Do You Think Libertarians Are More Welcomed In Democratic Party?

[GopBlackList]

Was looking at this old thread and thought I resurrect it in the post 2012 elections. Totally forgot about it.

Democratic party is terrible, Repubs at least pay lip-service to a lot of conservative-libertarian ideas which allows us to claim Republicanism; imagine being a democrat who's anti-welfare & therefore "anti-poor people"

So you're saying there are absolute ZERO Ron Paul supporters in your locality? I don't believe that there'd have to be a couple (or more) out there somewhere, look on the facebook or whatever, they must be out there so even if you find a couple of RP-supporters then I'm sure you'll feel less "out of place"

My impression of the thread's original question: how totally naive. Maybe I am the naive one.

Perhaps the original poster should have asked, "Do Libertarians Realize They Are Unwelcome in the Republican Party?".

You can spin libertarian ideas into a Democratic party framework if you so choose. It is convoluted, but the same applies on the other side of the aisle. Libertarians in the Republican party are like black people in the Democratic party: taken for granted. If you don't withold your support, you'll never get anywhere. Upon witholding that support, it is your choice as to where to go (independent, Libertarian Party (official), or Democratic party).

I completely disagree with socialism at the federal level, but I'm not opposed to welfare programs at the state level if they want to go that route. In this sense, I could see someone running as a 'Ron Paul' democrat; pro-welfare, but not at the federal level.

I've found that a lot of democrats actually really like Ron Paul. Watch the Bill Maher episode where he had Ron Paul on, back in 2007 I believe -- Paul got pretty heavy cheering from the crowd, and Bill Maher's audience tends to be rather liberal. Bill Maher actually really likes Paul, too, though of course he doesn't agree with him on everything. All but one of my democrat friends are hoping Paul wins the republican nominee, because they aren't really all that happy with President Obama. Two of them actually commented that, were Paul to win, they'd seriously consider voting for him. And note that these are liberals, not moderate/independents.

I'd also like to point out that we're pretty out of place in the current Republican party. Argue all you want that we're the true Republicans (I agree), but we have to realize that the true Republicans aren't the majority anymore.

Personally, I think Santorum or Gingrich would be a far worse disaster than Obama. Not that Obama has been good, but at least Obama can show restraint in some departments. Were Santorum president, we'd surely have nuked iran, and contraceptives would probably be a Schedule I drug. Were Gingrich president we'd probably be in basically the same place as we are now, except with moon bases and executions for pot smokers.

Personally, I think both parties are equally wrong. At least Democrats are honest about being big government, though. A lot of modern Republicans talk the talk, but when push comes to shove they vote for the drug war, federal marriage amendment, patriot act, NDAA, SOPA, and pro-empire building. Can someone please tell me how any of those things are pro-libertarian?

Liberty brings people together. Even democrats.

rings true..or TRUE DAT!

 

[Christian Liberty]

It easy for us to say that but some of us have friends who are "minorities" and may have a difficult time joining the Republican party. Let's not forget that Libertarians share the same point of view when it comes to social issues with Democrats.

Not really. Abortion is kind of an up for debate issue, but there are a LOT of libertarians who agree with Ron Paul on the issue and are pro-life. Gay marriage is also tricky because the libertarian view is complete separation of marriage and state, and until we get there, what exactly to do RIGHT NOW is tricky. Civil unions are kind of a no-brainer to me, even though I personally don't agree with their lifestyle, but gay marriage is trickier. Justin Raimondo is a libertarian homosexual who's against it. I don't personally think the government should be redefining terms like this, and I'm not the only libertarian who thinks this.

Drugs, prostitution, those types of freedom issues... Dems are generally against them. They're generally fails on the Patriot Act or TSA and stuff. They're generally against gun rights.

Not exactly. Today's liberals are just like the conservatives except on the opposite end of the issue. Regardless of personal views we don't want to use the force of the state to try and push our views on society. We just want the state out of these social issues in general, but you can still be personally socially conservative or personally socially liberal. It's really just more about the role of the state.

This is why I don't like the fiscally conservative/socially liberal view of libertarianism. It's more of a rejection of the initiation of violence/force and then applying that principle consistently. I'm neither socially liberal/socially conservative personally. I'm more, "do as you please and leave me alone".

Yeah, basically.

Surely you jest. How about their views on The Drug War, abortion, spending.

I agree with you on the other stuff, but you can't just casually throw abortion in there. Some of us really do believe abortion is murder and therefore a violation of the NAP. Ron Paul agrees with us. That one isn't even settled among libertarians, even though the LP stupidly pretends like it is.

Nonsense. How on earth is the GOP even remotely close to libertarian ideal on anything? They throw a few words around like 'capitalism' and 'small government' and then proceed to spend more than the democrats. And are you saying you honestly believe the GOP is libertarian on social issues?

There was a poll on this forum a few weeks ago about who people thought would be the most dangerous. The republican candidates far outstripped Obama. So why on earth do libertarians automatically flock to the republican party? There is truly no reason for this - and it is unfortunate, because it leads to the perception that libertarians are just selfish republicans who want to smoke pot. Either we should try and infiltrate both parties, or we should work with the Libertarian Party.

Obama may well have been better than any of the Republicans except for Ron Paul and Gary Johnson (Both of whom were MILLIONS of times better than Obama, and Ron Paul was in turn a million times better than Gary Johnson) if only because his foreign policy was less jingoistic, but he's still terrible.

As a TACTICAL matter, however, Republican rhetoric is more inclined towards limited government, so its easier to use genuine libertarian rhetoric in that party. What the GOP SAYS is closer to that, even though what they DO is not.

It depends on what is most important to you. Party or principle? It depends on where you live and what the constituents of that locale want from their elected officials. Political parties are vehicles. They are not the goal. They help you reach your goal. Many liberty minded activists, austrians, and libertarians are moving into the Republican party because of Ron Paul and with good reason. But running as a Democrat offers an individual to emphasize a sound foreign policy, civil liberties, health freedom, and ending the drug war with little to no opposition.

In general Democrats like to hear about ending the wars, bringing the troops home, alternative medicine, less regulation over renewable energies, keeping the internet free, gay marriage, ending the Patriot Act, industrial hemp, etc. Fiscal responsibility is also an issue that is important to Democrats but needs to be well worded in order to not alienate oneself.

What political party can propel the liberty message forward in your community? Whichever party that may be, is the one you ought to get involved in.

Democrats aren't always high on civil liberties and anti-war positions either. It all depends.

My impression of the thread's original question: how totally naive. Maybe I am the naive one.

Perhaps the original poster should have asked, "Do Libertarians Realize They Are Unwelcome in the Republican Party?".

You can spin libertarian ideas into a Democratic party framework if you so choose. It is convoluted, but the same applies on the other side of the aisle. Libertarians in the Republican party are like black people in the Democratic party: taken for granted. If you don't withold your support, you'll never get anywhere. Upon witholding that support, it is your choice as to where to go (independent, Libertarian Party (official), or Democratic party).

More importantly, just don't vote for bad GOP candidates, whatever party you're in.

 

[Brett85]

Surely you jest. How about their views on The Drug War, abortion, spending.

A lot of libertarians are opposed to legal abortion.

 

[Christian Liberty]

A lot of libertarians are opposed to legal abortion.

Yeah, I think its amazing how many people just casually make this "Mistake." I think any real libertarian would at least respect the pro-life movement, if they haven't even considered it at all they probably don't really understand the NAP. Genuine libertarians usually don't emphasize this issue either, ESPECIALLY on the pro-choice side, there are a LOT of other freedoms even if this one was a legitimate one.

 

[WhistlinDave]

The irony of this is, Obama has not been good on civil liberties at all. Renewed the Patriot Act, signed the NDAA, and completely broke his campaign promises on the war on drugs. And let's not even get started on his misuse of drones, and all the innocent people killed by them. And most Democrats seem to turn a blind eye to it all. They go on pretending they're all for personal Liberty while cheering on their leader who is one of the worst presidents ever in terms of defending civil liberties. He talks the talk, but doesn't walk--he slithers in a puddle of mud.

I wish I could take control of the airwaves for a while and convince all Liberty minded people, especially all the Independents who don't even bother to vote out of sheer disgust--to suddenly jump onboard with the Libertarian Party. The main reason a third party will never be viable is because too many people believe a third party can never be viable. It's a self-fulfilling prophesy. But if all the Independents realized at once how many of them there are, and they all started voting against the two big parties, the whole game would change dramatically. (Wishful thinking. I know.)

 

[Anti Federalist]

Meh, they will be no more welcome in the democrat party than they are in the GOP.

The parties represent people, and most people hate freedom and want nothing to do with it.

 

[Christian Liberty]

The irony of this is, Obama has not been good on civil liberties at all. Renewed the Patriot Act, signed the NDAA, and completely broke his campaign promises on the war on drugs. And let's not even get started on his misuse of drones, and all the innocent people killed by them. And most Democrats seem to turn a blind eye to it all. They go on pretending they're all for personal Liberty while cheering on their leader who is one of the worst presidents ever in terms of defending civil liberties. He talks the talk, but doesn't walk--he slithers in a puddle of mud.

I wish I could take control of the airwaves for a while and convince all Liberty minded people, especially all the Independents who don't even bother to vote out of sheer disgust--to suddenly jump onboard with the Libertarian Party. The main reason a third party will never be viable is because too many people believe a third party can never be viable. It's a self-fulfilling prophesy. But if all the Independents realized at once how many of them there are, and they all started voting against the two big parties, the whole game would change dramatically. (Wishful thinking. I know.)

I think you're right. And I should note that me saying Obama may have been less bad than some of the others doesn't mean I would have voted for him. If I could have voted I would have voted for Gary Johnson in the LP, and of course for Ron Paul in the GOP primary.

That said, I do honestly think Obama is showing a little bit of restraint on foreign policy when compared to what Romney or especially Gingrich or Santorum would be doing right now. He's still terrible, yes, but I think the GOP would be worse. Civil liberties, by contrast, is pretty bad across the board.

I'll be voting for third party unless Rand Paul or someone else of similar or better quality is running in one of the major parties (This probably means Rand Paul but I just felt like pointing out in the theoretical even that Judge Nap or something won the GOP nomination I would still vote for him.)

 

[DamianTV]

Meh, they will be no more welcome in the democrat party than they are in the GOP.

The parties represent people, and most people hate freedom and want nothing to do with it.

and the parties hate freedom even more than the people. And the powers behind the politicians hate freedom even more than the politicians they buy.

 

[WhistlinDave]

Meh, they will be no more welcome in the democrat party than they are in the GOP.

The parties represent people, and most people hate freedom and want nothing to do with it.

and the parties hate freedom even more than the people. And the powers behind the politicians hate freedom even more than the politicians they buy.

Well if we didn't have the government to tell us not to use heroin, we would all probably be using heroin right now.

 

[sailingaway]

If you feel more comfortable there and want to work there you should. We should be in all parties, where that party can win, they really aren't different much at the establishment level. However, most of our organization is in the GOP, I certainly see that growing.

 

[Origanalist]

If you feel more comfortable there and want to work there you should. We should be in all parties, where that party can win, they really aren't different much at the establishment level. However, most of our organization is in the GOP, I certainly see that growing.

Can't really argue with that, but the concepts of liberty might be more forcefully resisted in the dem side.

 

[Weston White]

Ron Paul did get 2nd in both the New Hampshire Republican Primary and the New Hampshire Democratic Primary but the percentages were way different. Ron Paul received 23% of the GOP Primary and won around 1/4 of the towns. He only received 4% of the Democratic Primary (it had to be write-in) so I wouldn't say they are the same. At least not everywhere. Perhaps they are the same where you live.

Generally, Dems vote only for those with a "D" next to their name, and visa versa. Though I fail to see how a party's voters equate to either parties politicians? Voters are not exactly purvey to party politics, to what takes place behind the scenes. etc. They in large, are left to digest only the sound bites selectively thrown at them by their favorite media outlets, that is namely propaganda.

 

[sailingaway]

Can't really argue with that, but the concepts of liberty might be more forcefully resisted in the dem side.

The oppression part, not being able to spend your own earnings as you want and insane nanny state regulations, yeah, but a lot of Dems are very upset about NDAA, drones, the police state, the neverending wars, etc. It will depend on what is most important to them, but Ron has supporters who were Dems and love Ron for his positions on those civil liberties and war issues, but might fit in with the Democratic party -- which is great. Some states it is going to be hard for a Republican to win. Better to get a 'better Democrat' at least.

 

[BamaAla]

The oppression part, not being able to spend your own earnings as you want and insane nanny state regulations, yeah, but a lot of Dems are very upset about NDAA, drones, the police state, the neverending wars, etc. It will depend on what is most important to them, but Ron has supporters who were Dems and love Ron for his positions on those civil liberties and war issues, but might fit in with the Democratic party -- which is great. Some states it is going to be hard for a Republican to win. Better to get a 'better Democrat' at least.

I haven't met any Democrats upset about any of that. They may give some lip service or say they are a little disappointed, but as soon as they can, they take back to trashing Republicans. I swear the only issue that I ever hear Democrats talk about is taxing the "rich" and snatching guns.

 

[Origanalist]

The oppression part, not being able to spend your own earnings as you want and insane nanny state regulations, yeah, but a lot of Dems are very upset about NDAA, drones, the police state, the neverending wars, etc. It will depend on what is most important to them, but Ron has supporters who were Dems and love Ron for his positions on those civil liberties and war issues, but might fit in with the Democratic party -- which is great. Some states it is going to be hard for a Republican to win. Better to get a 'better Democrat' at least.

I know there is a segment that are disillusioned, just as there was with Bush and his non-interventionalist rhetoric ;

"GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH: I'm not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say this is the way it's got to be. We can help. And maybe it's just our difference in government, the way we view government. I mean I want to empower people. I want to help people help themselves, not have government tell people what to do. I just don't think it's the role of the United States to walk into a country and say, we do it this way, so should you."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec00/for-policy_10-12.html

 

[Antischism]

Isn't the Green Party to Democrats what the Libertarian Party is to Republicans? Granted, there is a left-leaning side of American libertarianism.

I think if we're to make any inroads on the left, we would start by acknowledging what we agree on, and working to achieve that. The more liberty-minded people we can get on both sides the better. While economics and social issues may differ, we can all agree on ending both the wars abroad and war at home, that being the war on drugs. That alone would be life-changing and an incredible victory. People like Cynthia McKinney are my allies, not enemies. The real enemies are the Bushes and Obamas of the world. That's who I want to eliminate, not people who share my biggest goals in common, primarily ending the U.S.'s status as "policemen of the world."

 

[Origanalist]

Isn't the Green Party to Democrats what the Libertarian Party is to Republicans? Granted, there is a left-leaning side of American libertarianism.

I think if we're to make any inroads on the left, we would start by acknowledging what we agree on, and working to achieve that. The more liberty-minded people we can get on both sides the better. While economics and social issues may differ, we can all agree on ending both the wars abroad and war at home, that being the war on drugs. That alone would be life-changing and an incredible victory. People like Cynthia McKinney are my allies, not enemies. The real enemies are the Bushes and Obamas of the world. That's who I want to eliminate, not people who share my biggest goals in common, primarily ending the U.S.'s status as "policemen of the world."

It would be nice to find common cause, but they insist on regulating us.

 

[Dogsoldier]

Lets face it...The main reason that libertarians are on the GOP side is because they give lip service for the 2nd amendment. They never do anything to advance it but they hold the line of scrimmage. We as libertarians know that once they take guns away the game is over. George washington said ""Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth"

 

[The Northbreather]

I just say that personally its been easier to turn some of my democrat friends on to the liberty cause than some of my establishment GOP friends.

I think its because the my dem friends are strong pro-peace (as am I) and just needed to see how liberty is the path.

My GOP friends are much more "hail to the chief no matter what" types. They understand libertarian concepts for a minute but slide back into the old us versus them toxic dichotomy as soon as FOX comes back on.

 

[compromise]

The left-libertarians have really come out to roost.

Well it doesn't come as a surprise since NH is the Live Free Die Free state. I am sure other places where the Republican party is entrenched in the bible belt it might be difficult for libertarians to be accepted. You also have to consider that some not all Republicans consider their party an all Caucasian club and may look down upon anyone who is outside of their circle. For example, Hispanics or Muslims might have a better chance joining the Democratic party than the Republican party.

Raul Labrador...Ted Cruz...the GOP is by no means anti-Hispanic. Roughly 1/3 of Hispanics currently vote Republican and far more would consider doing so if the right candidate came by. Muslims, maybe, but they don't make up very much of the overall population.

It easy for us to say that but some of us have friends who are "minorities" and may have a difficult time joining the Republican party. Let's not forget that Libertarians share the same point of view when it comes to social issues with Democrats.

I am a minority (Indian-American) and I have no problem with the Republican Party. I think you're stuck in the past. Libertarians do not agree with the Democrats' use of the federal government to push secular and culturally liberal values.

Nonsense. How on earth is the GOP even remotely close to libertarian ideal on anything? They throw a few words around like 'capitalism' and 'small government' and then proceed to spend more than the democrats. And are you saying you honestly believe the GOP is libertarian on social issues?

There was a poll on this forum a few weeks ago about who people thought would be the most dangerous. The republican candidates far outstripped Obama. So why on earth do libertarians automatically flock to the republican party? There is truly no reason for this - and it is unfortunate, because it leads to the perception that libertarians are just selfish republicans who want to smoke pot. Either we should try and infiltrate both parties, or we should work with the Libertarian Party.

Can I have a link to that poll? Seems like an exaggeration.

The oppression part, not being able to spend your own earnings as you want and insane nanny state regulations, yeah, but a lot of Dems are very upset about NDAA, drones, the police state, the neverending wars, etc. It will depend on what is most important to them, but Ron has supporters who were Dems and love Ron for his positions on those civil liberties and war issues, but might fit in with the Democratic party -- which is great. Some states it is going to be hard for a Republican to win. Better to get a 'better Democrat' at least.

A lot of Dems aren't upset. http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/...now-support-drone-strikes-keeping-gitmo-open/
To be honest, at the moment the GOP grassroots are more concerned with civil liberties and avoiding humanitarian intervention (like Libya) than the Dems, as they are in opposition.