The Libertarian Vote

David Boaz, executive vice president at Cato, and my friend David Kirby have a new study out on "The Libertarian Vote" that, in direct contradiction to what I said yesterday, purports to demonstrate that there's a largish libertarian constituency -- 9 to 14 percent of the population -- and that it's a persuadable constituency both parties should be trying to compete for.

I find this pretty unconvincing. The trouble is that the poll question they're basing their work on are incredibly generic. Things like "Some people think the government is trying to do too many thingaygs that should be left to individuals and businesses. Others think that government should do more to solve our country's problems. Which comes closer to your view?" America is famous, however, for having voters who want "small government" but don't actually want to shrink any major government programs. Lots of people may think the government "does too much." Cutting Social Security benefits, however, is very unpopular. So is cutting defense spending. The number of people who want to cut both is actually quite small. For fairly obvious reasons, there isn't much public demad for "more government" as such. Instead, there's appetite for specific governmet initiatives and the government gets "big" because the initiatives add up.

Comments

Yes, even the loud and proud libertarians I know want specific governmental programs. They may not care for the NEA, but they can see the value in the EPA and FDA.

Posted by DanF | October 12, 2006 10:44 AM

We also hate congress but like our congressman, want to be skinny and eat giant portions, fight two wars and not institute a draft (or raise taxes), and generally have our cake and eat it too. It's what makes us 'merkins.

Posted by John I | October 12, 2006 11:15 AM

True, Libertarian ideas aren't much help in actually governing but part of the problem the Dems have is they focus too much on what they would do with power and not enough on slogans. Libertarian-type talk, "Get Washington off our backs" goes down real sweet, and its the Republicans who provide it. Then they get to Washington and do whatever they please. There is a lesson here

Posted by AlanB. | October 12, 2006 11:58 AM

Reagan's libertarian populist rhetoric was directed simultaneously to sunbelt suburbanites (who felt that Democrats were spending too much, and raising taxes accordingly) and working class whites in the midwest and south aggrieved about African-American "welfare queens" and such.

The Bush Republicans have in some sense become the new Federalists, or big government conservatives (as they call themselves). The concern among some (especially in the west) about big government during wartime is that it will go too far in revoking civil liberties, and corruption and waste in the dispensation of contracts. With the exception of quirky places like southeast Kentucky (where my mother's people come from), the south has never been overly-libertarian in orientation, but there *is* a concern in the backs of many western minds (where I grew up) about overly-large government - even during periods of national crisis - and therefore an opening for one party or the other to exploit. Last time around (during the Second World War) it was the GOP.

You're probably not going to build a national majority around these ideals in the era of Islamist terror, but the Dean Democrats have the potential to be a vibrant wing of the Party.

Posted by Linus | October 12, 2006 12:35 PM

If the Real World were anything like the blogosphere at least 85% of voters would be Libertarians :)

Posted by Peter | October 12, 2006 12:36 PM

Would you use equal standards of ideological purity for self-identified "liberal" or "conservative" voters?

Posted by Pithlord | October 12, 2006 1:10 PM