The Life, Soul, and Future of the Party: Why Libertarians are Unwise to Shun the GOP

Libertarians may be the future of the Republican Party, writes Dan Whitfield.

In November 2008, it wasn’t only the Democrats who cheered as the Republican Party suffered electoral catastrophe.  Across the country, pockets of people huddled around TVs and computer screens, celebrating the defeat of John McCain, and scores of other Republicans lower down the ticket.  They were the libertarians.

Strangely, 2008 was a good year for the defenders of liberty.  This may sound ludicrous, given that the hard-left won control of both Congress and the White House, but the global economic downturn spurred a rapid mobilization of libertarian activists dedicated to paring back the power of government.  The two major political parties had easily dismissed the libertarians as a radical fringe, but with profligate congressional spending reaching record levels, large numbers of people were drawn to the banner of liberty.

Two years later, and the revolution shows no sign of abating.  Libertarian Rand Paul – son of Congressman Ron Paul – will likely win a Senate seat in November, and elsewhere incumbent legislators are being threatened by challengers committed to smaller, less intrusive government. 

That this is the case can be attributed in large part to the decay of the Republican Party, which by 2008 was devoid of policy innovation.  Libertarian critics charged that the GOP was corrupted by power, and had been high-jacked by a small cabal of neoconservatives bent on American imperialism and bloated government spending.  Small wonder some voters were driven into the arms of Ron Paul and Bob Barr when the Republican leadership gave America the Iraq War, Medicare expansion, and banking bailouts.

The question libertarians must now ponder is how to capitalize on their successes.   If the gains glimpsed over the last two years are not sustained, the critics of the libertarian movement, who charge that it is merely a political sideshow, will be proven correct.  Given that unfunded entitlement programs are growing exponentially under the Obama administration, the next few years could prove an once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for libertarians to articulate their ideas. 

Alternatively, libertarians may be swept away by an unfettered march toward federal government expansion.  

For ideological purists, future success lies far away from the GOP.  The Tea Party movement or a collection of local parties with a regional base are the best vehicles to drive a message of small government.  

According to this argument, the Republican Party is morally bankrupt, devoid of ideas, and on an irreversible electoral decline.  The GOP, the party which expanded the federal deficit to eye-wateringly high levels and engaged in aggressive adventurism abroad, can no longer be counted on as the party to defend individual freedom.   

Yet this course is fraught with difficulty.  The Libertarian Party, a long-standing American third party, has a pitifully small base of only 200,000 hardy souls, a figure totally unreflective of the degree of libertarian sentiment in the land.  Its membership is largely comprised of policy wonks, students, and ideological purists, who hardly make ideal foots soldiers in the ground game that is politics.  Their lack of numbers translates into consistently poor showings at election time, and the Libertarian Party suffers from a chronic shortage of cash.  

Even if such problems were surmounted, an independent Tea Party or other similar party would still have to contend with older, better established rivals who have cultivated a brand loyalty among millions of voters.  Barring some once-in-a-lifetime event, these bonds between voter and party will be all but impossible to break.  In 2008 for example, the nadir of Republican electoral fortunes, 46% of people still cast their ballots for Senator John McCain.  Even the most zealous of libertarians would concede that that is an impressive showing for a candidate laboring under the disasters of the previous administration.   

The lack of a viable alternative leaves the libertarians in the unenviable position of having to work within the Republican Party apparatus.  This will not be an easy task.  A tainted brand, a culture of corruption, and a tendency to ramp-up government programs in the desire to sustain power are but a handful of the problems that beset those seeking to change the GOP.  But by far the greatest problem is the fact that the Republicans may be on a course of permanent decline.  

President Obama won two-thirds of the youth vote, an achievement mirrored only by Ronald Reagan in 1980.  That election ushered in a period of Republican hegemony.  Likewise 2008 may have been the opening act in what may be a generation of Democratic supremacy.  With the wind behind the Democrats back, libertarians hoping to reshape the GOP into a viable political party face a daunting task.  

Libertarians will also find it difficult to engage some of the Republican’s core constituencies.   The acolytes of neo-conservatism still retain a strong presence in the GOP, despite delivering the United States two expensive, protracted, foreign wars.  Likewise certain social conservatives, still lobbying for intrusive constitutional amendments in order to protect marriage and the unborn, will sit uneasily with a libertarian movement dedicated to states rights and personal freedoms.  Tempers often fray when libertarians point out the ideological inconsistency of those who advocate for federal regulation of a woman’s body while opposing federal regulation of such things as CO2 emissions.  

Yet despite these difficulties, the situation is not beyond rescue.  In fact, a libertarian movement properly disciplined, focused, and motivated would be ideally placed to lead the GOP back from the wilderness.  

Already tea party activists have chosen strong defenders of liberty as their candidates in a string of Republican primaries.  Whatever the outcome of the elections in November – one thing is clear: there will be many more libertarians in next Congress.

The principle reason why the libertarians can and ought to assume the leadership of the GOP is clear – demographics.  Older voters are dying off, replaced by a zealous and youthful electorate enamored by Barack Obama and his leftist friends.  The establishment GOP has utterly failed to connect with these types of voters.  To compound this, socially conservative leaders such as Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and James Dobson are either dying or retiring.  In their stead a new generation of religious voters are emerging, who place less emphasis on foreign aggression and homosexual persecution, such as California’s Rick Warren.  

Given such irreversible long term trends, it is likely that a strong libertarian grassroots network could challenge established hierarchies in the GOP and lobby for overdue policy changes.  The swarms of libertarians who descended on the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) last February under the banner of the Campaign for Liberty is evidence of the people-power the libertarian movement now commands.

For the libertarians to succeed in reintroducing the nation to the Jeffersonian principles of limited government and personal responsibility, they need a party.  The GOP is that party.  Neo-cons and DC hacks should not be allowed to vandalize the Republican brand any longer.  If the libertarian movement is to thrive over the coming years, it must move beyond its distaste of the GOP and work within its proven party apparatus.  Libertarians should take their lead from Ron Paul, who remains a registered Republican.  If the good doctor from Texas can remain part of the GOP, his supporters ought to follow his lead.  With momentum behind them, the libertarians just might turn out to be the life, soul, and future of the Republican Party.

Dan Whitfield is a writer living in Washington, DC, specializing in the conservative routes of America’s founding.  Previously Dan worked for the Leadership Institute, America’s largest training organization for conservative activists.

Comments

[Jason Kent]

1.

You're lucky. Australia doesn't even have a free electoral system. Obama's got nothing on our left wingers.

[Ben]

2.

“Republican leadership gave America the Iraq War…?” Ha. Ha. No. Islamic fundamentalist lunatics gave us the war. But in any case, Clinton was bombing Iraq – remember Operation Desert Fox? – years before.

Republicans just aren’t as keen on group therapy for dictators. What’s more, Democrats like Senator Clinton, supported the war in Iraq, and even Obama voted for many war bills (a fact “forgotten” by the MSM).

Some obvious questions: Why did Obama vote yes, in May, 2005, for an $82 billion pro-military bill to fund two wars? Why did Obama help Congress, in June, 2006, to clear a $94.5 billion pro-Iraq and pro-Afghanistan bill? Why did Obama vote yes to support a bill that included $70 billion for U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, in September, 2006? In other words, cut the spin.

[TerjeP]

3.

In my wildest dreams the Liberal Party of Australia gets invaded by libertarians. However given what the Liberal Party did to John Humphreys I doubt it will happen which is why I persist with the LDP. Libertarians who join the Liberal Party thinking they will give voice to libertarian ideals are mistaken. The Liberal Party is for Christian conservatives, not libertarians.

O/T - I'm standing as an LDP candidate in Bennelong.

[Insidethemindoftim.wordpress.com]

4.

Dan - good article, and I certainly agree with you that the best strategy for Libertarians is to work within the 2 party system, a lesson as equally applicable in Australia as it is in the US (no-offense Terje :p).

My only qualm would be your lede, where you say libertarians celebrated the election of Obama. Whilst some did, sure (and our now ruing it for the most part), a lot of us did still think McCain to be the lesser of the evils...

[Tim Humphries]

5.

If McCain gets the nod for 2012 does this mean he'll have to co-tow to the new generation of libertarians that are making their presence felt?

McCain is allot like Springborg in Queensland. The gap filler till someone substantitive can be found.

Having said that there are still positives and negatives on both sides of the ledger.

*Shrugs*

Libertarians I talk to think that Congress woman Michelle Bachmann and Ron Paul would make an excellent vice-presidential and presidential candidate in 2012.

The trick will be making the leap and not allowing it to degenerate into a slanging match.

Harder said than done perhaps :)

[Brettsylvester]

6.

ugh. I couldn't agree less.

Working "within the system" is pathetic and futile, and unless your goal is hoping to ever so slightly slow the rate at which things turn to shit through increasing statism, then you're completely delusional to think anything can be really be changed through voting.

Even the comapritively anti-statist "tea party movement" stinks. The majority of them aren't truly interested in liberty, given most of them would have supported the invasion of Iraq and have shown themselves to be vehemently anti-immigration.

And besides, what's the point?

Even if by some complete absolute, well, "miracle", Ron Paul somehow magically became president (the MSM and other republicans with corporate buddies will stop him before he even has any chance of getting close to even the presidential nomination), manages to pass some reforms to work towards a smaller government and is succeded by another libertarian who does the same, governemnt is just going to grow back over time. Always.
This might sound like some irrelevant anti-statist rant here, but aiming for a limited governemnt makes about as much sense as trimming down a malignant tumor and hoping it won't grow back.
But, of course, it always does, and the only REAL solution is to completely remove the tumor.

And voting doesn't "remove tumors", so to speak.

[DavidLeyonhjelm]

7.

The acolytes of neo-conservatism still retain a strong presence in the GOP, despite delivering the United States two expensive, protracted, foreign wars.

As soon as I read stuff like this, I know I'm not dealing with someone who doesn't know what they are talking about.

Anti-war means pacifism and/or isolationism. Libertarian means the supremacy of the individual. Neo-conservative is the term used by someone who calls himself a libertarian to criticise someone who is neither left wing nor anti-war.

And wanking includes pretending you own the libertarian definition.

[DavidLeyonhjelm]

8.

Oops, that should read:
As soon as I read stuff like this, I know I'm not dealing with someone who knows what they are talking about.

[TerjeP]

9.

None the less the GOP has delivered the United States two protracted expensive foreign wars. You can be anti a particular war without being a pacifist. The Ron Paul for president campaign received donations from mote military people than any other presidential campaign. If military people are in general pacifists then I'm a monkeys uncle.

David, we do agree that the power to take Australia to war should be vested in the parliament and should require a supermajority (ie bipartisan support).

[TerjeP]

10.

OT - for Menzies House regulars interested in seeing a picture of me on the campaign trail in Bennelong see here:-

http://blog.libertarian.org.au/2010/07/24/out-campaigning-in-bennelong/

;-)

[Riet Rotherham]

11.

Islamic Fundamentalists? My bad. I thought the Iraq war was the one where we were overthrowing the Baathist dictator. I didn't think we'd have revisionist historians only 7 years after the war started.

[TerjeP]

12.

Tim Andrews - I think there is little chance of reforming the Liberal Party into something worth voting for. However I'm more than happy to be proven wrong. As it stands they have little to offer libertarian voters other than rhetoric. Show me the light and tell me why you are more hopeful.

[Angry Conservative]

13.

The writer snarls:
"Neo-cons and DC hacks should not be allowed to vandalize the Republican brand any longer."
then we read the following information about him:
"Dan Whitfield is a writer living in Washington, DC ..."

So, if you're a non-libertarian Republican living in DC you're a "hack" but apparently not if you're a libertarian Republican who lives there. (???!!!)

My advice to conservatives is this:
Treat libertarians the same way that Labor treats the Greens. That is, understand that we share the same broad economic views as them (just as the Greens do with Labor -look at the RSPT policy) and preference them ahead of certain other parties. However, steer well away from their social agenda. Australian politics is centrist by nature: we generally reject the extremes of both socialist statism and unbridled individualism, both of which are doomed to fail.

[Michael Sutcliffe]

14.

Australian politics is centrist by nature: we generally reject the extremes of both socialist statism and unbridled individualism, both of which are doomed to fail.

You are correct in that Australian politics is centrist by nature, and probably always will be. But unfortunately for Australia, centrism equals mediocrity. It's like looking at a plate of fresh vegetables and another plate of arsenic and saying 'I'm not sure which way to go so I'll just have a little bit of both'. As I've said elsewhere on this site, Australia was built on luck for the most part; so far we've inherited or stumbled upon everything that makes this country good. The luck will run out and Australians don't have much to fall back on. That's unless they work out how wealth is produced, that the government can't change reality, make them successful or save them from themselves.

But, hey, she'll be right mate! This generation will be quite well off, and the next will probably be OK as well. The rot won't set in for a while yet!

[Angry Conservative]

15.

Michael, I accept that we are "the lucky country" to the extent that we sit on a vast reservoir of mineral deposits and other sources of economic fortune, but don't you also believe that people make their own luck?

However, I think your comment about not having much to fall back on is 100% correct. Your comment about wealth creation and reality is exactly right and very well put.

On another matter, I would like to make a correction to the earlier post I made in which I stated that conservatives share the same broad economic views as libertarians. In fact, libertarians often have better economic views, if the so-called "conservative" leader Tony Abbott is anything to go by.
I am so infuriated by his Paid Parental Leave policy that I am beginning to harbour a desire that he loses this election. As a conservative, I hate the PPl policy. It is not "visionary" as Abbott claims. It is absolute rubbish!
The State should either pay all mothers the same amount for having a baby or not pay them at all. The latter is my instinctive position, although I do think it's right that governments provide some family tax benefits that acknowledge the costs associated with raising children and the economic benefits that children bring to our nation's future.

Peter Van Onselen was probably right: Abbott is a good attack dog but a poor leader.

[Michael Sutcliffe]

16.

but don't you also believe that people make their own luck?

Yes I do. Which is why I'm a little worried that Australia might not amount to much in two or three generations (i.e. middling mediocre poor cousin of asia etc). Not that it matters to those of us here now I suppose, but I think we all like to work towards creating something of value and beauty.

At the risk of having this thread meander everywhere, I've got to say I've warmed to Abbott (parental leave aside). I think if he had a good deputy he could be one of the better PMs (let's face it: Menzies aside the bar isn't that high!). I also think he went better in the debate than channel 7 gave him credit for. The body language between Gillard and Abbott at the conclusion said a lot. She looked to be on the defensive.

[.]

17.

"unbridled individualism...doomed to fail."

What an ingrained culture of being a loser we have. I'm sorry but this ingrained loser aspect of collectivism we have instilled into us along with the tall poppy syndrome really make me sick as an Australian.

We don't have to be like the Yanks. We can beat them on the world stage without turning into full of ourselves.

Tell that prediction to Jessica Watson, Dick Smith, Singo...it's completely untrue. Even our greatest colimonial Governor, Macquarie, was a success because of his unbridled individualism.

All this prediction forbears is occassional failure at the hand of meddlers with no chance of success at anything paticularly desireable or noble themselves.

[TerjeP]

18.

Angry - if conservatives take on the economics of libertarians but not the social policies it would still be a huge improvement. However divorcing social issues from economic thinking is a grave mistake in my view. For instance the war on drugs is a futile and stupid undertaking because it refuses to consider the issue from an economic perspective, both in terms of what policy option costs the taxpayer least, what creates incentives for users and suppliers and how these incentives impact on property crime and violence.

The Liberal party is happy to get votes from libertarians. However it is very hard to find any issue on which the Liberal Party is more libertarian than conservative. I'd challenge anybody to find one.