Are Republicans Turning Into Libertarians?

[dps]

White Evangelical (or born agains) form a larger part of the GOP vote than Black or union voters do the Democrats.  I read the survey Silver's talking about with the gay issue.  The problem is that while the Republicans inside the beltway seem to believe that the gay thing isn't a winner any more those outside the beltway overwhelming think it either is or that doesn't matter (only 40% 'insiders' in DC think the GOP should oppose gay marriage, while 60-70% think the party should).  Now I agree the Republicans will eventually reconcile themselves to gay marriage.  Except for a few holdouts, though, I don't think it'll happen for another 5-10 years.

While younger Republicans are overwhelmingly disinterested in gay marriage and generally believe in climate change they still, equally overwhelmingly, are pro-life.  So I don't think that issue's ever going to go away.

I also don't think the Republicans will shift to a libertarian foreign policy view any time soon, and if they do they'll renege on it when they're in office.

And, simply put, I think with the exception of the Sarah Palin option the Ron Paul Libertarian one is the most likely to produce kooks and the least likely to win elections.  I think both styles of conservatism have low ceilings.

Edit: Plus who, on a national scale, would you identify with this strand of the party?  The only one I can think of is Mark Sanford who I think could be a very persuasive candidate.  But that's it.

I don't understand several parts of your post, particularly, "(only 40% 'insiders' in DC think the GOP should oppose gay marriage, while 60-70% think the party should)".  I think you maybe meant 60-70% of the party rank-and-file (or simply, those outside the beltway), but I'm not sure.

And I'm not sure what a libertarian foreign policy would mean.  As best that I can tell, it seems that libertarians are generally non-interventionist, but there are exceptions (and also diferences between those who equate non-interventionist with isolationist and those who don't), and most people are talking about domestic policy when they talk about libertarianism.

[Sheilbh]

I don't understand several parts of your post, particularly, "(only 40% 'insiders' in DC think the GOP should oppose gay marriage, while 60-70% think the party should)".  I think you maybe meant 60-70% of the party rank-and-file (or simply, those outside the beltway), but I'm not sure.

Yeah.  Sorry, I literally meant outside of the beltway.  The poll he's referring to when he says this 'Republican insiders are increasingly uncertain about whether gay marriage, which was such an important issue for the party over 2000-2004, is any longer a winning issue at all for them.' was a poll of party 'insiders'.  Now I assume that means party figures or strategists, or elected officials. 

40% of the ones based in Washington think the GOP should keep shtum about gay marriage, about 40% oppose it and 20% support it.  Those based in the states breakdown to something like 60% oppose it, 30% don't think the party should have a policy and 10% support it (I think a little less, actually).

And I'm not sure what a libertarian foreign policy would mean.  As best that I can tell, it seems that libertarians are generally non-interventionist, but there are exceptions (and also diferences between those who equate non-interventionist with isolationist and those who don't), and most people are talking about domestic policy when they talk about libertarianism.

I think they're generally non-interventionist, I believe in Sanford's few statements on foreign policy take that line.

But you're right about them being associated with domestic policy.  So my question would be are the libertarians taking over the Republican party, or are domestic issues more prominent than at any time in the past 7 years?  I think the latter's true which is why I find the former more difficult to believe.

[dps]

I don't understand several parts of your post, particularly, "(only 40% 'insiders' in DC think the GOP should oppose gay marriage, while 60-70% think the party should)".  I think you maybe meant 60-70% of the party rank-and-file (or simply, those outside the beltway), but I'm not sure.

Yeah.  Sorry, I literally meant outside of the beltway.  The poll he's referring to when he says this 'Republican insiders are increasingly uncertain about whether gay marriage, which was such an important issue for the party over 2000-2004, is any longer a winning issue at all for them.' was a poll of party 'insiders'.  Now I assume that means party figures or strategists, or elected officials. 

40% of the ones based in Washington think the GOP should keep shtum about gay marriage, about 40% oppose it and 20% support it.  Those based in the states breakdown to something like 60% oppose it, 30% don't think the party should have a policy and 10% support it (I think a little less, actually).

And I'm not sure what a libertarian foreign policy would mean.  As best that I can tell, it seems that libertarians are generally non-interventionist, but there are exceptions (and also diferences between those who equate non-interventionist with isolationist and those who don't), and most people are talking about domestic policy when they talk about libertarianism.

I think they're generally non-interventionist, I believe in Sanford's few statements on foreign policy take that line.

But you're right about them being associated with domestic policy.  So my question would be are the libertarians taking over the Republican party, or are domestic issues more prominent than at any time in the past 7 years?  I think the latter's true which is why I find the former more difficult to believe.

Oh, I have no doubt that domestic policy is more prominent now than any time since 10 September 2001.  That said, the GOP lost big last year, and it needs to decide what direction it needs to go in.  Whether or not they go in a libertarian direction remains to be seen, but it's a possibility.

[Razgovory]

Now if Republicans just turned into Fahdiz I suppose that would be okay.  Lock up your daughters though.

[Martinus]

I thought letting fags marry was the biggest threat? 

Well, you thought like Lit.

What does it mean?

[fhdz]

Now if Republicans just turned into Fahdiz I suppose that would be okay.  Lock up your daughters though.

I'm a one-woman man these days.

And I think I've come to terms with the fact that I've evolved into pretty much a moderate Democrat.

[Norgy]

What's with all the evolution these days? It makes it hard to stereotype people. 

[saskganesh]

ya well, evolution is not taught in schools, thus it means anything you want.

[MadImmortalMan]

That said, I don't see libertarianism squaring with the batshit Jingonism of Hansmeister or Glenn Beck.  Taxes are needed for military equipment, at the very least.

I was under the impression that both of those guys leaned fairly libertarian. Just not in foreign policy.

[fhdz]

What's with all the evolution these days? It makes it hard to stereotype people. 

Meh, ideology's all well and good, but it doesn't Get Shit Done.  A fat, bloated, intrusive government isn't a good thing either, but there's a happy medium...since taxes and government spending aren't going away, as much as Ron Paul would like them to.

I think I just realized that my economic politics are gradually becoming more practical the older I get, while my social politics are pretty laissez-faire.

[derspiess]

What's with all the evolution these days? It makes it hard to stereotype people. 

Meh, ideology's all well and good, but it doesn't Get Shit Done.  A fat, bloated, intrusive government isn't a good thing either, but there's a happy medium...since taxes and government spending aren't going away, as much as Ron Paul would like them to.

I think I just realized that my economic politics are gradually becoming more practical the older I get, while my social politics are pretty laissez-faire.

   The End of Librarytarianism?

[Berkut]

Republicans are not turning into Libertarians.

However, if they slide quite a bit further towards libertarianism, that would be a very good thing.

[fhdz]

   The End of Librarytarianism?

Pretty much.  I'm now kind of on the domestic equivalent of realpolitik.

[Martinus]

fahdiz - The Man for All Seasons

[Ed Anger]

What's with all the evolution these days? It makes it hard to stereotype people. 

Meh, ideology's all well and good, but it doesn't Get Shit Done.  A fat, bloated, intrusive government isn't a good thing either, but there's a happy medium...since taxes and government spending aren't going away, as much as Ron Paul would like them to.

I think I just realized that my economic politics are gradually becoming more practical the older I get, while my social politics are pretty laissez-faire.

Welcome to the the practical club. OBEY THE RULES.