Why do Republicans seem to think they are owed support from Libertarians?

[John Dule]

I get that actual, ideological libertarians are uncommon in comparison to garden-variety rednecks with "Don't Tread" bumper stickers. We are not exactly a large political bloc and we do not affect elections. But lately whenever someone with a yellow avatar on this site attacks Republicans, there have been a few predictable blue avs whining about how we have "basically become leftists" or that we are somehow trying to impress Democrats. This is dumb and stupid.

My question: Why exactly do we owe you our allegiance? Here are just a few clarifications I'd like to make for Republicans on behalf of the libertarians I know and respect:



1. For many of us, our earliest political memories are of the GOP leading this country into international embarrassment and economic ruination. The unhinged paranoia of the War on Terror is the number one reason why I became instinctively suspicious of the US government, but also of the Republican Party and its obvious authoritarianism. I have never lived a year in which a Republican president attempted to actually make this country freer. I have never lived under a Republican president who I did not want to see imprisoned for multiple crimes. And while so many conservatives were driven insane by the failure of the Bush Era, eventually turning to Trump in pure desperation, libertarians did not experience this. For us, 2001-2009 was just a very prolonged "I told you so."

2. We have disagreed with you on virtually every major culture war issue since the turn of the century-- flag burning, antiwar protests, gay rights, drug legalization, circumcision, immigration, and abortion. Even when we are sympathetic to issues surrounding free speech, we do not believe that anyone is owed a platform on Twitter or other social media pages. The one social issue we consistently agree on is gun rights, which (although significant) is not sufficient to cancel out our other differences.

3. We disagree with you on drug criminalization. Not only is it bad from a policy perspective, but criminalizing the production of these substances on a federal level is unconstitutional. We support prison reform and releasing nonviolent offenders. We do not share your fetishization of the punitive element of law enforcement. We do not trust the police. We largely consider the Karenesque suburban authoritarian policies you love to be nothing more than a weapon to use against the poor.

4. We do not hold to your definition of "freedom," which all too often means "The right to subject everyone around me to my beliefs." Most libertarians I know are not concerned that their children are learning about climate change or secular belief systems in public schools. Many of us are either atheists or agnostics, and are unconcerned about the decline of religion in the public square. Even when we agree on the issues, I cannot help but be disturbed by the fact that you often arrive at your views because you believe you are being surveilled by an unknowable cosmic Patriot Act.

5. You do not discuss or make concerted efforts on the issues we actually agree on. You have abandoned conservative economic principles in favor of stimmy check handouts, evictions moratoriums, corporate welfare to dying Rust Belt industries, and pointless boondoggles like border walls. On the rare occasion when a Republican actually makes an effort to tackle "big government," it is typically in the form of blind directionless flailing at the "Deep State," which accomplishes nothing of substance while budget deficits widen and spending grows. I have given up on waiting for a Republican to utter the words "occupational licensing" in a speech again. Instead I am more likely to hear "the libtards turned my gingerbread man into a gingerbread them."



While I continue to disagree with most of what the Democrats do, I disagree with even more of the Republican platform, which each passing year becomes more indistinguishable from a schizophrenic screed written by a personality cult. I have never voted for a Republican on the federal level and I will not do so until the party essentially does the opposite of everything it has said for the past ~40 years. I am happy to split my ticket downballot and for state races, but even so, I am voting for California Republicans-- not exactly the type of people who could win the mental gymnastics competitions that nationwide GOP primaries have become.

Anyway, you're free to vote how you want. I only wanted to clarify that we're just not that into you, and we never have been.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Point 1 is basically why I was a Libertarian throughout college. Mind you I was also an ancap at the time, but opposing foreign interventions has been my strongest political conviction throughout all of the evolutions of my personal ideology.

     Overall a good post, even if I don't agree with your position on a lot of things here. Republicans acting like we own Libertarian votes is as absurd and condescending as Democrats acting like they own third-party votes in general (something I saw a lot of in the wake of 2016). People vote the way they do because of their personal convictions and being condescending to them won't win them to your side, but rather will just harden their opposition to you.

[OSR stands with Israel]

While I don’t disagree , I will point out Reagan was the most libertarian president we have had economically since the 1920s. He pretty much replaced the old economic consensus with a far more libertarian friendly consensus called “neoliberalism”

[Del Tachi]

Anyway, you're free to vote how you want. I only wanted to clarify that we're just not that into you, and we never have been.

What makes you think we care?  Ain't nobody studying y'all

[Aurelius]

The libertarian and conservative mindsets are radically different, and I think the only reason they are lumped together by so many people is because guns and Obamacare were such big issues in the early 2010s, and they are issues where conservatives and libertarians tended to agree. Libertarians believe economic efficiency is an end in itself - I don't, and I think letting unrestrained market forces reach whatever outcome they coalesce on is a horrible idea that leads to horrible outcomes, which is precisely why I support curbs on immigration, oppose unrestricted free trade, support zoning laws, etc.

But I actually think that libertarians who are more neoliberal than paleoconservative, which is most of them, belong more in the Dems than the GOP. Actual libertarians, as opposed to conservatives who like weed and have no problem with gays, are such a tiny voting bloc that it's not worth conceding so many core principles to win them over. Like PiT, I do respect them for their principled stands against foreign wars though.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

...and the realignment continues!

I agree with Cody, especially with regards to the unrestrained market forces. Certainly I am in favor of business striving for market efficiency, but within certain limits and in accordance with other objectives and values as well.

At the end of the day, libertarianism is just an offshoot of liberalism and thus it should be surprising that they would be more comfortable with liberals than conservatives on a number of issues. The alliance with the right is just a marriage of convenience/necessity born of the reaction to the Progressive Era and the liberalism that came out of that period.

That said, if we are in the business of pointing out the condescension and irritants, I do find it irritating when Libertarian philosophers make the case that they own the right side of the spectrum and everyone else is a socialist. Granted, I haven't seen Dule do this, but a number do make this argument.

[OSR stands with Israel]

The libertarian and conservative mindsets are radically different, and I think the only reason they are lumped together by so many people is because guns and Obamacare were such big issues in the early 2010s, and they are issues where conservatives and libertarians tended to agree. Libertarians believe economic efficiency is an end in itself - I don't, and I think letting unrestrained market forces reach whatever outcome they coalesce on is a horrible idea that leads to horrible outcomes, which is precisely why I support curbs on immigration, oppose unrestricted free trade, support zoning laws, etc.

But I actually think that libertarians who are more neoliberal than paleoconservative, which is most of them, belong more in the Dems than the GOP. Actual libertarians, as opposed to conservatives who like weed and have no problem with gays, are such a tiny voting bloc that it's not worth conceding so many core principles to win them over. Like PiT, I do respect them for their principled stands against foreign wars though.

This is false as the GOP in many ways is more libertarian than it was in the Bush years by far. It is no accident Rand Paul who very much disliked Bush/Cheney is a huge fan of Trump and another example of this is the biggest donor for the "new populist right" and that is Peter Thiel. Peter Thiel identified as a libertarian from the Bush years on and only really joined the GOP from 2016 onwards and has played a huge role in funding "Trumpist" candidates this time. The group of libertarians these people represent played a huge role in the Ron Paul candidacy of 2008/2012 and they are the anti government anti institution types who since Trump have flocked to the GOP in droves.

Now the Libertarians who were economically conservative but socially liberal yes have joined the dems but keep in mind the reason they supported Libertarians more from the mid 2000s to mid 2010s is in those days if you wanted a party who was anti interventionism the only party you could find that from were the Libertarians and  Ron Paul. As the war on terror became less and less an issue in politics both these groups of libertarians basically flocked back to the party that fit them and thats what happened but that does not make the GOP less libertarian today at all.

Libertarianism means more than just "Economically Conservative Socially Liberal" like the political compass makes it out to be cause thats just false.


Also the Democrats are really not neoliberal at all today in the way the term is actually defined and not the way it has been defined since 2016.

[Aurelius]

The libertarian and conservative mindsets are radically different, and I think the only reason they are lumped together by so many people is because guns and Obamacare were such big issues in the early 2010s, and they are issues where conservatives and libertarians tended to agree. Libertarians believe economic efficiency is an end in itself - I don't, and I think letting unrestrained market forces reach whatever outcome they coalesce on is a horrible idea that leads to horrible outcomes, which is precisely why I support curbs on immigration, oppose unrestricted free trade, support zoning laws, etc.

But I actually think that libertarians who are more neoliberal than paleoconservative, which is most of them, belong more in the Dems than the GOP. Actual libertarians, as opposed to conservatives who like weed and have no problem with gays, are such a tiny voting bloc that it's not worth conceding so many core principles to win them over. Like PiT, I do respect them for their principled stands against foreign wars though.

This is false as the GOP in many ways is more libertarian than it was in the Bush years by far. It is no accident Rand Paul who very much disliked Bush/Cheney is a huge fan of Trump and another example of this is the biggest donor for the "new populist right" and that is Peter Thiel. Peter Thiel identified as a libertarian from the Bush years on and only really joined the GOP from 2016 onwards and has played a huge role in funding "Trumpist" candidates this time. The group of libertarians these people represent played a huge role in the Ron Paul candidacy of 2008/2012 and they are the anti government anti institution types who since Trump have flocked to the GOP in droves.

Now the Libertarians who were economically conservative but socially liberal yes have joined the dems but keep in mind the reason they supported Libertarians more from the mid 2000s to mid 2010s is in those days if you wanted a party who was anti interventionism the only party you could find that from were the Libertarians and  Ron Paul. As the war on terror became less and less an issue in politics both these groups of libertarians basically flocked back to the party that fit them and thats what happened but that does not make the GOP less libertarian today at all.

Libertarianism means more than just "Economically Conservative Socially Liberal" like the political compass makes it out to be cause thats just false.


Also the Democrats are really not neoliberal at all today in the way the term is actually defined and not the way it has been defined since 2016.

By neoliberal, I mean the way it's used by people on r/neoliberal, not the way it's used by leftists and tradcons. The Dems certainly aren't neoliberal in that sense, but libertarians with r/neoliberal sympathies are a hell of a lot closer to the Dems than the GOP nowadays.

I'll respond to the rest of your post later.

[OSR stands with Israel]

The libertarian and conservative mindsets are radically different, and I think the only reason they are lumped together by so many people is because guns and Obamacare were such big issues in the early 2010s, and they are issues where conservatives and libertarians tended to agree. Libertarians believe economic efficiency is an end in itself - I don't, and I think letting unrestrained market forces reach whatever outcome they coalesce on is a horrible idea that leads to horrible outcomes, which is precisely why I support curbs on immigration, oppose unrestricted free trade, support zoning laws, etc.

But I actually think that libertarians who are more neoliberal than paleoconservative, which is most of them, belong more in the Dems than the GOP. Actual libertarians, as opposed to conservatives who like weed and have no problem with gays, are such a tiny voting bloc that it's not worth conceding so many core principles to win them over. Like PiT, I do respect them for their principled stands against foreign wars though.

This is false as the GOP in many ways is more libertarian than it was in the Bush years by far. It is no accident Rand Paul who very much disliked Bush/Cheney is a huge fan of Trump and another example of this is the biggest donor for the "new populist right" and that is Peter Thiel. Peter Thiel identified as a libertarian from the Bush years on and only really joined the GOP from 2016 onwards and has played a huge role in funding "Trumpist" candidates this time. The group of libertarians these people represent played a huge role in the Ron Paul candidacy of 2008/2012 and they are the anti government anti institution types who since Trump have flocked to the GOP in droves.

Now the Libertarians who were economically conservative but socially liberal yes have joined the dems but keep in mind the reason they supported Libertarians more from the mid 2000s to mid 2010s is in those days if you wanted a party who was anti interventionism the only party you could find that from were the Libertarians and  Ron Paul. As the war on terror became less and less an issue in politics both these groups of libertarians basically flocked back to the party that fit them and thats what happened but that does not make the GOP less libertarian today at all.

Libertarianism means more than just "Economically Conservative Socially Liberal" like the political compass makes it out to be cause thats just false.


Also the Democrats are really not neoliberal at all today in the way the term is actually defined and not the way it has been defined since 2016.

By neoliberal, I mean the way it's used by people on r/neoliberal, not the way it's used by leftists and tradcons. The Dems certainly aren't neoliberal in that sense, but libertarians with r/neoliberal sympathies are a hell of a lot closer to the Dems than the GOP nowadays.

I'll respond to the rest of your post later.

Sure but they are more “moderate liberals” than “neoliberals”

[Saint Milei]

While I don’t disagree , I will point out Reagan was the most libertarian president we have had economically since the 1920s. He pretty much replaced the old economic consensus with a far more libertarian friendly consensus called “neoliberalism”

Most hardcore libertarians would not agree with this. Trump did more for the liberty movement than Reagan

[Saint Milei]

I don't think this thread is relevant. I don't see the GOP really caring for the Libertarian Party the way they did a decade ago or even 5-6 years ago. Most libertarians, if they vote, are in the GOP at this point for a variety of reasons. I would also argue the current LP is barely libertarian outside the Mises Caucus which really does nothing besides edgelording on twitter and ranting about the GOP-Trump era not being as good as it is.


As for your specific points.
1. Trump is the least War on Terror president we've had and arguably the best foreign policy president since Eisenhower.

2. Mises Caucus exists so this isn't true. The LP has no unity on cultural issues and if we are being honest, the people in power are closer to pat buchanan culturally than an idiot like gary johnson.

3. The LP really can't make up its mind on this. Either be a purist and advocate for it outright or make some concessions. If you do the latter, I don't see a reason to hate the GOP. Local republicans are doing a lot on drug policy and there's better infrastructure in the GOP to actually get things done. I also don't get why the LP makes drug legalization a big issue. Yes, i know the wod is bad, but a lot of the LP's concerns are more about being degenerates and less about getting people out of prison. That's an issue.

4. I don't know if this is worth discussing.

5. This is true.


This seems more like a complaint about why you aren't supposed to automatically vote for the gop, not your average lp member.







I really don't care much for LP voters now anyway. The Mises Caucus is decent due to some of the prominent figures, but overall, the LP is closer to being a dem party that's slightly good on economics when they aren't advocating for COVID restrictions. I rarely vote and I'm still pretty much a doomer but I tell everyone who's a libertarian, if you do vote, it makes zero sense to not vote for the GOP.

1. We live in an era right now where it's obvious Dem are a much bigger threat to liberty than the GOP. COVID lockdowns proved this. It's not comparable. You can see the difference in freedom by comparing California to Florida.

2. It's not a debate which party is less likely to get involved in a war. Trump killed neoconservatism and took a knife to liberal internationalism. He didn't start a war (he certainly wasn't ron paul on fopo) and he made the GOP more accepting of a ron paul foreign policy. This is like the first time since the 1940s where a republican running for congress can run on an antiwar message and not get booed by 90% of the base. That's huge for a libertarian voter, especially if you came from the RP revolution which was pretty much a revolt against the War on Terror. You can't ignore the hawkishness of dems and even the stupidity of some beltway libertarians promoting more aggression now. It's obvious being against trump is more important than principle for a lot.

3. It's easier to convey libertarian ideas when you are apart of the GOP. We are tribal now. There's no way around it. Dems and Repubs are just gangs and you have to pick a side. Having an L by your name just alienates half the country that might actually listen to you if you had an R. Republican voters are increasingly willing to support some libertarian solutions: abolish/defund the fbi, police reform, attacking public schools, etc. In fact, this is the best time to advance libertarian goals due to trump's impact on politics.

[dead0man]

the responses from Republicans in this thread has made me like Republicans far less than I did before this thread.

[Vosem]

The libertarian and conservative mindsets are radically different, and I think the only reason they are lumped together by so many people is because guns and Obamacare were such big issues in the early 2010s, and they are issues where conservatives and libertarians tended to agree. Libertarians believe economic efficiency is an end in itself - I don't, and I think letting unrestrained market forces reach whatever outcome they coalesce on is a horrible idea that leads to horrible outcomes, which is precisely why I support curbs on immigration, oppose unrestricted free trade, support zoning laws, etc.

But I actually think that libertarians who are more neoliberal than paleoconservative, which is most of them, belong more in the Dems than the GOP. Actual libertarians, as opposed to conservatives who like weed and have no problem with gays, are such a tiny voting bloc that it's not worth conceding so many core principles to win them over. Like PiT, I do respect them for their principled stands against foreign wars though.

There are lots of reasons to think that, as decline in trust in institutions and governments continues, it is the paleoconservatives who will end joining the Democrats. (Also, I don't know what strawman you've constructed with "actual libertarians", but we're reaching the point where "conservatives who like weed and have no problem with gays" -- here meaning movement conservatives who want to repeal Obamacare and cut taxes because this will causally lead to economic growth -- are an enormous fraction of the GOP and an outright majority of GOP voters under 60 or so). The more that the GOP base reviles statism, and the Democrats are defined by their support from an educated class ever more alienated from the rest of society, the more that folks like Hawley will inevitably be forced into the Democratic coalition, which is where I expect to see him in 20 years.

[Aurelius]

The libertarian and conservative mindsets are radically different, and I think the only reason they are lumped together by so many people is because guns and Obamacare were such big issues in the early 2010s, and they are issues where conservatives and libertarians tended to agree. Libertarians believe economic efficiency is an end in itself - I don't, and I think letting unrestrained market forces reach whatever outcome they coalesce on is a horrible idea that leads to horrible outcomes, which is precisely why I support curbs on immigration, oppose unrestricted free trade, support zoning laws, etc.

But I actually think that libertarians who are more neoliberal than paleoconservative, which is most of them, belong more in the Dems than the GOP. Actual libertarians, as opposed to conservatives who like weed and have no problem with gays, are such a tiny voting bloc that it's not worth conceding so many core principles to win them over. Like PiT, I do respect them for their principled stands against foreign wars though.

There are lots of reasons to think that, as decline in trust in institutions and governments continues, it is the paleoconservatives who will end joining the Democrats. (Also, I don't know what strawman you've constructed with "actual libertarians", but we're reaching the point where "conservatives who like weed and have no problem with gays" -- here meaning movement conservatives who want to repeal Obamacare and cut taxes because this will causally lead to economic growth -- are an enormous fraction of the GOP and an outright majority of GOP voters under 60 or so). The more that the GOP base reviles statism, and the Democrats are defined by their support from an educated class ever more alienated from the rest of society, the more that folks like Hawley will inevitably be forced into the Democratic coalition, which is where I expect to see him in 20 years.

To be clear, I don't like Josh Hawley at all. There is a *lot* of difference between him and the type of conservatives I described. But there is equally as much distance between them and people like Dule or, say, Elizabeth Nolan Brown for example.

[Goldwater]

The libertarian and conservative mindsets are radically different, and I think the only reason they are lumped together by so many people is because guns and Obamacare were such big issues in the early 2010s, and they are issues where conservatives and libertarians tended to agree. Libertarians believe economic efficiency is an end in itself - I don't, and I think letting unrestrained market forces reach whatever outcome they coalesce on is a horrible idea that leads to horrible outcomes, which is precisely why I support curbs on immigration, oppose unrestricted free trade, support zoning laws, etc.

But I actually think that libertarians who are more neoliberal than paleoconservative, which is most of them, belong more in the Dems than the GOP. Actual libertarians, as opposed to conservatives who like weed and have no problem with gays, are such a tiny voting bloc that it's not worth conceding so many core principles to win them over. Like PiT, I do respect them for their principled stands against foreign wars though.

There are lots of reasons to think that, as decline in trust in institutions and governments continues, it is the paleoconservatives who will end joining the Democrats. (Also, I don't know what strawman you've constructed with "actual libertarians", but we're reaching the point where "conservatives who like weed and have no problem with gays" -- here meaning movement conservatives who want to repeal Obamacare and cut taxes because this will causally lead to economic growth -- are an enormous fraction of the GOP and an outright majority of GOP voters under 60 or so). The more that the GOP base reviles statism, and the Democrats are defined by their support from an educated class ever more alienated from the rest of society, the more that folks like Hawley will inevitably be forced into the Democratic coalition, which is where I expect to see him in 20 years.

I find this interesting, because on another post you said this:

The decline of trust in government will mean that some of their policies, like raising taxes or general fiscal progressivism, will be less emphasized. They will probably lean in to popular secular beliefs, particularly on abortion and perhaps also on LGBT issues; more speculatively, on drug legalization and perhaps sex-work associated issues. Since they will be trying to keep support from people with high social trust, one exception to the general decline in economic leftism will be continued strong support for unions (though this may not be super relevant), and also the most classic cross-cultural high-trust party positioning: becoming the party of the military. (2032 may be kind of early for this -- although maybe not -- but I really do expect Democrats to maintain relevance by going in a militaristic and interventionist angle over the next few decades.)

So unless I'm completely misunderstanding something, you are saying that the Democratic Party is going to become a secular hawkish pro-establishment party that also has paleoconservative types in it for some reason?

[OSR stands with Israel]

the responses from Republicans in this thread has made me like Republicans far less than I did before this thread.

why

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The libertarian and conservative mindsets are radically different, and I think the only reason they are lumped together by so many people is because guns and Obamacare were such big issues in the early 2010s, and they are issues where conservatives and libertarians tended to agree. Libertarians believe economic efficiency is an end in itself - I don't, and I think letting unrestrained market forces reach whatever outcome they coalesce on is a horrible idea that leads to horrible outcomes, which is precisely why I support curbs on immigration, oppose unrestricted free trade, support zoning laws, etc.

But I actually think that libertarians who are more neoliberal than paleoconservative, which is most of them, belong more in the Dems than the GOP. Actual libertarians, as opposed to conservatives who like weed and have no problem with gays, are such a tiny voting bloc that it's not worth conceding so many core principles to win them over. Like PiT, I do respect them for their principled stands against foreign wars though.

There are lots of reasons to think that, as decline in trust in institutions and governments continues, it is the paleoconservatives who will end joining the Democrats. (Also, I don't know what strawman you've constructed with "actual libertarians", but we're reaching the point where "conservatives who like weed and have no problem with gays" -- here meaning movement conservatives who want to repeal Obamacare and cut taxes because this will causally lead to economic growth -- are an enormous fraction of the GOP and an outright majority of GOP voters under 60 or so). The more that the GOP base reviles statism, and the Democrats are defined by their support from an educated class ever more alienated from the rest of society, the more that folks like Hawley will inevitably be forced into the Democratic coalition, which is where I expect to see him in 20 years.

I find this interesting, because on another post you said this:

The decline of trust in government will mean that some of their policies, like raising taxes or general fiscal progressivism, will be less emphasized. They will probably lean in to popular secular beliefs, particularly on abortion and perhaps also on LGBT issues; more speculatively, on drug legalization and perhaps sex-work associated issues. Since they will be trying to keep support from people with high social trust, one exception to the general decline in economic leftism will be continued strong support for unions (though this may not be super relevant), and also the most classic cross-cultural high-trust party positioning: becoming the party of the military. (2032 may be kind of early for this -- although maybe not -- but I really do expect Democrats to maintain relevance by going in a militaristic and interventionist angle over the next few decades.)

So unless I'm completely misunderstanding something, you are saying that the Democratic Party is going to become a secular hawkish pro-establishment party that also has paleoconservative types in it for some reason?

I think the opposite is more likely to happen, with conservatism becoming more hostile to market liberalism as an equal contributor to the societal disruption as social liberalism. All the present demographic trends point this direction as well.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The libertarian and conservative mindsets are radically different, and I think the only reason they are lumped together by so many people is because guns and Obamacare were such big issues in the early 2010s, and they are issues where conservatives and libertarians tended to agree. Libertarians believe economic efficiency is an end in itself - I don't, and I think letting unrestrained market forces reach whatever outcome they coalesce on is a horrible idea that leads to horrible outcomes, which is precisely why I support curbs on immigration, oppose unrestricted free trade, support zoning laws, etc.

But I actually think that libertarians who are more neoliberal than paleoconservative, which is most of them, belong more in the Dems than the GOP. Actual libertarians, as opposed to conservatives who like weed and have no problem with gays, are such a tiny voting bloc that it's not worth conceding so many core principles to win them over. Like PiT, I do respect them for their principled stands against foreign wars though.

There are lots of reasons to think that, as decline in trust in institutions and governments continues, it is the paleoconservatives who will end joining the Democrats. (Also, I don't know what strawman you've constructed with "actual libertarians", but we're reaching the point where "conservatives who like weed and have no problem with gays" -- here meaning movement conservatives who want to repeal Obamacare and cut taxes because this will causally lead to economic growth -- are an enormous fraction of the GOP and an outright majority of GOP voters under 60 or so). The more that the GOP base reviles statism, and the Democrats are defined by their support from an educated class ever more alienated from the rest of society, the more that folks like Hawley will inevitably be forced into the Democratic coalition, which is where I expect to see him in 20 years.

Hawley is an Ivy League chameleon and had he come about ten years earlier, would have been just like Ted Cruz in 2012/2013.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The libertarian and conservative mindsets are radically different, and I think the only reason they are lumped together by so many people is because guns and Obamacare were such big issues in the early 2010s, and they are issues where conservatives and libertarians tended to agree. Libertarians believe economic efficiency is an end in itself - I don't, and I think letting unrestrained market forces reach whatever outcome they coalesce on is a horrible idea that leads to horrible outcomes, which is precisely why I support curbs on immigration, oppose unrestricted free trade, support zoning laws, etc.

But I actually think that libertarians who are more neoliberal than paleoconservative, which is most of them, belong more in the Dems than the GOP. Actual libertarians, as opposed to conservatives who like weed and have no problem with gays, are such a tiny voting bloc that it's not worth conceding so many core principles to win them over. Like PiT, I do respect them for their principled stands against foreign wars though.

There are lots of reasons to think that, as decline in trust in institutions and governments continues, it is the paleoconservatives who will end joining the Democrats. (Also, I don't know what strawman you've constructed with "actual libertarians", but we're reaching the point where "conservatives who like weed and have no problem with gays" -- here meaning movement conservatives who want to repeal Obamacare and cut taxes because this will causally lead to economic growth -- are an enormous fraction of the GOP and an outright majority of GOP voters under 60 or so). The more that the GOP base reviles statism, and the Democrats are defined by their support from an educated class ever more alienated from the rest of society, the more that folks like Hawley will inevitably be forced into the Democratic coalition, which is where I expect to see him in 20 years.

I find this interesting, because on another post you said this:

The decline of trust in government will mean that some of their policies, like raising taxes or general fiscal progressivism, will be less emphasized. They will probably lean in to popular secular beliefs, particularly on abortion and perhaps also on LGBT issues; more speculatively, on drug legalization and perhaps sex-work associated issues. Since they will be trying to keep support from people with high social trust, one exception to the general decline in economic leftism will be continued strong support for unions (though this may not be super relevant), and also the most classic cross-cultural high-trust party positioning: becoming the party of the military. (2032 may be kind of early for this -- although maybe not -- but I really do expect Democrats to maintain relevance by going in a militaristic and interventionist angle over the next few decades.)

So unless I'm completely misunderstanding something, you are saying that the Democratic Party is going to become a secular hawkish pro-establishment party that also has paleoconservative types in it for some reason?

I think the opposite is more likely to happen, with conservatism becoming more hostile to market liberalism as an equal contributor to the societal disruption as social liberalism. All the present demographic trends point this direction as well.

You also see talk radio relentlessly attacking corporate America as "selling out to the woke elite" or "being infiltrated by socialists", or "selling America out to the Chinese". Ironically, some this rhetoric would appeal to certain Libertarians, who regard corporations as extensions of state power and not part of the private sector by definition.

The interesting thing will be whether this takes a libertarian direction, blaming things like regulatory capture, government subsidies and the like for corrupting business. Or goes the opposite direction and embraces government intervention to curtail the corruption of business by the "socialistic/government/woke/foreign" influences.

[Vosem]

The libertarian and conservative mindsets are radically different, and I think the only reason they are lumped together by so many people is because guns and Obamacare were such big issues in the early 2010s, and they are issues where conservatives and libertarians tended to agree. Libertarians believe economic efficiency is an end in itself - I don't, and I think letting unrestrained market forces reach whatever outcome they coalesce on is a horrible idea that leads to horrible outcomes, which is precisely why I support curbs on immigration, oppose unrestricted free trade, support zoning laws, etc.

But I actually think that libertarians who are more neoliberal than paleoconservative, which is most of them, belong more in the Dems than the GOP. Actual libertarians, as opposed to conservatives who like weed and have no problem with gays, are such a tiny voting bloc that it's not worth conceding so many core principles to win them over. Like PiT, I do respect them for their principled stands against foreign wars though.

There are lots of reasons to think that, as decline in trust in institutions and governments continues, it is the paleoconservatives who will end joining the Democrats. (Also, I don't know what strawman you've constructed with "actual libertarians", but we're reaching the point where "conservatives who like weed and have no problem with gays" -- here meaning movement conservatives who want to repeal Obamacare and cut taxes because this will causally lead to economic growth -- are an enormous fraction of the GOP and an outright majority of GOP voters under 60 or so). The more that the GOP base reviles statism, and the Democrats are defined by their support from an educated class ever more alienated from the rest of society, the more that folks like Hawley will inevitably be forced into the Democratic coalition, which is where I expect to see him in 20 years.

I find this interesting, because on another post you said this:

The decline of trust in government will mean that some of their policies, like raising taxes or general fiscal progressivism, will be less emphasized. They will probably lean in to popular secular beliefs, particularly on abortion and perhaps also on LGBT issues; more speculatively, on drug legalization and perhaps sex-work associated issues. Since they will be trying to keep support from people with high social trust, one exception to the general decline in economic leftism will be continued strong support for unions (though this may not be super relevant), and also the most classic cross-cultural high-trust party positioning: becoming the party of the military. (2032 may be kind of early for this -- although maybe not -- but I really do expect Democrats to maintain relevance by going in a militaristic and interventionist angle over the next few decades.)

So unless I'm completely misunderstanding something, you are saying that the Democratic Party is going to become a secular hawkish pro-establishment party that also has paleoconservative types in it for some reason?

Yes, actually (or at least 'paleoconservative' in the sense of people like Josh Hawley or J.D. Vance who believe in large state projects for transforming popular culture, and often convert to high-church branches of Christianity; I don't think this applies to your run-of-the-mill socially conservative isolationists). I think the main divide will be between something like 'all public institutions are untrustworthy and we should reduce their influence in everyday life' and 'we should not do that', with the former comprising a clear majority of society but the latter having the advantage of most educated or cultured people on its side.

Because the swing towards what would have been called 'social liberalism' in the 2000s is so powerful I'm not sure either party will be particularly marked by social conservatism, so you'll see social conservatives who are distrustful of the government (stereotypically poorer people in low-church denominations, or 'nondenominational', but also people resisting government interference in things like religious educational institutions) supporting the former but those who believe in a socially-conservative reformation of the whole society spearheaded by the federal government (like...uh...Josh Hawley, but probably not very many non-elite people) joining the latter party.

[Vosem]

The libertarian and conservative mindsets are radically different, and I think the only reason they are lumped together by so many people is because guns and Obamacare were such big issues in the early 2010s, and they are issues where conservatives and libertarians tended to agree. Libertarians believe economic efficiency is an end in itself - I don't, and I think letting unrestrained market forces reach whatever outcome they coalesce on is a horrible idea that leads to horrible outcomes, which is precisely why I support curbs on immigration, oppose unrestricted free trade, support zoning laws, etc.

But I actually think that libertarians who are more neoliberal than paleoconservative, which is most of them, belong more in the Dems than the GOP. Actual libertarians, as opposed to conservatives who like weed and have no problem with gays, are such a tiny voting bloc that it's not worth conceding so many core principles to win them over. Like PiT, I do respect them for their principled stands against foreign wars though.

There are lots of reasons to think that, as decline in trust in institutions and governments continues, it is the paleoconservatives who will end joining the Democrats. (Also, I don't know what strawman you've constructed with "actual libertarians", but we're reaching the point where "conservatives who like weed and have no problem with gays" -- here meaning movement conservatives who want to repeal Obamacare and cut taxes because this will causally lead to economic growth -- are an enormous fraction of the GOP and an outright majority of GOP voters under 60 or so). The more that the GOP base reviles statism, and the Democrats are defined by their support from an educated class ever more alienated from the rest of society, the more that folks like Hawley will inevitably be forced into the Democratic coalition, which is where I expect to see him in 20 years.

Hawley is an Ivy League chameleon and had he come about ten years earlier, would have been just like Ted Cruz in 2012/2013.

I sort of believe this about Hawley, whose first two campaigns were much more 'Generic R' than he ended up becoming, but I think most people do have sincere beliefs. Cruz has refused to budge from his 2012/2013-era principles even as they've become kind of unfashionable (...probably because he senses that they're a better fit for the actual voters than Hawleyism), and inasmuch as many people in the Hawley wing, or just paleoconservative commentators (J.D. Vance and Rod Dreher come to mind here, but there others) have converted to higher-church denominations, I think those conversions are probably sincere but reveal a mindset very out-of-step with ordinary conservative voters.

The libertarian and conservative mindsets are radically different, and I think the only reason they are lumped together by so many people is because guns and Obamacare were such big issues in the early 2010s, and they are issues where conservatives and libertarians tended to agree. Libertarians believe economic efficiency is an end in itself - I don't, and I think letting unrestrained market forces reach whatever outcome they coalesce on is a horrible idea that leads to horrible outcomes, which is precisely why I support curbs on immigration, oppose unrestricted free trade, support zoning laws, etc.

But I actually think that libertarians who are more neoliberal than paleoconservative, which is most of them, belong more in the Dems than the GOP. Actual libertarians, as opposed to conservatives who like weed and have no problem with gays, are such a tiny voting bloc that it's not worth conceding so many core principles to win them over. Like PiT, I do respect them for their principled stands against foreign wars though.

There are lots of reasons to think that, as decline in trust in institutions and governments continues, it is the paleoconservatives who will end joining the Democrats. (Also, I don't know what strawman you've constructed with "actual libertarians", but we're reaching the point where "conservatives who like weed and have no problem with gays" -- here meaning movement conservatives who want to repeal Obamacare and cut taxes because this will causally lead to economic growth -- are an enormous fraction of the GOP and an outright majority of GOP voters under 60 or so). The more that the GOP base reviles statism, and the Democrats are defined by their support from an educated class ever more alienated from the rest of society, the more that folks like Hawley will inevitably be forced into the Democratic coalition, which is where I expect to see him in 20 years.

I find this interesting, because on another post you said this:

The decline of trust in government will mean that some of their policies, like raising taxes or general fiscal progressivism, will be less emphasized. They will probably lean in to popular secular beliefs, particularly on abortion and perhaps also on LGBT issues; more speculatively, on drug legalization and perhaps sex-work associated issues. Since they will be trying to keep support from people with high social trust, one exception to the general decline in economic leftism will be continued strong support for unions (though this may not be super relevant), and also the most classic cross-cultural high-trust party positioning: becoming the party of the military. (2032 may be kind of early for this -- although maybe not -- but I really do expect Democrats to maintain relevance by going in a militaristic and interventionist angle over the next few decades.)

So unless I'm completely misunderstanding something, you are saying that the Democratic Party is going to become a secular hawkish pro-establishment party that also has paleoconservative types in it for some reason?

I think the opposite is more likely to happen, with conservatism becoming more hostile to market liberalism as an equal contributor to the societal disruption as social liberalism. All the present demographic trends point this direction as well.

You also see talk radio relentlessly attacking corporate America as "selling out to the woke elite" or "being infiltrated by socialists", or "selling America out to the Chinese". Ironically, some this rhetoric would appeal to certain Libertarians, who regard corporations as extensions of state power and not part of the private sector by definition.

The interesting thing will be whether this takes a libertarian direction, blaming things like regulatory capture, government subsidies and the like for corrupting business. Or goes the opposite direction and embraces government intervention to curtail the corruption of business by the "socialistic/government/woke/foreign" influences.

Virtually has to be the first, I think, because of a mixture of where the current Republican voters are, where the current Republican politicians are, and also the sheer fact that embracing government intervention to combat these is likely to be easy to attack as corrupt and is unlikely to work, since it would be implemented by a federal government which is mostly pretty hostile to the idea. But I guess we'll see.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The libertarian and conservative mindsets are radically different, and I think the only reason they are lumped together by so many people is because guns and Obamacare were such big issues in the early 2010s, and they are issues where conservatives and libertarians tended to agree. Libertarians believe economic efficiency is an end in itself - I don't, and I think letting unrestrained market forces reach whatever outcome they coalesce on is a horrible idea that leads to horrible outcomes, which is precisely why I support curbs on immigration, oppose unrestricted free trade, support zoning laws, etc.

But I actually think that libertarians who are more neoliberal than paleoconservative, which is most of them, belong more in the Dems than the GOP. Actual libertarians, as opposed to conservatives who like weed and have no problem with gays, are such a tiny voting bloc that it's not worth conceding so many core principles to win them over. Like PiT, I do respect them for their principled stands against foreign wars though.

There are lots of reasons to think that, as decline in trust in institutions and governments continues, it is the paleoconservatives who will end joining the Democrats. (Also, I don't know what strawman you've constructed with "actual libertarians", but we're reaching the point where "conservatives who like weed and have no problem with gays" -- here meaning movement conservatives who want to repeal Obamacare and cut taxes because this will causally lead to economic growth -- are an enormous fraction of the GOP and an outright majority of GOP voters under 60 or so). The more that the GOP base reviles statism, and the Democrats are defined by their support from an educated class ever more alienated from the rest of society, the more that folks like Hawley will inevitably be forced into the Democratic coalition, which is where I expect to see him in 20 years.

Hawley is an Ivy League chameleon and had he come about ten years earlier, would have been just like Ted Cruz in 2012/2013.

I sort of believe this about Hawley, whose first two campaigns were much more 'Generic R' than he ended up becoming, but I think most people do have sincere beliefs. Cruz has refused to budge from his 2012/2013-era principles even as they've become kind of unfashionable (...probably because he senses that they're a better fit for the actual voters than Hawleyism), and inasmuch as many people in the Hawley wing, or just paleoconservative commentators (J.D. Vance and Rod Dreher come to mind here, but there others) have converted to higher-church denominations, I think those conversions are probably sincere but reveal a mindset very out-of-step with ordinary conservative voters.

The libertarian and conservative mindsets are radically different, and I think the only reason they are lumped together by so many people is because guns and Obamacare were such big issues in the early 2010s, and they are issues where conservatives and libertarians tended to agree. Libertarians believe economic efficiency is an end in itself - I don't, and I think letting unrestrained market forces reach whatever outcome they coalesce on is a horrible idea that leads to horrible outcomes, which is precisely why I support curbs on immigration, oppose unrestricted free trade, support zoning laws, etc.

But I actually think that libertarians who are more neoliberal than paleoconservative, which is most of them, belong more in the Dems than the GOP. Actual libertarians, as opposed to conservatives who like weed and have no problem with gays, are such a tiny voting bloc that it's not worth conceding so many core principles to win them over. Like PiT, I do respect them for their principled stands against foreign wars though.

There are lots of reasons to think that, as decline in trust in institutions and governments continues, it is the paleoconservatives who will end joining the Democrats. (Also, I don't know what strawman you've constructed with "actual libertarians", but we're reaching the point where "conservatives who like weed and have no problem with gays" -- here meaning movement conservatives who want to repeal Obamacare and cut taxes because this will causally lead to economic growth -- are an enormous fraction of the GOP and an outright majority of GOP voters under 60 or so). The more that the GOP base reviles statism, and the Democrats are defined by their support from an educated class ever more alienated from the rest of society, the more that folks like Hawley will inevitably be forced into the Democratic coalition, which is where I expect to see him in 20 years.

I find this interesting, because on another post you said this:

The decline of trust in government will mean that some of their policies, like raising taxes or general fiscal progressivism, will be less emphasized. They will probably lean in to popular secular beliefs, particularly on abortion and perhaps also on LGBT issues; more speculatively, on drug legalization and perhaps sex-work associated issues. Since they will be trying to keep support from people with high social trust, one exception to the general decline in economic leftism will be continued strong support for unions (though this may not be super relevant), and also the most classic cross-cultural high-trust party positioning: becoming the party of the military. (2032 may be kind of early for this -- although maybe not -- but I really do expect Democrats to maintain relevance by going in a militaristic and interventionist angle over the next few decades.)

So unless I'm completely misunderstanding something, you are saying that the Democratic Party is going to become a secular hawkish pro-establishment party that also has paleoconservative types in it for some reason?

I think the opposite is more likely to happen, with conservatism becoming more hostile to market liberalism as an equal contributor to the societal disruption as social liberalism. All the present demographic trends point this direction as well.

You also see talk radio relentlessly attacking corporate America as "selling out to the woke elite" or "being infiltrated by socialists", or "selling America out to the Chinese". Ironically, some this rhetoric would appeal to certain Libertarians, who regard corporations as extensions of state power and not part of the private sector by definition.

The interesting thing will be whether this takes a libertarian direction, blaming things like regulatory capture, government subsidies and the like for corrupting business. Or goes the opposite direction and embraces government intervention to curtail the corruption of business by the "socialistic/government/woke/foreign" influences.

Virtually has to be the first, I think, because of a mixture of where the current Republican voters are, where the current Republican politicians are, and also the sheer fact that embracing government intervention to combat these is likely to be easy to attack as corrupt and is unlikely to work, since it would be implemented by a federal government which is mostly pretty hostile to the idea. But I guess we'll see.

Where were the Republican politicians at on trade in 1930 and how much of a bearing did this have on the future protectionism of the GOP in the coming decades?

In 20 to 30 years, most of your voters from a given election, are dead, because seniors turnout in such higher rates than young people. This is perhaps the most under discussed and unconsidered aspect of political trends in popular culture, who often tend to treat blocs of voters as these eternal beings who voted one way for 100 years, then decided to shift another. Even Kevin Phillips failed to consider generational change.

Look at the broader Millennial experience and then contemplate how that effects things. Sure they hate authority, hate war and don't trust government at all, but they also don't trust finance, large numbers of them are "open" to alternatives to capitalism and they have been hammered unlike any generation since the Depression.

Don't underestimate the ability for massive changes in the political culture over the next ten to twenty years, and certainly don't do so because of "the current politicians" and "the current voters".

[Vosem]

The libertarian and conservative mindsets are radically different, and I think the only reason they are lumped together by so many people is because guns and Obamacare were such big issues in the early 2010s, and they are issues where conservatives and libertarians tended to agree. Libertarians believe economic efficiency is an end in itself - I don't, and I think letting unrestrained market forces reach whatever outcome they coalesce on is a horrible idea that leads to horrible outcomes, which is precisely why I support curbs on immigration, oppose unrestricted free trade, support zoning laws, etc.

But I actually think that libertarians who are more neoliberal than paleoconservative, which is most of them, belong more in the Dems than the GOP. Actual libertarians, as opposed to conservatives who like weed and have no problem with gays, are such a tiny voting bloc that it's not worth conceding so many core principles to win them over. Like PiT, I do respect them for their principled stands against foreign wars though.

There are lots of reasons to think that, as decline in trust in institutions and governments continues, it is the paleoconservatives who will end joining the Democrats. (Also, I don't know what strawman you've constructed with "actual libertarians", but we're reaching the point where "conservatives who like weed and have no problem with gays" -- here meaning movement conservatives who want to repeal Obamacare and cut taxes because this will causally lead to economic growth -- are an enormous fraction of the GOP and an outright majority of GOP voters under 60 or so). The more that the GOP base reviles statism, and the Democrats are defined by their support from an educated class ever more alienated from the rest of society, the more that folks like Hawley will inevitably be forced into the Democratic coalition, which is where I expect to see him in 20 years.

Hawley is an Ivy League chameleon and had he come about ten years earlier, would have been just like Ted Cruz in 2012/2013.

I sort of believe this about Hawley, whose first two campaigns were much more 'Generic R' than he ended up becoming, but I think most people do have sincere beliefs. Cruz has refused to budge from his 2012/2013-era principles even as they've become kind of unfashionable (...probably because he senses that they're a better fit for the actual voters than Hawleyism), and inasmuch as many people in the Hawley wing, or just paleoconservative commentators (J.D. Vance and Rod Dreher come to mind here, but there others) have converted to higher-church denominations, I think those conversions are probably sincere but reveal a mindset very out-of-step with ordinary conservative voters.

The libertarian and conservative mindsets are radically different, and I think the only reason they are lumped together by so many people is because guns and Obamacare were such big issues in the early 2010s, and they are issues where conservatives and libertarians tended to agree. Libertarians believe economic efficiency is an end in itself - I don't, and I think letting unrestrained market forces reach whatever outcome they coalesce on is a horrible idea that leads to horrible outcomes, which is precisely why I support curbs on immigration, oppose unrestricted free trade, support zoning laws, etc.

But I actually think that libertarians who are more neoliberal than paleoconservative, which is most of them, belong more in the Dems than the GOP. Actual libertarians, as opposed to conservatives who like weed and have no problem with gays, are such a tiny voting bloc that it's not worth conceding so many core principles to win them over. Like PiT, I do respect them for their principled stands against foreign wars though.

There are lots of reasons to think that, as decline in trust in institutions and governments continues, it is the paleoconservatives who will end joining the Democrats. (Also, I don't know what strawman you've constructed with "actual libertarians", but we're reaching the point where "conservatives who like weed and have no problem with gays" -- here meaning movement conservatives who want to repeal Obamacare and cut taxes because this will causally lead to economic growth -- are an enormous fraction of the GOP and an outright majority of GOP voters under 60 or so). The more that the GOP base reviles statism, and the Democrats are defined by their support from an educated class ever more alienated from the rest of society, the more that folks like Hawley will inevitably be forced into the Democratic coalition, which is where I expect to see him in 20 years.

I find this interesting, because on another post you said this:

The decline of trust in government will mean that some of their policies, like raising taxes or general fiscal progressivism, will be less emphasized. They will probably lean in to popular secular beliefs, particularly on abortion and perhaps also on LGBT issues; more speculatively, on drug legalization and perhaps sex-work associated issues. Since they will be trying to keep support from people with high social trust, one exception to the general decline in economic leftism will be continued strong support for unions (though this may not be super relevant), and also the most classic cross-cultural high-trust party positioning: becoming the party of the military. (2032 may be kind of early for this -- although maybe not -- but I really do expect Democrats to maintain relevance by going in a militaristic and interventionist angle over the next few decades.)

So unless I'm completely misunderstanding something, you are saying that the Democratic Party is going to become a secular hawkish pro-establishment party that also has paleoconservative types in it for some reason?

I think the opposite is more likely to happen, with conservatism becoming more hostile to market liberalism as an equal contributor to the societal disruption as social liberalism. All the present demographic trends point this direction as well.

You also see talk radio relentlessly attacking corporate America as "selling out to the woke elite" or "being infiltrated by socialists", or "selling America out to the Chinese". Ironically, some this rhetoric would appeal to certain Libertarians, who regard corporations as extensions of state power and not part of the private sector by definition.

The interesting thing will be whether this takes a libertarian direction, blaming things like regulatory capture, government subsidies and the like for corrupting business. Or goes the opposite direction and embraces government intervention to curtail the corruption of business by the "socialistic/government/woke/foreign" influences.

Virtually has to be the first, I think, because of a mixture of where the current Republican voters are, where the current Republican politicians are, and also the sheer fact that embracing government intervention to combat these is likely to be easy to attack as corrupt and is unlikely to work, since it would be implemented by a federal government which is mostly pretty hostile to the idea. But I guess we'll see.

Where were the Republican politicians at on trade in 1930 and how much of a bearing did this have on the future protectionism of the GOP in the coming decades?

In 20 to 30 years, most of your voters from a given election, are dead, because seniors turnout in such higher rates than young people. This is perhaps the most under discussed and unconsidered aspect of political trends in popular culture, who often tend to treat blocs of voters as these eternal beings who voted one way for 100 years, then decided to shift another. Even Kevin Phillips failed to consider generational change.

Look at the broader Millennial experience and then contemplate how that effects things. Sure they hate authority, hate war and don't trust government at all, but they also don't trust finance, large numbers of them are "open" to alternatives to capitalism and they have been hammered unlike any generation since the Depression.

Pretty much every Republican primary ever we have exit polls suggests young voters are more fiscally conservative; Cruz's support skewed very young in 2016, for instance, as did Ron Paul's in 2012. By contrast, Romney and Trump had much older electorates.

When I think of overwhelmingly-young right-wing political movements in the United States, the one that comes to mind first and foremost is cryptocurrency promotion, which is essentially an enormous grassroots effort to repeal financial regulations and replace them with absolutely nothing. (Ideological cryptocurrency promotion has been an issue in primaries in 2022 on both sides of the aisle, and I'm observing that it tends to win, though by no means all the time, and in both parties it perceives itself as opposed to enemies on the left).

By contrast, things like opposition to abortion or gay marriage seem to be withering away among my generation.

Don't underestimate the ability for massive changes in the political culture over the next ten to twenty years, and certainly don't do so because of "the current politicians" and "the current voters".

I don't think I underestimate this -- this conversation started with Goldwater quoting my thoughts about how the political culture is likely to change in the next few decades! Massively indeed. But I think the most important trend here is the decline in trust in government, and I think the events of the near future are likely to accelerate this rather than reverse it. (To be clear, because of the giant baby bust that began in 2008, there is going to be a peak in US college enrollment circa 2026 that is unfixable. Maybe it can be fixed with absolutely massive immigration of very skilled individuals, but that seems very unlikely under our current political alignment. Given that, we're going to see a cascading wave of college bankruptcies and layoffs from the higher-education sector, which employs an enormous number of white-collar people. Under those circumstances, you're going to see a decline of trust in institutions also strike white-collar people who have been insulated from it so far).

What kind of politics are people without a trust in government going to adopt? It's going to be one of gradually stripping away all restrictions. Sure, "faith in capitalism" might be low, but if you don't trust the whole concept of government you're never going to be able to build any kind of replacement, particularly in a culture where there is no single unified source of news, and a thousand tiny sources bloom and feud with each other instead. The idea of building new social programs, or creating new goals for the government in such an environment, is absurd.

...with one exception, which is that trust in the military has so far substantially escaped the decline in 'trust in institutions', and in general trust in the military in many societies has followed a pattern very different from trust in other institutions. Under conditions like these, anyone who actually wants the government to accomplish anything other than ripping up zoning laws and financial regulations and (eventually) laws regarding abortion/marriage/drug-use is going to join the Military Party, which includes the socialists (who have a positive agenda) and the paleoconservatives (who have a positive agenda, too). I think it's legitimately unlikely that we have room for either kind of thought unless they band together.

[Saint Milei]

Josh Hawley is not a paleoconservative. Neither is JD Vance. Both are just Elizabeth Warren if she didn't really go woke on gays. A Paleocon is someone who would have opposed FDR during the new deal and pretty much adored Robert A. Taft.

[jamestroll]

Libertarian is all Bullsh**t and I am someone who often scores as "libertarian leaning" on political tests. Mostly because I am hand offs on personal regulations and find nuance in economic policy and extremely isolationist.

Libertarian dumbfocks do not seem to realize actions taken of some can affect others. Its an idealist and unrealistic ideology. Like others here have said, we can not have fully unregulated capitalism.


I guess what united libertarians and conservatives is that they both view life as too rosy and believe that everyone has equal opportunity, which is a blatantly false outlook. Both are not very sympathetic to the hardships of racial minorities, especially when it comes to blacks.

Differences in class and income are a necessary evil, and to be technically fair it would be unfair if everyone was equal economically due to different types of work and economic output. But just like that, its also necessary that the government institutes regulations on the environment, labor laws, health and safety, and also having a safety. Without that, the economy would be collapse.

The libertarian and conservative mindsets are radically different, and I think the only reason they are lumped together by so many people is because guns and Obamacare were such big issues in the early 2010s, and they are issues where conservatives and libertarians tended to agree. Libertarians believe economic efficiency is an end in itself - I don't, and I think letting unrestrained market forces reach whatever outcome they coalesce on is a horrible idea that leads to horrible outcomes, which is precisely why I support curbs on immigration, oppose unrestricted free trade, support zoning laws, etc.

I support zoning laws, but am very much a free trader and support few regulations on immigration from Latin America. Let them in now!!!!