So is the 'green movement' in the US nonexistent?
no but it's largely considered irrelevant these days, after a brief moment around 1996-2000 when it seemed to be becoming a relevant in part because of the '90s fixation on ecological issues and anti-globalization.
so it is somewhat higher than i thought, but basically a comparable amount. i might add as well that even ed clark, easily the strongest libertarian candidate electorally, got less than 1 million votes in 1980.
it was obviously a rhetorical question, any such cuts are incredibly unpopular you only have to look at something like pew for that. if you look at surveys of the tea party only about 30% would say they actually want to abolished medicare and social security. most were furious because they thought obamacare would lead to medicare
cuts. many even wanted more benefits for themselves (probably most for obvious reasons), as has been posted ad nauseam on this site. did you think romney was only pandering to the middle by trotting out his $716 billion medicare cuts scare claim? no, he was pandering to his geriatric tp base.
this was clearly not meant to be taken literally, again but i am sure you don't need to see the polls for any of these. the point is that libertarianism at its core is far too radical for americans, because it is based on a very alien set of moral principles. the libertarian if they are honest will tell you that they would rather people starve or grow sick and die if it came down to it than provide any public aid, because doing so requires 'initiation of force' through taxation. this is a non starter now for obvious reasons, and we are all very fortunate for that.
some particular libertarian positions such as anti central banking or drug legalization might continue to pick up support but that does not equal a thriving movement. as it stands the present political consensus could not be further from libertarianism. even the austerity proposals trotted out by the gop like ryan's plan amount to essentially massive subsidization of the hmos, public-private partnerships with wall street in place of the current social security system and of course a massive increase in military spending.
i did not say that it would be overnight, i just said that such an alliance has obvious problems in terms of coherence and will not stay politically viable. as it is if you look at polling americans are much less enthusiastic about intervening overseas than '20 years ago,' for example (granted the anti war vote does not
presently count for much, particularly given nearly unlimited donations + the reality congress can invest in the same contractors and weapons manufacturers they are subsidizing...). likewise positions like tax cuts for the rich, privatizing social security, etc. are not good sells for the public. it is only social issues that americans are somewhat more receptive and even then if you look at polling on various issues like pornography or attitudes towards homosexuality or birth control it is obvious which side is losing out. this does not mean that there could not be an eventual counter-revolution of sorts to secularism and/or liberalism just that it is clear where things are heading right now. and everybody knows it.
in any case if you look at public attitudes towards the republican party, even now their numbers are horrific in terms of approval ratings. this is not just congress (although that's unprecedentedly low) that's at basically all levels. and that will again, in the long run only get worse as whites shrink as a % of electorate. unless they somehow manage to capture a far larger % of white voters to counterbalance minorities or there's some abrupt reversal in their numbers with hispanics then over the next generation they are going to be in the political wilderness if not going the way of the whigs. you are beginning to see more open discussion of this amongst the gop and 'conservatives' (e.g. karl rove).
Poll
