Libertarians have many reasons to be disillusioned with the GOP, including Republican overspending, social intolerance, civil liberties infringements, and the floundering war in Iraq. Lest you think that list of failures just another iteration of moonbat talking points, please note that it's lifted verbatim from this Cato analysis (pdf), which also comments that "Libertarians preferred George W. Bush over Al Gore by 72 to 20 percent, but Bush’s margin dropped in 2004 to 59-38 over John Kerry." Any bets what that margin will be in the 2006 races? Markos' attempt to recruit Libertarians to the Democrats was derided by many conservatives, and to be sure I wouldn't claim the Democratic Party is a comfortable fit -- but after Libertarians have spent the last 6 years watching Republicans striving to undermine pretty much every principle important to them, many are willing to give Democrats a chance.
There's another dynamic at play, however, that on the surface has little to do with policy: Libertarians are repelled by the campaigns many Republicans are running. This is not to say they necessarily approve of those run by Democrats, of course, but the vitriol, hypocrisy, and blatant mischaracterizations coming from what many still see as "their side" are too much to accept. From Santorum's increasingly wild flailing at Casey, to Allen's use of an out-of-context quote from a novel(!) to attack Webb, Libertarians are through defending Republican excesses. The coup de grâce may have been the massive outrage echoing through the conservative blogosphere after Kerry flubbed his jab at Bush and seemingly implied the troops were uneducated. Red State had something like a bazillion front-page stories smacking Kerry. Even Bush jumped on the pile, calling Kerry's remarks "insulting" and "shameful." But the vote-Republican-because-Kerry-hates-the-troops strategy is backfiring with Libertarians such as John Cole:
I wish Kerry had not made the remark (or phrased it better), but really, it changes nothing. The Republican party has no plan for Iraq other than rhetorical shifts, their policies are not constructed or implemented to actually accomplish anything but rather to maintain Congressional power, and we all will be better off if the GOP is swept out of power. The Republicans are corrupt, morally bankrupt, have no ideas, no principles, and are hoping upon hope that this latest distraction will help to stop the bleeding. Unfortunately, the bleeding they care about is at the polls and not the bleeding in Iraq.
I know it's obvious, but it ought to be said. John Kerry isn't Jim Webb. He isn't Claire McCaskill. He isn't Jon Tester. For the Sean Hannities of the world to say that you ought to vote for George Allen because of something John Kerry said is like saying you should vote for Jim Webb because Conrad Burns disparaged firefighters. [...] Yes, Kerry's an idiot. But no, he doesn't think the U.S. military is stupid. A little Occam's Razor here, gang.
there's no reason to believe
(#6514)that libertarians are more upset than the rest of the pop. at negative R campaigning. That's just speculation on yer part. perhaps they're happy about it.
iow, john cole is only a data point, not a data set.
I'm not too fond of it ...
(#6659)... one reason being that both sides have reached levels of disingenuousness that are frankly insulting to the voters' intelligence. The Kerry flap included.
Nobody really thinks he actually meant to say American soldiers are stupid, after all.
- reply
parentNot 1 but 2 data points = data set!
(#6523)But seriously, I think there's several possible reasons why Libertarians would be particularly upset:
(1) They are practical and logical when it comes to evaluating government programs -- not squishy and emotional like liberals. As such, it's disturbing to see the Republican appeals to emotion ("support the troops!") running counter to reason (who doesn't?).
(2) The negative campaigning often takes the form of chastising the Democrat for lack of "morals" and "values" or other such things that Libertarians feel are really none of the business of politicians.
(3) Being nominally third-party voters, they aren't as invested in buying the partisan line, and so they distrust it more readily than entrenched conservatives.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
- reply
parentPractical and logical
(#6535)Doesn't sound like Libertarians to me. "Practical and logical" may be an important part of their self-image, but I've rarely seen it in their behavior - they tend to be True Believers. Sort of reverse-Communists.
- reply
parentBut consider this
(#6529)It's pretty much an agreed principle that negative campaigning makes the public more cynical about politicians and makes governing, and thus making policy, more difficult.
Seems to me like Libertarians would love that. Sure they don't like seeing people picked on because they're gay or whatever, but so long as the net result is weaker government, well you've gotta break a few eggs, ya know?
- reply
parentHmmm ...
(#6660)... good point. :)
I've never actually thought of it that way. But now that you mention it, it is kind of a 'King Log' type of situation. We keep trying to appeal to reason (hence the magazine), but a politics that's dominated by reason is going to make people more trusting of the state.
What we need is to fill the government with insane partisan zealots ...
- reply
parentIf Democrats should win big
(#6345)By win big, I mean beat expectations, e.g., take the Senate and pick up 35 or more seats in the House.
If that should happen, there could be a salutary effect even beyond the primary salutary effect of kicking the bums out and bringing the angels in. The effect is that the unprecedentedly nasty--at least it's unprecedented in recent decades--campaigning that the Republicans are doing might be seen to backfire.
You always hear the political pros say that even though people always claim to hate negative campaigning, it still works and so they go back to the well when the need arises. Wouldnt' it be great if the biggest and dirties round of negative ads ever run laid a great big egg and in fact even set off a backlash? Maybe they'd think twice about that crap in the future.
Yup
(#6348)I love to say I-told-you-so =) Steele is running a classy campaign and gaining in Maryland while Allen is throwing as much sleaze as he can at Webb and tanking in Virginia.
I dearly hope you're right and this election cycle squashes the idea that negative campaigning is the best way to win.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
- reply
parentLess than a week left
(#6310)to convince moderates and fence-sitters that Republicans are the most reasonable, most effective, most principled party, to talk-up GOP candidates in close races, to make a case for why incumbents deserve another chance and challengers will change the climate in DC -- and over at Red State 15 of 20 front-page posts are about Kerry.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
No offense to Red State
(#6531)but is it really that important to Republican campaign strategy? And anyway, in my experience, people vote more by party than by candidate, and vote more against parties than for them, so I don't see why Kerry bashing would be a problem.
- reply
parentAhh, don't worry.
(#6542)Nobody over there ever gets offended.
Ever.
Excess on occasion is exhilarating. It prevents moderation from acquiring the deadening effect of a habit. - W. Somerset Maugham
- reply
parentThey're pathetic
(#6378)But I can't blame them that much, they've gotta hold the faith somehow. The fact of the matter is that by trying too hard to maintain message discipline and wielding the blammo stick or compensate-for-my-offline-inadequacies stick or whatever they do, they've managed to make their community both crazier and far less effective than kos. Admittedly, having to defend the behavior of actual republicans makes things hard.
Had they just accepted the fact that this is the internet, maybe they woulda been something worthwhile. As it is, they're a just bunch of sophist simpletons with the worst of the republican talking points and zero credibility.
- reply
parentSince neither Party is reasonable, effective or principled,
(#6319)I do believe thant anyone relying on a political party for clarity and aid is really out of luck...
The K Codes explained HERE.
- reply
parentBesides, he's assuming that....
(#6324)....the fence-sitters are trolling web sites looking for a nuanced last-minute debate. Hah! My Granny used to wait 'till the last minute and then plunk down for who she thought was the better-looking candidate. (She had a better track record than the rest of us in picking winners from Reagan on, too.)
-“It is unwise for the government to tell people how they can spend their money” - Barney Frank, Chairman House Financial Services Committee, on on-line gambling, 2009
- reply
parentHehe
(#6335)Fair enough, but the people who read partisan websites are generally involved with GOTV and trying to persuade fence-sitters offline, and they push whatever line they're reading. The impact of a political site goes beyond the immediate (already partisan) readers.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
- reply
parentPossible, I suppose - but I'm dubious that any such effect
(#6363)reaches very far -- if at all.
The K Codes explained HERE.
- reply
parentOk, well the broader point
(#6372)about negative campaigning turning off Libertarian (or moderate) voters stands regardless of how you feel about the relevance of my criticism of the effectiveness of the (OMG what a horrible sentence!) attacks launched by the conservative blogosphere.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
- reply
parentAgree but would point out that the leftish blogosphere
(#6386)is just as guilty.
The K Codes explained HERE.
- reply
parent