Libertarianism as a big force in American Politics?

[Zor]

A rather serious question.

Is it possible/plausable that Libertarianism (If overtly or under the guise of something like Constitutionalism or something to that effect) could displace the current Right Wing in US politics and emerge as a big political movement in the states? If so, what would be the consequences of it?

Zor

[Patrick Degan]

The Libertarian movement couldn't even avoid getting its ass kicked in by the Thursday Night Bowling League, much less ascend to power.

[Gerald Tarrant]

A rather serious question.

Is it possible/plausable that Libertarianism (If overtly or under the guise of something like Constitutionalism or something to that effect) could displace the current Right Wing in US politics and emerge as a big political movement in the states?

I don't really see that happening for a while (if ever). A third of those who voted for Bush called themselves "Values Voters". That number would have to decrease a great deal in order to properly marginalize them, if not then they can just act as spoilers electorally. Libertarian agendas include a lot of social freedoms too. As long as evangelicals are wielding as much power as they are, Libertarian agendas won't happen.

If the Reagan coalition ever breaks, this is more plausible, in the short term. Huckabee demonstrated that it's possible to be socially conservative and economically liberal (i.e. more restrictive, and regulatory). So it's possible that the other parts of the "Big Tent" might find themselves more at home with Libertarians than Evangelicals. Even then this wouldn't be the Libertarians replacing the right wing, this would just be less social conservatism. This depends on a few things though.

• 1) Republican coalition breaks
  2) "Rump" forms around Libertarians instead of Evangelicals.
  3) Evangelicals are left out in the cold by both parties.
  4) Defections from Democrats, make up the loss of Evangelical votes

1) is possible, and seems more likely in the future judging by the heated Republican primary. 2) isn't clear, the other facets of the Reagan coalition have some disagreements with Libertarians (honest Libertarians don't like corporate welfare, and are more isolationist, sometimes painted as weak on defense.) 3) see 2, it could be Libertarians left in the cold. Also the Evangelicals could act as spoilers, voting for the least "Evul!!". 4) There are some Democrats who are more free market than the party, they might defect. And some polls suggest that Americans in general prefer smaller governments. But I think it's unrealistic to expect too much defection. So if the Reagan coalition broke, you'd probably see years of Democratic political domination.

If so, what would be the consequences of it?

I don't think it's likely, but assuming it actually happened...

Assuming you had a viable competitive party, and the Democrats remained unchanged? Just a different set of political choices. Social conservatism wouldn't really be on the table to vote about. Elections would be more about Economic policies. If the hypothetical Libertarian party (which is a viable replacement for the right wing) was true to Libertarian principles, you'd probably initially see less pork and corporate welfare from the right. Give it a few years though, and all those "incorruptible Libertarian outsiders" would probably be producing just as much political pork as their opposite numbers. So Congress people would still be Congress people even with a (L) by their name.

Legal changes? Probably a better look at drug policies, maybe some more leniency. I don't think there are that many anti-Drug zealots on the left. A lot of Libertarians hate the PATRIOT act (and similar expansions of snooping powers) and so you'd probably see some big legal battles to repeal the thing (or repeal similar laws). You might see temporary bipartisanship to repeal/overturn in courts the more nasty discriminatory crap that states do.

The political divide between Democrats and the "New Right" would be much starker though. Libertarians are much less enamored of social safety nets than Republicans. Also they'd probably love to prune regulations that Democrats insist are essential. Appointments to cabinet level posts would probably be more nasty than the typical Senate Love-fests they are today. Economically Libertarians are generally more objectionable to Democrats than your average Republican.

Zor

Gerald Tarrant

[His Divine Shadow]

If libertarians stop with the economic aspect and focus on social freedoms then it could have lots of traction I think.

[K. A. Pital]

Social conservatism wouldn't really be on the table to vote about

Why do many US libertarians also promote Bible Thumping? Ron Paul for example or Gary North? Those are liberto-theocrats - extreme economic libertarianism coupled with the most backwards religious shit.

EDIT: corrected Lew Rockwell - a fan of Ron Paul - for Ron Paul himself. I mistook one liberto-nut for another. Lew is pretty secular while Ron has pro-religious, typical conservative political positions.

[Knife]

I think libertarians have already made great inroads into the rightwing via the religious right. View the stance on healthcare, which boils down to 'I've got mine, fuck you.' or tax policy, 'give me back my money and screw d'em city folk.'.

As an actual party, they're defunct I think, but as an ideology they're very much alive. The time old chliche of the 'rugged American' feeds directly into it I think.

[Gerald Tarrant]

Stas Bush

The best answer is related to the phenomenon of "South Park Republican". Matt said "I hate conservatives, but I really fucking hate liberals." Link.

The news isn’t the only place on cable where conservatives will feel at home. Lots of cable comedy, while not traditionally conservative, is fiercely anti-liberal, which as a practical matter often amounts nearly to the same thing. Take South Park, Comedy Central’s hit cartoon series, whose heroes are four crudely animated and impossibly foul-mouthed fourth-graders named Cartman, Kenny, Kyle, and Stan. Now in its seventh season, South Park, with nearly 3 million viewers per episode, is Comedy Central’s highest-rated program.

Many conservatives have attacked South Park for its exuberant vulgarity, calling it “twisted,” “vile trash,” a “threat to our youth.” Such denunciations are misguided. Conservative critics should pay closer attention to what South Park so irreverently jeers at and mocks. As the show’s co-creator, 32-year-old Matt Stone, sums it up: “I hate conservatives, but I really fucking hate liberals.”

The problem for Libertarians is that they don't have many choices. You can get one bundle of policies which includes your economic preferences and social stuff that makes your life less pleasant, or you can get economic policies which you disdain but give you give you more social choices. I've reconciled that by splitting my vote locally and nationally, not that that will do much here in Utah (of course there's always Vegas). But the idea is that local policies tend to be weighted more towards social stuff (cf. so called "Blue Laws"), and national policies are much more economically important. Some Libertarians switch party allegiances back and forth, and some put more weight on economic matters, so they hold their nose and pick their least objectionable candidate.

[Coyote]

Some Evangelicals identify with Libertarianism because it means that, without government interference, they get to run things according to the Bible... so help us.

But in reality, the Libertarians latch onto the typical Republican arguement for "smaller government, less regulation & interference, etc will mean more efficient business and ergo a better economy". The only reason they have any traction at all is because of this alliance, and if they struck out on their own they'd be, at most, a gadfly party that causes the occassional spoiler in some elections.

They don't necessarily have common cause with the Evangelicals, because in some cases the Evangelicals do, in fact, want a big government to push their Chirstian programs and interpret laws for individuals (restricting gays, abortion, and life issues such as with Terri Schiavo). These are antithesis to the less-gov't Libertarians.

The Republican Party is an alliance between groups that in many ways have no business being together, except for their combined hatred of typical Democrat platforms. If these groups jump ship, the Republican Party itself becomes a hollow party.

What Libertarians forget is that we had a Libertarian government for several years. It was called "The Articles of Confederation" and it didn't work.

[Darth Wong]

Also, the weak early Federal government didn't work. There was a point where the federal government started paying the Continental Army in promissory notes instead of money because none of the States were sending any money to the Feds, and the Feds had no power to compel them to do so.

[Rogue 9]

That was under the Articles of Confederation; there's a reason they were ditched in favor of the current Constitution.

Now, I've known an anarchocapitalist who thinks switching to the Constitution was a bad idea, but I've never known a self-described libertarian to think so. (Incidentally, that anarchocapitalist does a better job of debating than Volleyball, but I don't want to just up and bring in another one.)

In any case, if anyone's curious, these are the Articles that the Constitution replaced. The primary weakness of the document is that it did not allow the federal government to lay and collect taxes. There was also no executive; merely Congress. For obvious reasons, these were only in force from 1781 to 1789.

[Plekhanov]

On social policy Libertarians agree with the more radical democrats and fundamentally clash with pretty much everyone else.

On foreign policy they agree with radical democrats and fundamentally clash with pretty much everyone else.

On corporate welfare they perhaps agree with some factions of the democrat party but fundamentally clash with corporate America which has a lock on the media.

On social spending they agree with corporate America but fundamentally clash with many democrats and the Huckabee wing of the republicans.

Libertarians just have too many fundamental ideological clashes (and Libertarians of course tend to care a lot about ideology) with all significant political groups to see Libertarians becoming a significant force.

[Warsie]

Gravel is now running as a Libertarian..switched from the Democrats to run as the party nomination to president...?

[Gil Hamilton]

Libertarians will never be a major political force because any libertarian with any ambition immediately joins the Republican party and all that that entails.