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

[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.

[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.

[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".

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

He is right about the term paleoconservative being misused here, though.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Libertarians share one fatal flaw with Liberalism (not surprising considering its roots) and one fatal flaw with Marxism (not surprising considering how many young libertarians have gone that direction eventually).

Whenever you combine a doctrinaire dogmatic view of one's own ideology with an idealistic view of the world and human nature, you inevitably run across situations where you have to choose between the reality as it exists on the ground or the ideology. 

I think a lot of people have "select libertarian leanings", but very few would satisfy the strict scrutiny that Deadprez is referencing. A lot of people who supported the Ron Paul movement for instance, were not libertarians but foreign policy nationalists denied a "traditional home" on the right thanks to the overbearing dominance of the neocon movement in the Bush years.

This is why even as you have seen the decline of anything that can be specifically labeled a "libertarian movement" but tremendous gains have been made on the select fronts in both parties in a libertarian direction. It thus should not come as a surprise that what was a "movement" in a certain direction would then fragment based on one's priorities in a given situation, between the left and the right obviously.