A new source of opposition that could destroy the Republican Party

Yeah, but they'll change as they get older and turn into their parents.

waylander said:

Yeah, but they'll change as they get older and turn into their parents.

Click to expand...

I doubt it. I have heard a LOT of people over the years claim to be the same -- socially liberal, fiscally conservative -- and lamenting the lack of a party that really seemed to represent those views. And I'm old already!

And here I thought the Republican Party was going extinct because they STILL insist that women and minorities are just objects and tools, and because of their support for the top 1% over the rest of the population.

I think the core Libertarian party values would attract a lot of millenials, except that Democrats and Republicans fight so hard to keep Libertarians off the ballot. It's the one thing the two parties seem to agree about.

Yeah, but they'll change as they get older and turn into their parents.

Click to expand...

Nah. Sounds very much like me, actually, and my mom and I have very nearly become dopplegangers.

How many of them actually vote?

Good to hear, but unfortunately, you may be the exception and not the norm. Sometimes it seems like kids being exactly like their parents is much more the norm. Not everyone can be as enlightened as the literary community in this aspect.

Click to expand...

I really believe that the internet is changing this. When I was growing up, "That's just how I was raised," was a get-out-of-jail-free card on any misogynist, racist, or otherwise out-of-line bs a person cared to spout. Not so on the internet.

When and where I grew up, statements like, "I'm not racist; I just think the races shouldn't intermingle" were common-place and accepted. I still remember the first time I saw someone try that line online. It was a wake-up call, no doubt. Just like the first time I said that I sometimes "acted r----ded." I grew up saying that. I'm ashamed of it now. I had an internet wake-up call.

There seems to be this idea, now that the internet has become a daily part of our lives, that ignorance is no excuse. Neither is tradition. Skepticism has become "in." Aligning yourself strictly with one party or another suggests to some, especially to many of these skeptics, that you are "a sheeple" who hasn't really done their research. To come across as intelligent, it helps to come across as worldly, if not downright cynical.

Such is the current culture of the internet, as I see it. And we are virtually all creatures of the internet, these days. Perhaps I align so strongly with millennials because, like so many of them, I spend my day tethered to my phone because it is tethered to the 'net.

I am almost 65. I registered to vote on my 21st birthday. I have voted in *every* election for *anything* ever since. I have not voted for a candidate in decades. Only against the more objectionable of the candidates.

The problem is that I have a very specific set of positions and opinions. And no one represents me.

One of my positions is that if you don't vote, you can't complain about who gets elected. So I vote. And complain.

MM

emax100 said:

A minority of them actually vote; in all these major elections the elephant in the room is the majority of the population who does not participate in the voting process at all, often because they think both candidates suck extremely hard and that differentiating as to who sucks more really is just splitting hairs.

Click to expand...

So, they don't vote, and independents rarely run and if they do, dont' get the press required to attract people who aren't particularly politically active... so, where's the threat?

Yet the most notable thing about millennials is not their devotion to the party of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi but their political disaffiliation from both major political tribes. Fully 34 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds describe themselves as independent, compared to just 11 percent of voters 30 years and older.

Click to expand...

And yet this is only about the Republicans?

Yeah. Sure.

emax100 said:

It's to a certain extent definitely about both, but one can easily see how there is a stronger case for the GOP being in danger because they do not have a growing support base, without these voters, that the Democrats will still have.

Click to expand...

Decaying voter base? That's a good one. According to your own article, *both parties* are bleeding voters. Both are in danger, and should have disintegrated long ago.

Cranky said:

I doubt it. I have heard a LOT of people over the years claim to be the same -- socially liberal, fiscally conservative -- and lamenting the lack of a party that really seemed to represent those views. And I'm old already!

Click to expand...

From a political viewpoint, that's pretty much the definition of "little l" libertarianism. The Libertarian party does a poor job of making that point, IMO... of course, the fact that both major parties do all they can to marginalize them, and the press (and a lot of modern-day "liberals") promote the "conservatives who smoke pot" meme (where have we heard that lately?) doesn't help at all.

libertarians have been at the forefront of a whole host of social issues, from gay rights to the drug war to foreign adventurism to free speech to government spying to crony capitolism for decades. All those battles have been fought on the classical liberal side of the argument, even when a whole lot of so-called "liberals" changed their tune back around January 20, 2009. libertarians don't change their principles depending on whether there's a red tie or a blue tie in the oval office.

TBH, I miss the support libertarians used to get from liberals on that whole slate of issues (and more besides) prior to the regime change.

I think a lot of the growth in acceptance of what might be considered libertarian positions is because people are starting to figure out that what the state promises and what the state delivers have very little to do with each other. People are starting to recognize the Terminator behind the Sheriff Taylor mask.

Don said:

From a political viewpoint, that's pretty much the definition of "little l" libertarianism.

Click to expand...

There is nothing socially liberal about failing to have strong regulations on corporate pollution, relying only on private charities as a social safety net, getting rid of protections for workers and Affirmative Action... the list goes on.

There's a reason those who run with an (L) beside their name compete in the Republican primaries. And yes, I know you are distinguishing between "big L and little l" but when it comes to political candidates, we only have big L. For that matter, the "little l" folks have the same stances as the big L folks on the issues mentioned above.

jennontheisland said:

So, they don't vote, and independents rarely run and if they do, dont' get the press required to attract people who aren't particularly politically active... so, where's the threat?

Click to expand...

The threat is in more and more people going their own ways, making government less and less a part of their daily lives by simply living; starting community gardens that force zoning changes; homeschooling because they don't like the schools government offers; creating ride-sharing systems to take on the taxi companies are just a few examples. Policing and CPS are both currently under scrutiny, and there are changes blowing in the wind. The justice system can hardly be described as delivering justice these days, and people are noticing. There are a million ways to live and only two choices to vote for? The democratization of life is going to kill the political system as we know it today; the only question is how many innocents the political machine will take with it on the way out.

Monkey said:

There is nothing socially liberal about failing to have strong regulations on corporate pollution, relying only on private charities as a social safety net, getting rid of protections for workers and Affirmative Action... the list goes on.

There's a reason those who run with an (L) beside their name compete in the Republican primaries. And yes, I know you are distinguishing between "big L and little l" but when it comes to political candidates, we only have big L. For that matter, the "little l" folks have the same stances as the big L folks on the issues mentioned above.

Click to expand...

I don't know any libertarians who are in favor of pollution; to the contrary, I consider pollution a form of aggression and think pollution should be punished aggressively. I don't think corporations or governments should get a pass and be allowed to pollute. That's not incompatible with either the concept of private property or the concept of the commons.

I think workers (and people in general) get a false sense of security from the "protections" that government claims to provide. People assume that because OSHA has signed off on a workplace, it's a safe place to work. People assume that because the FDA has signed off on a drug, it's safe to take, or that food the USDA has blessed is safe (or even healthy) to eat. I think it's my responsibility to make those decisions for myself, and I have turned down jobs, drugs and food because I didn't think the government had made a good call.

I'll give you private charity and affirmative action, however. I don't think it's proper for any person or group of people to force someone else to give up what they've earned and give it to someone else, or force them to employ someone they don't want to employ... even if that group of people is called "government" and wear shiny badges and clever hats.

OTOH, that also means I don't think it's proper for that badge-wearing group to cut special deals for groups of people they call "corporations" either, or take money from you and me and hand it to those corporations because they claim to be "too big to fail", or to force people to buy stuff from those corporations. I'm a big fan of Main Street, but think Wall Street and K Street should become dead ends.

And as far as all those things go, fear that a Libertarian president and a few Libertarian congresspeople could reverse all those things in the short term is completely unrealistic. What we might see is some slight dismantling of the monsters that have been created by the unfettered cronies that created Mordor on the Potomac in the first place. I think that would be a great direction to be headed.

Oh, the libertarian literature I have read on pollution is against it, but at the same time, they offer no real ways of mitigating, much less stopping, corporate pollution. They seem to think boycotting will work. In today's economy, when we often have a hard time determining even the country in which the components of our products are made, and given the lack of such boycotting in general, that's realistically not feasible.

The argument that OSHA and the FDA aren't perfect doesn't really equate to them being unnecessary.

Our social safety net is pretty important to liberals. Affirmative Action is also kind of a big deal.

But this:

And as far as all those things go, fear that a Libertarian president and a few Libertarian congresspeople could reverse all those things in the short term is completely unrealistic. What we might see is some slight dismantling of the monsters that have been created by the unfettered cronies that created Mordor on the Potomac in the first place. I think that would be a great direction to be headed.

Click to expand...

is the real reason I could never vote libertarian.

Because dismantling programs such as Libertarians have offered to do, without any real consideration of how to maintain those functions the programs did that WERE essential, just cutting them cold-turkey with no replacement and screw anyone hurt by that, is, IMO, the very dumbest, most hurtful, and most irresponsible way to go about reform.

Monkey said:

Oh, the libertarian literature I have read on pollution is against it, but at the same time, they offer no real ways of mitigating, much less stopping, corporate pollution. They seem to think boycotting will work. In today's economy, when we often have a hard time determining even the country in which the components of our products are made, and given the lack of such boycotting in general, that's realistically not feasible.

The argument that OSHA and the FDA aren't perfect doesn't really equate to them being unnecessary.

Our social safety net is pretty important to liberals. Affirmative Action is also kind of a big deal.

But this:
is the real reason I could never vote libertarian.

Because dismantling programs such as Libertarians have offered to do, without any real consideration of how to maintain those functions the programs did that WERE essential, just cutting them cold-turkey with no replacement and screw anyone hurt by that, is, IMO, the very dumbest, most hurtful, and most irresponsible way to go about reform.

Click to expand...

You're obviously reading other libertarian authors than I have. Mary Ruwart has a nice piece on air and water pollution, for example, that stresses, as many libertarians do, the importants of restitution as opposed to fines when it comes to the justice system in general.

I'm also not aware of any calls to dismantle programs overnight. I've heard plenty of arguments for sunsetting programs over a period of time, though. When Ron Paul was running for president, for example, he made the argument that by dismantling a lot of corporate welfare and the foreign adventuring, we could afford to keep existing programs in place as long as needed, as well as create educational and other ways to expand occupational opportunities.

Getting rid of silly regs that stop people from braiding hair for money without 2000 hours of schooling, or babysitting more than two kids without a daycare license would stop government from preventing people who have tried to do those things to generate an income. There are tremendous hurdles that keep Main Street businesses from flourishing that have severely reduced the number of new small businesses we see each year. Wipe all that out and you've opened huge new opportunities for people who don't want to be slaves to corporations.

Government standing in the way of those who want to create new business opportunities at the smallest level have a lot more to do with the moribund economy and high unemployment than most people realize. The centralization of employment may be great for the corporations, but the democratization of employment would be much, much better for society and individuals as a whole.

From your link:

First, libertarians would eliminate sovereign immunity so that victims of the country's greatest polluter-government--would have recourse. Second, libertarians would privatize land and beast to save endangered species, preserve our parks, protect our national forests, and improve our vast cattle ranges. In addition, libertarians would couple these powerful reforms with restitution, to prevent pollution before it starts.

Click to expand...

Privatizing our public parks and getting rid of the endangered species act hardly seem like things liberals would get behind. In fact, those have both been pushed for by the far right. Personally, I think those sound like terrible ideas, for all the author thinks it would save the world. And restitution?

For example, in a libertarian society, the roadways would be privately owned. If neighbors complained of pollution, the road company might offer monetary compensation. Most likely, however, the neighbors would want the pollution to stop. Since 80% of emissions' pollution is caused by 20% of the cars, the road company might deny access or charge much higher user fees to polluting vehicles. Given these alternatives, most of the owners would probably buy a newer car or get their emission system upgraded. Such measures would reduce pollution until the neighbors were no longer bothered by it.

Click to expand...

Does this really sound like something that would appeal to liberal sensibilities? To me, it seems to be taking the right-wing view to the absolute fringiest extreme. Privately-owned roadways, right outside people's homes, where the owners can dictate which cars are allowed to drive on them? What happens to those not allowed to drive out of their driveway? Dealing with a pollution complaint by, essentially, ensuring only the wealthy could still drive on the roads? "Just get a new car." I wish. Don't most of us only wish?

No f-ing way this is "socially liberal."

Not only that, but it still requires locals to complain and, one presumes, to go to court. I don't know about you, but if a private entity owned my only way of getting to work, I'd be VERY hesitant to take them to court over anything at all. Much less when they could legally respond by denying me that only way of getting to work even if I won.

As to dismantling programs overnight, every candidate in the Republican primaries this last go-round - including those with (L) after their names - had a list of departments they would summarily de-fund, with absolutely no word on continuing any vital functions or any lament for those who would be hurt.

There are reasons, as I said, that the (L) candidates run with the (R)'s. Social liberals they are not.