More on libertarians and Republicans
I'm confused. Why would any libertarian ally himself with today's Republican party? Perhaps once upon a time, when the GOP promoted fiscal restraint, lower taxes, and smaller government, it would've been pretty understandable. But now? Please. Those libertarians who throw their lot in with the Republican party seem to be suffering the political equivalent of battered spouse syndrome.
Really, what's so "libertarian" about the current crop of Republicans? The party that doles out welfare money to corporations, inserts itself into end-of-life decisions, has expanded the government in the last six years, and spends money like there's no tomorrow? The party that gave us the Patriot Act and promotes warrantless wiretapping? And why wouldn't any libertarian be aghast at the flap over gay marriage? Aside from the fact that it's a useless sop thrown to the theocon base, it's an example of the government telling mature adults what they can or can't do. Yet libertarians are mysteriously silent on the issue.
Long story short: there is NOTHING libertarian about today's Republican party. Freedom Democrats spells it out in more detail.
Avedon Carol takes a different tack. She's deeply unimpressed with the current crop of libertarians, suggesting they're not so much libertarian as anti-liberal:
She's got a point. After all, Mary Matalin has called herself a libertarian, and she's basically a Bush/Cheney flunky. There's nothing libertarian about Bush or Cheney. "Libertarian" seems to be a term for those conservatives who want to present themselves as "edgy" and "hip." Matalin is about as edgy and hip as a cinderblock.
Needless to say, left-libertarians do exist, although they're not as visible as their right-wing counterparts. Drifting Through the Grift ponders the eternal puzzle of why this is so, and divides libertarians into two groups: Financials and Socials. Financials are, of course, the free-market gang; Socials believe in personal liberty and privacy rights. He depicts today's libertarian movement as a big tent: "There is room for all and we accept that our differences are not disloyalty but rather continue to advance the discussion." But he still doesn't answer the question of why some so-called libertarians continue to support a party stands for everything they oppose. And before anyone trots out the old "free market" talking point, I'd like ask how corporate subsidies and bloated mega-corporations fit into the picture.
Really, what's so "libertarian" about the current crop of Republicans? The party that doles out welfare money to corporations, inserts itself into end-of-life decisions, has expanded the government in the last six years, and spends money like there's no tomorrow? The party that gave us the Patriot Act and promotes warrantless wiretapping? And why wouldn't any libertarian be aghast at the flap over gay marriage? Aside from the fact that it's a useless sop thrown to the theocon base, it's an example of the government telling mature adults what they can or can't do. Yet libertarians are mysteriously silent on the issue.
Long story short: there is NOTHING libertarian about today's Republican party. Freedom Democrats spells it out in more detail.
Avedon Carol takes a different tack. She's deeply unimpressed with the current crop of libertarians, suggesting they're not so much libertarian as anti-liberal:
How else to explain their willingness to call themselves conservatives rather than liberals, and to support Republicans rather than Democrats, even when conservatives/Republicans are clearly embarked on projects that directly conflict with libertarian principles? Identification with conservatism and support of Republicans is about no other principle than the hatred of liberals. It isn't even necessarily liberalism they hate (although they clearly despise any token or talisman that is associated with liberalism), since most of the libertarian program is itself primarily liberal. Yet they refuse to see themselves as part of liberalism, even when the only people who do not oppose them (on, say, drug laws) are liberals. Despite every evidence that the biggest and most oppressive programs come from conservative Republicans, they insist on identifying with the right wing.
She's got a point. After all, Mary Matalin has called herself a libertarian, and she's basically a Bush/Cheney flunky. There's nothing libertarian about Bush or Cheney. "Libertarian" seems to be a term for those conservatives who want to present themselves as "edgy" and "hip." Matalin is about as edgy and hip as a cinderblock.
Needless to say, left-libertarians do exist, although they're not as visible as their right-wing counterparts. Drifting Through the Grift ponders the eternal puzzle of why this is so, and divides libertarians into two groups: Financials and Socials. Financials are, of course, the free-market gang; Socials believe in personal liberty and privacy rights. He depicts today's libertarian movement as a big tent: "There is room for all and we accept that our differences are not disloyalty but rather continue to advance the discussion." But he still doesn't answer the question of why some so-called libertarians continue to support a party stands for everything they oppose. And before anyone trots out the old "free market" talking point, I'd like ask how corporate subsidies and bloated mega-corporations fit into the picture.
Comments