Libertarians Cost Republicans Again

[ddelange]

The New York Times
November 16, 2002
John J. Miller

"It's important to appreciate that Libertarian voters are not merely Republicans with an eccentric streak. Libertarians tend to support gay rights and open borders; they tend to oppose the drug war and hawkish foreign policies. Some of them wouldn't vote if they didn't have the Libertarian option.

But Libertarians are also free-market devotees who are generally closer to Republicans than to the Democrats. "Exit polling shows that we take twice as many votes from Republicans as from Democrats," said George Getz, a spokesman for the Libertarian Party.

Yet Libertarians are now serving, in effect, as Democratic Party operatives. The next time they wonder why the Bush tax cuts aren't permanent, why Social Security isn't personalized and why there aren't more school-choice pilot programs for low-income kids, all they have to do is look in the mirror."


The entire article can be found HERE

 

[glock glockler]

You can easily spin this in another direction, for example:

Yet Republicans are now serving, in effect, as Big-Govt Party operatives. The next time they wonder why the Bush spending spree hasn't stopped, why the Patriot Bill's trampeling of the Bill of Rights is extremely personalized and why there aren't more firearm-choice for airline pilot programs, all they have to do is look in the mirror."

I don't owe my vote to anyone and I find it disgusting that the Republicans try to guilt Libertarians into voting for them. If the Republicans did enough to earn my vote, I'd consider them, but I'm not going to feel the slightest bit bad about voting for members of a party that actually support my beliefs, rather than Republicans that only want a different flavor of Big Govt.

I'm not going to bend over backwards to meet them, they'll have to meet me if they want my vote.

 

[Seeker]

Yet Libertarians are now serving, in effect, as Democratic Party operatives.

Hogwash!

Libertarians are libertarians because neither party represents waht they value. Both of the main parties increase the size of gov one is just faster and more up front about it.

Both groups work to limit the Freedoms that they disagree with. Both groups voted for the USA PATRIOT act and the War on Drugs (which violates rights all over the place). Both are opposed to Free Speech when it isn't what they want to hear. Both groups feel they know how to better run our lives then we do.

...and before you GOPers start telling me yours is the party of Freedom, just how much Freedom will Poindexter and his new dept of Information Mining sponser?

Democratic Party operatives.

:barf: sounds like sour grapes to me, like someone looking for someone else to blame when their courting of the Christian Right didn't pay-off like they had hoped.

 

[benewton]

Although NH demanded a Republicrat vote this time round, add me to the chorus.

Libertarians have it right...

All other votes are for the "lesser", a sure way to lose it all in the end.

 

[pax]

If people voting Libertarian causes the Republican party to be unhappy and to think of ways to make the Libertarian voters come back to them (Assault Weapons Ban sunset, anyone?), then a Libertarian vote was a useful one.

pax

The plans differ; the planners are all alike... -- Frederic Bastiat

 

[ddelange]

None of the posts so far have addressed the subject of this thread, or the election results noted in the full article: Libertarians are indeed costing Republicans. All of your posts defend why you have elected to vote Libertarian. That is all well and good. But you must live with the consequence, and fact, that a vote for a Libertarian hurts the Republican party more than the Democrats; consequently a vote for a Libertarian helps a Democrat. If it doesn't bother you that you help the Democrats by hurting the Republicans, then more power to you and your quest to become an influential national party. However, you can't deny what the LP's own spokesman said: "Exit polling shows that we take twice as many votes from Republicans as from Democrats."

 

[Libertarian]

Libertarians are indeed costing Republicans.

How many votes did those who voted Democrat steal from the GOP? Now there is a real robbery. Why aren't the Republicans complaining about those lost votes?

Advice to the GOP: Stop whining about those voters who can not stomach voting for the slime you put up as candidates and change your platform to be less repugnant to those whose vote you court.

 

[Azrael256]

Republicans take votes from libertarians! It may just be (and it is, in my experience) that a great number of republicans are libertarians who don't know it. Quite often, I cannot bring myself to check next to a republican candidate (although I did vote for Rick Perry). Don't blame me for the democrats when I vote my consience. Would you rather I lie in the voting booth next time?

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

Libertarians are indeed costing Republicans.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Same thing I say to Dems that claim the Greens cost them votes.

 

[pax]

None of the posts so far have addressed the subject of this thread, or the election results noted in the full article: Libertarians are indeed costing Republicans.

Costing 'em what? The ability to be complacent while they trample on our freedoms, ignore our rights, and steal our money?

I hope that my Libertarian vote cost my local Republican officials a few sleepless nights of worry, and that they will change their ways.

I'm glad they're worried. I wish they were more worried.

Is that clear enough?

pax

"What are they going to do? Vote Democrat??? -- sneering comment by Republican in Colorado, told that he had offended gun owners by voting for more gun control after the Columbine atrocity

 

[Gusgus]

Well ddelange,
Show me hard proof that there is a hill of beans difference between the current batch of Repubs and Demos. During the past 8 years, NJ had a Republican Governor (Whitman, now part of the Bush administration), Republican Senate, and Republican House. We live under far larger, and more restrictive government today, then when Florio ran the state. If the Repubs really cared about smaller government and personal freedom, how come they took my state in the exact opposite direction for 8 years?

With Bush in power, and all the homeland security legislation, we as Americans have less freedom today, then under Clinton. I shudder to think about what will happen during the next 2 years.

So, my Libertarian vote hurt lying, back stabbing Republicans? Tough!! The lesser of two evils is still evil! If they want my vote, they're going to have to earn it. Show me smaller government during the next two years. Show me increased personal freedom. Let the assault weapon ban sunset. Pass nation wide CCW. Will these things happen? I strongly doubt it, but if they do, then maybe, just maybe, the Repubs could earn back our trust, and our vote.

 

[HankB]

The postings on this thread seem to imply three things.

1. Democrats are evil. OK, this goes without saying.

2. Republicans are a lesser evil - but still evil. Considering how many times our "friends" in the GOP have shafted us, it's hard for me to take issue with that.

3. Voting for a lesser evil is still voting for an evil, so it's better to vote Libertarian in a close race and guarantee victory of the greater evil. This I don't follow at all. How is victory for a greater evil better than victory for a lesser evil?

There HAVE been quite a number of times the GOP candidate for one race or the other was so unspeakably odious I've honestly been unable to see any upside to him over the democRAT, so I've voted Libertarian. And of course I usually do so as a matter of course where one side or the other is clearly 'way out in front. But not in a close race with a bad Republican and an even worse democRAT.

 

[Brett Bellmore]

Libertarians aren't costing the Republicans seats, the Republicans are costing Republicans seats. In the sense that there wouldn't even BE a Libertarian party, if the Republican party actually lived upto it's alleged principles.

They talk about limited government, and just keep helping to build the leviathan.

They make this big deal about being religous, but casually swear, so help them God, on a Bible, an oath that requires them to obey and defend the Constitution. And yet, do they? No. They regularly legislate on topics the Constitution delegates Congress no authority over.

The LP originated out of principled revulsion against Republican violations of free market and constitutional principles. The day the Republican party shows some principle, the LP will implode like a punctured balloon. Until that day, they've made their own nemesis.

 

[Libertarian]

The LP originated out of principled revulsion against Republican violations of free market and constitutional principles. The day the Republican party shows some principle, the LP will implode like a punctured balloon. Until that day, they've made their own nemesis.

Well put.

 

[Visith]

To me,
Republican and Democrats seemed like two sides of the same damn coin.

 

[pax]

3. Voting for a lesser evil is still voting for an evil, so it's better to vote Libertarian in a close race and guarantee victory of the greater evil. This I don't follow at all. How is victory for a greater evil better than victory for a lesser evil?

HankB,

As long as we keep voting for evil, evil is what we will always get.

pax

This is an assignment that is far from trivial; on the Yosemite rockclimbing scale of difficulty it's a clear 5.15 (which means it's so hard it probably can't be done). Still, why should that deter us?
-- Alvin Plantinga

 

[bastiat]

I'm basically a 'small l' libertarian. Libertarian / constitutionalist is probably the easiest way to sum up my political beliefs. This election I volunteered for the Republican candidate for governor. Why? Because the libertarian didn't have a chance in hell at winning, the republican was very pro-gun, and the democrat was horribly anti-gun and a big lefty.

Part of the work was to take a sheet of known republican voters, call them before the election to get them to come out, and work the next day watching to polls to see who voted. After a certain amount of time, you take in your sheet and people call those who havent' voted yet.

After doing this, I saw why the republican lost. It wasn't because the Libertarian got 10% of the vote. It was because the republicans didn't get out their voters. In a heavily republican district, the republicans did poorly. Many People known to be republicans didn't even show up.

Instead of blaming the loss on libertarians, who you can't tell from their vote who they would have voted for otherwise, or if they would have even voted for all - blame it on the people that coordinated the republican campaign. The campaign ads, the tone of the campaign, the message - that gets people to come out to vote. Assuming that the number of people who voted libertarian would have otherwise voted for your candidate- and then ignoring your low turnout - is just sad. If you want to win, get your base to turn out. Don't blame the other guy because their base did turn out. That's how losers talk. Saying "It's not fair - they voted for someone else and cost us the election" is pathetic when you look at the % of voter turnout. There were votes that went untapped - republican votes - but instead another party is blamed because someone else DID turn out to vote for them.

Think how sad some democrats looked in 2000 by blaming nader for losing the florida election. Sure, his votes could have been added to gore's and gore would have won. But gore would have won if he had 600 more democrats to get out and vote for him, too.

Blaming other people doesn't solve any problems. It doesn't help you win elections. It just makes republicans look like losers because they want to scapegoat somebody instead of doing what it takes to win an election. I really wish they would turn their efforts to something constructive instead of pointing fingers- which accomplishes nothing at all, except making themselves look bad.

 

[archeryfanatic]

Scare tactics?

consequently a vote for a Libertarian helps a Democrat

Yes- and I hope the Repubs take notice! Political change doesn't happen overnight. If we're to abandon the libertarians for the short term goal of preventing the Dems from winning then we'll never see any improvement at all. If the Republicans see the Libertarians gain ground year after year, then they'd better deliver while they are in a position to do something about it or see more and more votes going over to the Libertarians.

 

[Preacherman]

I have to agree with many of the Libertarian responses here, whilst also agreeing that in a close race, voting that way may cost a Republican candidate a win. However, this is just the way it goes: I won't be dishonest and vote for a candidate I detest and/or distrust just because he/she represents a party that is marginally better than another!

I posted the reply below to another thread on TFL (see http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=140749), but I think it's relevant to repeat it here:

"I don't vote for the party, but for the candidate. I preach about this to my congregation before every election, and advise them that basically, political parties are a great big amorphous blob on the landscape. After all, if you call the White House, you don't hear on the other end "Republican President here" - you hear "George Bush here", a person rather than a party.

Parties can have good and bad positions in their platform, but they are notorious for not keeping their promises or staying true to their platforms once they're elected. I would rather vote for a good person. Questions I encourage my congregation to ask about the candidates involved:

- Would you buy a used car from this person?

- Would you be happy for your father/mother, brother/sister, or son/daughter to go out with this person on a date? Would they be acceptable to you as an in-law relation?

- For us TFL types: would you trust this person to "watch your six" if TSHTF?

Obviously, this requires you to get to know the candidates, and where they stand on the issues that you care about most. In fact, you may end up voting for a person who represents a party you do not support - the candidate for the party you do support might be so awful a prospect, in the light of the above questions, that you just can't vote for him/her. So be it!

I also advise people that if there is no candidate whom they can whole-heartedly support, then they should vote against the worst candidate in the absence of a "best" choice. Vote for the person who will do the least damage to the things you hold dear!"

 

[ninenot]

In WIsconsin, the Pubbies blame a large Libertarian vote for the loss of the Governor's seat to a lefto Democrat.

THE REPUBLICANS LIE about this, and they know it.

The Republican candidate was dumb as a box of rocks; he alienated the pro-lifers, protected State employees from loss of benefits, (actually increased pensions for them,) and generally was not particularly conservative; in fact, he was a Party of Government poster child.

If the Libertarian had not run, the Republican would have had to have gotten 90% of the votes cast for the Libertarian. This would NOT have happened; more likely he would have gotten a range of 60 to 75%.

In New Jersey, the Republican candidate was NOT pro-life, was NOT for gun rights, and didn't talk too much about plans for tax reductions, either. He lost--any questions as to why???

In South Dakota, the race was fraudulently stolen by the Democratic machine on the Indian reservation. This may come up again, as a Federal prosecutor is looking very closely at the results.

In reality, the Libertarian vote is significant ONLY when the Republican runs 'to the center,' and does not offer a conservative platform. So whose fault is it? (Hint: it begins with R-E-P-U-B-L-I-C-A-N)