Well, I don't know whether I should. Perhaps I shouldn't. Are libertarians like me just supposed to swallow whatever pride we still have after years of supporting "National Greatness" conservatism, and keep our collective traps shut while holding our nose once again and supporting social conservatives with whom we do not agree lest we complicate the Republican Comeback Strategy even further?
So even though maybe I should stay the hell out of this one, there's a side of me that thinks I should say something, and that's because not only I am not only sympathetic to the Tea Parties (and I've attended a local one), but I'm a blogger. Yes, a libertarianish, Tea Party-supporting blogger. And if the Tea Parties are complicating the Republican Comeback strategy, then I might as well risk complicating it further, by taking a brief look at the race which is being described by some conservatives as a "Hill To Die On."
While I'm unfamiliar with the dynamics of the district, the race in question seems to be shaping up as a three way contest between a Democrat (Bill Owens), a RINO (Dede Scozzafava), and a member of the Conservative Party (Doug Hoffman), who seeks the Republican nomination. The establishment Republicans support Scozzafava, and the Tea Partiers are supporting Hoffman, who is described as a staunch conservative on both economic and social issues. (On the latter, he not only opposes gay marriage, he supports DADT and opposes civil unions.) The GOP candidate, OTOH, is said to be liberal enough on both economic and social issues that she's rumored to be thinking of switching over to being a Democrat.
As a small l-libertarian who is conservative on economic issues but liberal on the social issues, if I did the math simply by overall totals, I'd come up with a coin toss between the RINO and the social conservative. It seems that to be a libertarian means always having to be disappointed in something, because the only candidates who are libertarian on both economic and social issues are, well, libertarians.
So maybe instead of doing simple math, the question should weighted along these lines: Which is more important?
Economic issues?
Or social issues?
Do I have to choose? Why is that? I think economic issues are more important, but why should libertarians have to choose, while no one else does?
Why is it that the Democrats get the best of both worlds? Their candidates promise economic and social liberalism, which makes voting a no-brainer for most liberals. God, how I envy the Democrats. Republican voters usually are not offered anything like the best of both worlds, though. Usually, the GOP offers watered down economic conservatism-lite, along the "National Greatness conservatism" model, which isn't really economic conservatism at all, but just barely not-as-bad as economic liberalism. And in addition to that, the GOP establishment has offered plenty of lip service to social conservatism -- enough to piss off libertarians, but never enough to satisfy the demands of the true-believing social conservatives. Which means that libertarians have gotten basically nothing satisfying out of the GOP, other than perhaps the past satisfaction of having seen the left lose.
What seems to be emerging, though, is a movement which appears to offer the possibility of real economic conservatism along with real social conservatism, which means that if you are not a social conservative, you end up having to swallow your pride -- again -- and voting against your own beliefs. Again. Now, I suppose you can always hold out hope that these are just the usual political promises which don't mean anything, but is that really "hope"? I don't think so.
The only thing I can conclude is that libertarians will have to get used to being disappointed no matter what happens.
Nah, scratch that. They're already used to being disappointed.
Still, I guess there's always the Libertarian Party. They never win, but at least when you're disappointed, you can have the satisfaction of principled disappointment.
I'm getting a little tired of the unprincipled variety of disappointment, though. Voting against your principles does take its toll.
But maybe I should stop being so negative and instead of complaining, just be more positive. Earlier Glenn Reynolds linked an interesting post by Kerry Howley about the positive thinking. Asks Howley,
Does positivity lull us into quiescence or spur us toward risk-taking?
I'm afraid that if you're a libertarian right now, you're going to lose either way. Being positive about everything is not always positive. But I guess in the face of certain disappointment, there's always the power of total denial. In that respect, voting Libertarian is a way to engage with the power of positive thinking. And while you might, like lose, that's OK, because as long as you feel good about your, um, principles and stuff, you're really winning! You voted for the Libertarian Party, and because they always lose, you always win! You never have to experience the disappointment that accompanies realism.
Hey if such positive thinking works, I shouldn't knock it.
Just like I shouldn't complicate the Republican Comeback Strategy by writing negative posts.
posted by Eric on 10.17.09 at 03:40 PM
Comments
My usual dilemma too.
I figure, when the GOP acts the way they should, they are for limited gov't, which means they don't use gov't to push their religion on me.
Under Bush, they spent like Dems and we had the Schiavo affair where I was the lowest form of scum because I didn't think it was the federal gov't's business.
But I'll take being scorned for not believing in their religion because we agree on most other things, you have to believe in all orthodox beliefs in the leftist religion or you're an evil, racist, nazi.
As long as they keep the gov't out of it, social conservatives can preach to me all they want.
They're never making abortion illegal without some serious "change" in America and in the Republican party.
Other than that there's not much else they usually want the gov't to do.
Of course, if they keep acting like soft Dems, all bets are off.
Federalism is a form of libertarianism. On many of the social issues, social conservatives are not activists, but reactionaries (in the neutral sense of the word). With the exception of DADT (in the federal purview), all issues of social conservatism (abortion, gay marriage, civil unions, prayer in schools, etc.) are fueled more by liberal tinkerings at the federal level than by any inherent desire to pass "social conservative legislation". If the Feds were to keep their beaks out of issues that are none of their concern, and stop finding phony "rights" in the Constitution which allow them to arrogate more power to themselves, then the issues of "social conservatism" at the Federal level would likely be mooted. Then these issues would be decided at the level of the state and of the community, and libertarians could vote for economic conservatives (for Federal Office) and not give a rip about their social beliefs. The combinations of Judicial Activism and "Rights Mining" and (lack of) State's Rights necessitate a backlash which takes the guise of Social Conservatism... you have to have visible issues to draw attention to on this front (economic examples of this problem are less evident and "sexy", plus nearly 47% of the population don't pay federal taxes anyway, so this issue, until recently, is largely a non-starter. How else to explain the rise of "Compassionate Conservatism" (i.e. Social Conservatism combined with Liberal/Socialist Economic Policy)). Compassionate Conservatism being the worst of both worlds for a libertarian...
Mike Foster · October 17, 2009 8:17 PM
Been enjoying your blog. I feel for libertarians, since they are the proverbial "man who stand in middle of road." You poor guys can't organize, since even more than the dems if you don't toe the line you are out, out, out. When MCC ruined the Repub hopes, I swore I would never again vote for the least worst, and I plan on keeping that vow. If the RNCC & RNSc want to put forth liberals (called moderates for some reason) they can do it without my vote. I'll sit it out till they give up in despair.
TimothyJ · October 17, 2009 8:21 PM
Eric, don't give up on the Republican Party. Even when liberal/moderates are elected, they usually have a basic decency lacking in most Democrats. What holds the conservatives and moderates together is an unstated belief in individual rights. (The most notable exception being the 8 Bush Jr. years)
It took Mark Hatfield and Margaret Chase Smith, both liberals, to end the draft - during the Vietnam War. If you want to read a principled defense of individual freedom, get a copy of Hatfield's Saturday Evening Post editorial denouncing it as involuntary servitude.
As long as the Dixiecrat/Social Conservatives don't gain total control, the Republican Party is still worth the effort of holding your nose when voting.
Frank · October 17, 2009 11:34 PM
If the Republicans want my vote they can stick with small government principles - strictly - or I can stay home.
If the country is going down the tubes (certainly looks that way to me) then it is better if the Ds have full responsibility.
I'm not interested in RINOs or Republicans who campaign on a platform of crosses.
I'm not sure if you were being facetious, but those Amendments make my point for me. The Incorporation (14th) Amendment allows the Feds to dictate what "rights" are devolved upon the States and which are not. If a given State (under a strict constructionist Constitutional regime) were to become noxious to its citizens, it is fairly easy to move to a different State. Moving out of the country (to a "State" more amenable to the Rights of its Citizens) because of an oppressive Federal Regulatory regime is less feasible. Under Federalism, there is more a a Free Market rights economy. More oppressive states will suffer population flight and loss of revenue to less oppressive states.
I'd say the Feds, via construction of the Welfare State and outlandish Environmental/Regulatory law, violates at least two of my "god-given" fundamental rights (i.e. liberty and pursuit of happiness). But thanks for the "rights" granted to me by the Exclusionary Rule, which also threatens my god-given right to Life as criminals are released when they are KNOWN to be guilty. Thanks for the rights to abortion which allows a woman I've impregnated to terminate her pregnancy without my consent, but yet force me to support said child if she chooses to keep it. Rights granted to special interest groups STRIP the rights of non-members of said groups (hate speech, hate crimes, affirmative action, abortion) and violate the Equal Protection Clause.
Mike Foster · October 18, 2009 2:10 PM
Mike,
Perhaps you would entertain a Constitutional Amendment.
I blame it all on the Southerners who - had they given up slavery without a fight - might have avoided a lot of these complications. The principle they fought for was sound - States Rights - unfortunately they marshaled that principle for the cause of slavery and later Jim Crow. Idiots. And now we have lost it for more important causes.
The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
Don?t bang your head!
My usual dilemma too.
I figure, when the GOP acts the way they should, they are for limited gov't, which means they don't use gov't to push their religion on me.
Under Bush, they spent like Dems and we had the Schiavo affair where I was the lowest form of scum because I didn't think it was the federal gov't's business.
But I'll take being scorned for not believing in their religion because we agree on most other things, you have to believe in all orthodox beliefs in the leftist religion or you're an evil, racist, nazi.
As long as they keep the gov't out of it, social conservatives can preach to me all they want.
They're never making abortion illegal without some serious "change" in America and in the Republican party.
Other than that there's not much else they usually want the gov't to do.
Of course, if they keep acting like soft Dems, all bets are off.