Here’s how Reason responds to a new poll showing that Democrats have a more favorable opinion of Libertarians than Republicans:
I suspect the slightly better Democratic numbers may reflect a knowledge gap between Republicans and Democrats. Republicans actually understand what libertarians are for, and they know they hate it. Registered Democrats on the other hand can afford to pick up a few strands of anti-drug-war, pro-gay marriage tinsel without worrying about the radical approach to individualism to which they’re attached. (Which is not to say that actual Democratic politicians are in any way libertarian on drugs, gay marriage, or anything else.) It’s sort of like the way I think the world of people from Bhutan because I’ve never actually met any of them.
You know who I’ve never met? A writer for Reason who was able to set aside hippie punching in order to suggest a constructive engagement strategy with the majority party. Of course, that might actually get an item on the Libertarian agenda enacted into law, and that would mean that the wankers at Reason would have one less thing to whine about.
BR
I like how they think that the anti-drug war efforts are the domain of libertarians, rather than thinking people across the spectrum.
If these two pass, Reason won’t be the reason:
http://www.taxcannabis.org/
http://cannabistaxact.org/
Check them out if you live in CA or OR.
cleek
so now libertarians are taking credit for gay marriage and opposition to the drug war ?
i guess that kills those two things…
BR
@cleek:
Jinx.
Bill E Pilgrim
Fascinating. A view from yet another side of the looking glass where being opposed to the drug war or discrimination against gays is just one little artifact of something called Libertarianism, and “Democrats” who also think this way are just dilettantes, slumming in the gritty real world of Libertarians but not willing to go the full Monty.
Self-centered arrogance is never in short supply.
Miriam
What, they think none of us have read Ayn Rand?
kommrade reproductive vigor
Bwahahahahaha!
Really. Substitute climate control or equal rights or science or world events or ANYTHING ELSE and it’s a fucking hoot.
TR
So their argument is that liberals like them only because liberals don’t know them well, and if liberals knew them as well as conservatives knew them, then liberals would hate them too?
What kind of sad self-hating emo bullshit is that? Do the editors at Reason sit around cutting themselves like goth girls just so they can feel something in this mean old world?
de stijl
Those damn johnny-come-lately liberals glommed onto the whole civil liberties thing after the publication the Randian canon and The Objectivist Newsletter.
4jkb4ia
What is interesting about that poll is that Democrats are split about how they feel about libertarianism, and they are split about as evenly on how they feel about socialism. So you could explain the positive views of libertarianism based on what issues are important to the specific Democrats answering the poll.
4jkb4ia
Soc*alism. Is that better? (So at any rate, Democrats are as split about how they feel about soc*alism as they are about libertarianism, and “capitalism” has a bare majority of positive feelings, so the positive feeling about libertarianism may be about the priority individuals give to certain issues, esp. GWOT)
fucen tarmal
that isn’t hippie punching, that is playing hard to get, perhaps even hard to want.
i’ll pass.
the libertarians just aren’t attractive enough to let them frame the issues, or set the agenda.
they seem to arrogantly think everyone who isn’t one, just doesn’t know, or has some how been fooled into a party that can actually accomplish something.
even if they have some or a few good ideas, that is all they are, no reason to act like you’ve never seen an attractive idea before.
NobodySpecial
Let’s get real here. You’ve got people on lefty blogs who can’t even agree what the majority party is. Who the hell is Reason gonna hook up with anyways?
For myself, I can’t fucking stand Libertarians. They ignore the whole of the history of human progress because they believe Louis L’Amour novels are about real people. Fuck ’em in the ear.
Bill E Pilgrim
@TR:
That’s exactly what it says.
It sort of reminds me of Friedman’s laughable over-simplifications which we were discussing in the prior thread. If you took some of the other most basic tenets of the Randies and asked Republicans if they liked “freedom from taxation” and “small government” and “individual responsibility” and so on, you’d get 100% sympathetic approval.
Instead we hear that Republicans “hate” Libertarian principles.
Right.
MikeJ
@fucen tarmal: If you really understood My Chemical Romance you’d like them. If you don’t like them you just don’t get it.
Ailuridae
@fucen tarmal:
That saved me a lot of typing, thanks, I think if libertarians posted their entirety of their views as an ideology 90% of non-glibertard Americans would find it offensive.
The fact that they claim as their own the 20% of their opinions that intersect with the American left is outstanding.
The Grand Panjandrum
That’s enough whine to take credit for any bump in cheese sales.
mad the swine
ROFLMAO, libertarians and constructive engagement. Not happening. The Libertarian Party is the textbook example of (a) what happens when you let the perfect be the enemy of the good, and (b) what happens when you let a bunch of small men with big egos set party strategy.
As for reason.com itself? When the comment threads on a so-called libertarian site are overwhelmingly in support of Sheriff Joe and the Arizona immigration law, said site should probably stop calling itself libertarian. But then, I should have seen this coming when reason.com decided to embrace the tea party movement as the public face of libertarianism.
Apsaras
Lots of Republicans probably don’t like libertarians because they see them as a drain on their natural constituency. Libertarians are usually conservatives who have yet to realize that the Republicans don’t really mean it when they talk about Jesus.
neill
the “mommy party” just couldn’t ever have any real affinity for the fundamental core of libertarianism: testosterone.
after all, you caint really express your individuality, creativity, and freedom unless you’re fucking-over somebody else — these days, as usual, it’s still the people a little too “off-white” and the natural resources of the planet.
Ailuridae
@NobodySpecial:
For myself, I can’t fucking stand Libertarians. They ignore the whole of the history of human progress because they believe Louis L’Amour novels are about real people. Fuck ‘em in the ear.
Awesome Sauce ^^^^^^^^
tbogg
The reason that Libertarians will never find common cause with liberals is because Libertarians are sociopathic assholes who are only slightly more evolved than serial killers, pedophiles and bond traders at Goldman Sachs.
arguingwithsignposts
@tbogg:
This. IGMFY is no way to run a country.
NobodySpecial
@tbogg:
Yours is great, I’m just playing editor.
scarshapedstar
Shorter Reason:
Michael
@tbogg:
Why are you insulting pedophiles and serial killers by lumping them into the same category as bond traders at Goldman Sachs?
JasonF
@tbogg:
This is exactly right. Like the man said — the reason liberals have a higher opinion of libertarians is because liberals don’t understand what libertarians are about. If more liberals understood what amoral sociopaths most libertarians are, their opinion of them would be correspondingly lower.
Joe Lisboa
What, they think none of us have read Ayn Rand?
Well, I did and I quickly became a collectivist-hating, Galt-worshipping objectivist bot.
Then I turned seventeen and my brain kicked in.
scarshapedstar
@JasonF:
Similarly, Libertarians hate the Democratic Party, but if they knew about its secret IslamoCommunoFascist agenda (up next: seatbelts required on motorcycles!) then they would really, really hate it, like ten times as much.
Ailuridae
@tbogg:
The bond traders aren’t the villains at Goldman.
mistermix
@mad the swine: In fairness, Reason is against the Arizona law, no matter what their commenters say.
Ailuridae
@Joe Lisboa:
Strong
Svensker
@Miriam:
I got a huge lecture on Rand, Hayek, et al, the other day from a raging libertard. Didn’t have the heart to tell him I’d been a raging libertard myself until not that long ago (yes, I’m ashamed).
Course, he also included Glenn Beck and David Horowitz in the pantheon of libertarian heroes, so I do give myself a little credit for not being 100% asshole. Figure I came in at about 89%.
Cerberus
@JasonF:
This and tbogg’s comment.
They’re absolutely right that the only reason they poll at all favorable on the left is because they make a big recruitment strategy about talking about the individual and being “socially liberal, fiscally conservative” which makes both pot-smoking hippie types and privileged white guys who like having a social safety net and don’t like bigotry, but also don’t like paying taxes think, hmm, maybe I should check this out, mr. “our shortest political quiz posits us on the opposite end of hitler”.
Only through getting to know them do you find out that they are just as much bigots as the right-wing nutcases, but are willing to sell out and feed the proles a few crumbs in rolling back active oppression if they can wrangle another tax cut out of it.
And yeah, having that diseased pathetic ideology dare to pretend they have been anywhere close to the front lines on battles for drug rights or gay rights is an obscenity of the highest order. No, you jonny-come-lately “I ‘philosophized’ this shit in my cracker-ass man-cave in the suburbs” dipshit, you haven’t been anywhere near the front lines of any of this shit.
You haven’t been suffering the beatings, the law defenses, the marches, the legislative movements, the etc and etc…
You’ve occasionally in the last handful of years put together a few positive statements only for the aspects of this shit that affect you personally and only occasionally have “fought” for things by not being entirely actively against it sometimes in several states but only if it was looking likely that it would pass anyways.
This stuff is exactly like the right-wing bigots trying to lay claim to MLK Jr as somehow one of theirs after fighting even the mention of his name for decades on end.
Fuck their deluded asses and if that makes them think like they’re “all alone”? Good. They don’t deserve friends until they stop trying to destroy this society and fight tooth and nail against even base level social safety net protection for the rest of us.
Linda Featheringill
@Joe Lisboa: And then you turned 17:
I think I was 18 when I read Ayn Rand. She actually had me for about a day and a half. Or maybe a whole week. Then I decided not to trust someone that egocentic to explain the world to me.
People are still reading Rand? After all this time? Wow.
Roger Moore
@fucen tarmal:
I’ll have to remember “playing hard to want” as a description; it’s a great turn of phrase.
b-psycho
@tbogg: Every time I read a remark like this, I inch closer to dropping any attempt at dragging “libertarian” back to what it originally meant before capitalists stole it.
HE Pennypacker, Wealthy Industrialist
Funny how libertarians can talk a good game about socially radical ideas like legalized drugs or gay rights, but when it comes to endorsing a candidate or actually VOTING the only thing that matters is who argues the hardest for tax cuts.
They’re the ones who use social issues as tinsel, when in fact they’re a one-plank platform.
Linda Featheringill
So 29% of all Americans view soshullism positively? Not bad. I’m impressed.
If this increased popularity keeps growing, I might have to give up my minority status.
b-psycho
BTW: I suspect the real reason behind the poll result is that registered Democrats tend to actually be consistent liberals in many areas, while the only type of Democrats that get meaningful political power are either Ben Nelson clones or split-the-baby squishes that seemingly only live to please David Broder. So Dems like Libertarians & soshulists in similar proportions because neither is afraid to take controversial stands. Meanwhile, Republicans hate Libertarians because they tend to be atheists, and the GOP embraces theocracy more every day.
John Harrold
This is sort of relating to the previous post by mistermix. I’d consider myself to be a libertarian, and I voted for Obama. I was more or less neutral to the health care legislation that recently passed, so use that as a metric for judging my commitment to personal liberty or whatever.
The reason I supported Obamas election was that I wanted a clear rejection of republican governance and I was sickened by their use of wedge issues such as the demagoguery of homosexuals and the restrictions of their rights. I was appalled at the relative ease in which republicans could support torturing people. So one of my main reasons for supporting Obama over any republican was his stance on civil liberties. I was thrilled when he stated that he was going to shut down Guantanamo, and I was very happy with his clear rejection of torture. However, as he backpedals on these things, I get more frustrated and depressed.
I’m not delusional enough to think I’m ever going to find a politician that embodies anything close to my ideal set of positions. And I don’t think I could bring myself to supporting a mainstream republican any time soon. However, if Obama cannot get it together with protecting things like the rights of the accused, I don’t really see a reason to support him either.
someguy
I’m a big fan of Rand. She allows the rest of us to write off Libertarianism entirely without ever having to engage Rothbard, Nock, Hayek, or Mises. Kind of like how Jerry Falwell sort of gave us a lifetime pass from ever having to argue the merits with social conservatives.
joe from Lowell
Libertarianism has never, ever existed outside of a broad conservative coalition. The idea of libertarianism divorced from the conservative movement is a mythical creature.
Brachiator
Fixt.
Libertarianism has never been a consisent political or economic system, is easily contradicted by the smallest knowledge of history, and is largely the addled rantings of people who have never grown up. As opposed to Objectivism, which is entirely the rantings of the psychological and emotionally stunted.
The irony here is that libertarians insisted on embracing Bush/Chaney despite the GOP’s pandering to the fundamentalists and the willfully ignorant.
Alex
Writing like that is why I’m among the Democrats who hate libertarians. Professional whiny assholes, the whole damn lot of them. They’d sell their families into slavery in exchange for a tax cut.
OriGuy
This has appeared here before, but it’s good enough to repeat. From John Rogers:
I’m happy to say that I only read the one about orcs.
Ella in NM
Screw anyone who calls themselves anything but a damn political mutt.
My value system–political and otherwise– has been so bitch-slapped over the past 20 odd years that I have no name for it anymore. It certainly doesn’t fall easily into one category, like Libertarian or Liberal or Conservative.
So I’m very suspicious of anyone who claims they “are” anything anymore because within thirty seconds of uttering that they tell me something about their lives that proves to me they have no friggin’ idea WHAT that group stands for.
jcricket
Why sully (ha) a good Libertarian argument with actual facts, reality, nuance, etc?
The whole point of Libertarianism is to give annoying jabroneys ™ a simplistic framework from which to judge everyone else, while never having to engage in real thought, developing workable political policies or otherwise dealing with the real world.
Sharl
Love the post and comments, but have one nit to pick, and it concerns this:
This presumes a romantic “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” view of how the legislative and executive sausage is made in DC, and ignores a couple (there may be more) Randtard-friendly changes in law within the past 25 years.
The gutting of the Fairness Doctrine actually took place mostly in the Executive branch, with some help from the other two branches. Reagan’s FCC delivered the fatal blow in 1987, to the lasting delight of Libertarians.
Of course, even some liberals have their doubts about the feasibility of the FD in the current media/communications environment – I’m one of them – but most of us FD-doubters on the left also strongly believe that the giant corporate media monstrosities need to be broken up, and legislation passed that would forbid such beasts from being created in the future. The combination of no-FD and massive corporate media conglomerates is bad, bad, bad news for achieving even a marginally functioning democratic system (well-informed electorate and all that).
A more obscure law passed that delighted Libertarians was the Data Quality Act (aka Information Quality Act); also, too. WaPo’s Rick Weiss wrote a good article on this in 2004. This delightful little two-sentence feature was quietly slipped into draft legislation in committee by Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO) in December 2000 at the behest of a lobbying dynamo named Jim Tozzi*. And, as we have all learned, legislation is almost never read by the folks voting on it, and we thus only learn of the contents after the President signs it into law.
So actually Libertarians don’t have to go to all that trouble of winning over folks and forming voting blocks. They just need the occasional key person with power/seniority in the right place. IOW, they don’ need no steenkin’ democratic process, just its dysfunctional features.
*Jim Tozzi was a deputy OMB director in the early Reagan Administration who, after quickly learning the ropes of the Federal bureaucracy, when on to become a private-sector advocate and activist for “free trade” unencumbered by all that pesky environmental regulation. This dude is a piece of work – a fascinating guy who appears to be a true believer in the cause.
Having said all that, I don’t know how much sway Tozzi has these days, and I’d be more worried about the neocon zombies Cheney left behind in the bureaucracy like so many walking bombs ready to be set off. Cheney and Addington were other folks who played an excellent inside game, to continuing deadly effect.
MTiffany
@cleek: I had a good chuckle at the notion that the idiots at Reason didn’t catch the writer’s contradiction of equating marriage (gay or straight) with ‘radical individualism.’ Is there anything less individualistic that getting married?
The Truffle
Unpopular opinion: Reason is the People Magazine of libertarianism. Kinda like Huffpo and liberal politics.
The Truffle
Equally hilarious: the responses from teabaggers posing as libertarians.
Cacti
Libertarians, for the most part are…
1. Republicans who enjoy smoking pot
2. Republicans who aren’t religiously insane
Get them inside the voting booth and most of them still pull the lever for the R-candidate.
Northern Observer
Is their anything more smug, more elitist, more arrogant than libertarian contempt of all persuasion not libertarian …….. – I think not.
These guys at Reason all need a big slap in the face.
Northern Observer
The big ha-ha behind all this is that liberals have a more favorable opinion of libertarians because liberals understand libertarian principles better than self identified political libertarians. If flesh and blood libertarians were at all consistent in their principles there would be greater actual political agreement. Liberals are just giving the libertarians the benefit of the doubt, you know we expect a rock to be rock and a tree to be a tree, unfortunately for America libertarians can’t live up to their name.
MikeN
I’d suggest a simpler reason for the difference- most people don’t have a clue who libertarians are: Democrats hear “liberty” and think “that’s nice”; Republicans hear “liberal” and think “that’s awful”.
K
I am surprised that the thread is all negative. But then I’m also surprised that the quote from Reason was so negative towards the left. Don’t we have some affinities on Bill of Rights stuff? Holder wants to change Miranda.. so it’s the liberals and the libertarians who object and it’s the liberals and the libertarians who are indignant about what kinds of false positives are going to get swept up in the dragnets.
Kathy in St. Louis
My ex-son-in-law and his friends were libertarians. They were all about the freedom to view porn, the freedom to smoke what you wanted, the freedom to have sex with whomever. I was always curous about why there was no talk of responsibilites. They didn’t believe that the government had the right to collect taxes, issue tickets, or in anyway limit their freedom to do anything. The government should protect the country from foreign attack and that’s it. Now, how anything else should be handled, well, that was a little murky. No social security or social programs because the private sector would take care of the poor. When I asked how many of the poor I could put each one of them down for, they just stared at me.
Personally, I think most of the ones that I met were all about themselves. Ayn Rand, they all loved.
bob h
Democrats have a more favorable opinion of Libertarians than Republicans:
That is because liberals believe in letting other people alone, not interfering with their lives unncessarily, and being tolerant of diversity. Liberals are the definition of libertarianism in this sense.
Jamie
It’s not much, butThe nuts are already are calling him a Marxist/Nazi, could you imagine the howling if he tried to tone down the security/daddy state?