El-Rushbo T-Shirts, Obama bashing. He's also a former service man built like a tank(I have a nagging belief he's on mp.net), so few if any ever dares tread on him. But today we got to talking about A-Stan then it spiraled into politics and as soon as I hinted at him being a conservative he rebutted claiming to be a libertarian. First time I've ever spoken to one and pretty much everything said on this thread is what he espouses all down to not liking Bush and "freeloaders". Only problem was he brushed away all of my arguments with "Why don't you go do some research son and not repeat everything NPR tells ya coz I use over five sources for everything I research!" At that point you've pretty much lost the argument (of course I plunder through different sources I only gave NPR as an example) only thing we could agree on was middle eastern politics but it was still an uneasy alliance as politics kept creeping in.

I would consider myself a liberal since I lean closest to them on most things and I felt like our major differences were I was willing to listen, absorb and even understand if not agree with his ideals but to him mine were socialistic, dangerous, and nation destroying nuff said! He was a pretty funny guy though, I like to convince myself that politics is only superficial and a great relationship can be maintained regardless.

[seraosha]

True friendship is greater than politics.

My best friend, a man I would lay my life down for, is a raging liberal pinko.
whatchagonnado? :P)

[cbreedon]

I like to convince myself that politics is only superficial and a great relationship can be maintained regardless.

Sounds like you're in love man... don't let him get away...

[budgie]

I can see where liberals and libertarians come together on foreign affairs, but domestically they appear to be very different. Liberals are, for better or worse, for bigger government and more government control and regulation over the economy, health and so on. Libertarans want minimal govt involvement. The Obama administration is certainly not making any friends there, with bailouts, social spending and expanded healthcare programs.

[kimujnr]

Sounds like you're in love man... don't let him get away...

Hardy har har!!!

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

I can see where liberals and libertarians come together on foreign affairs, ....

Honestly, I'm not sure.

My impression of Libertarian foreign policy inclinations is one of vague isolationism.

Liberals ... ? Expand humanitarian aid, debt relief, ... I'm not sure what really.

[maw]

Honestly, I'm not sure.

My impression of Libertarian foreign policy inclinations is one of vague isolationism.

libertarians promote non-interventionism, i don't know why people always call it isolationist. there's a big difference.

[LuKaZz]

I consider myself a Libertarian, usually I find myself more in agreement with Conservatives than Liberals, the ideological background is more similar.