Libertarian Inroads In Montana?
September 14th, 2006 | by Craig |So, if you’ve been reading this site for at least a couple of weeks, you know that I’ve read a couple of books that posit a Libertarian revolution that begins right here in good old Montana and ends in a 5-state secession.
I state in my “About” page that I am a conservative (small “c”) and not a Republican (capital “R”). Which is not surprising for anyone who’s known me for more than 15 minutes. If you define yourself as anything party-related, people won’t engage you on your terms and arguments, but rather on the party’s terms and arguments. And that’s annoying.
I also state that, “having said that, I mostly vote Republican.” So there you go. But honestly, I’m sitting here in mostly the same place politically that I was 10 (or even 20) years ago and wondering where the heck the Republican party went? Where is the party of Reagan and Goldwater? The party of small government and choosing not between left and right but up and down? Fiscal responsibility? (OK, so maybe the Republicans have never been all that fiscally responsible, but they used to talk a good game.)
So, where do the old “Reagan Republicans” go? Is it to today’s Democrats? Well, not so much. They generally see in every problem a government solution. When I think of Democrats, I’m reminded of the old saw, “When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.” Plus, I would amend that to say, “When all you have is a hammer, not only does everything look like a nail, you start looking for nail-like objects to go ahead and pound anyway, and find a bigger, better hammer while you’re at it.”
Now sit down, Shane, step slowly away from the keyboard. I’m talking in generalities, not specifics.
It seems like the whole political spectrum has taken, as we used to say back at Ennis Elementary, a giant step to the left.
So, how fare the Libertarians?
I don’t think they’ve been left out of the giant step. They’ve moved to the left, as well, and the “neo-libertarians,” like Dave Budge, Q and O, Eric Scheie, to name a few, seem to taking up the Reagan mantle: Free markets, strong defense and smaller government.
Most people, unfortunately, equate libertarians with Libertarians, and deserved or not, Libertarians (big “L”) are quickly dismissed as fringe kooks. The Libertarian party has a ways to go before they can be a political force.
In the books mentioned above, (you thought I wasn’t going to get back to them, didn’t you?) Montana elects the nation’s first Libertarian governor and legislature. The governor leads the charge as a former Republican, for the same reasons I’ve outlined above. If memory serves, the guv even brings out Reagan’s oft-quoted line, “I didn’t leave the party; the party left me.”
So, could there be a Libertarian, rather libertarian, “revolution” in Montana?
It’s been posited before. In 2003, I said, “I think that they will find that while most Montanans value freedom, they are going to take some convincing to accept true Libertarian positions, especially relative to prostitutes and drugs.”
I would still argue that, but I do think that the Neo-Libertarian movement is gaining some strength and credibility in their more pragmatic approach. I’m not sure that the capital “L” Libertarians are going to come into power soon.
Here’s the thing: Montana is a net winner in Federal dollars. For every dollar we, as a state, send to D.C., we get it back along with some change. Those federal dollars are tied up in highways, health care, communications and many other things that are nigh impossible in bringing to rural areas. That’s hard to give up, even with all the strings attached.
Plus, Montana is a bit of a contradiction. There’s a romantic notion of the rural farmer or rancher as a fierce individualist, wresting his (or her) living from the land, yet he (or she), too, is most likely dependent on federal largesse to stay in business. (I’m not trying to cast aspersions here, by any means, it’s just the situation as I see it.)
Then there’s the money problem. Let’s face it, kids, it takes cash to get elected, and some of that cash has to come from the national party infrastructure, and the two major parties have become economies of scale. My sinestra pals would probably equate it with Wal-Mart putting the mom-and-pops out of business, but I see it more of a supply-and-demand problem. When the Libertarians get their act together and start putting out a product that people want, then you’ll see demand increase, and supply as well.
In the final analysis, I guess I’d have to say that the notion of a Libertarian revolution, while marginally plausible, is not all that realistic.
At least not yet.
12 Responses to “Libertarian Inroads In Montana?”
By Shane C. Mason on Sep 14, 2006 | Reply
Now sit down, Shane, step slowly away from the keyboard. I’m talking in generalities, not specifics.
No darnit! Blah Blah Blah! I really don’t think that you’ll see me rush to the defense of the Democratic party nearly as quickly as I rush in to attack the Republican party. Neither is perfect, but there is a quantitaive difference in the feelings of the two at this moment in terms of compassion and ‘thinking a problem through’. Let’s face it, those two names are just labels, and they swap positions over time. Who were the progressives of the Late 1800’s and early 1900’s? Why, it was the Republicans! That all changed about the time that Strom Thurmond switched parties.
The simple truth is, neither party is representing the needs of the people in this country right now and:
the notion of a Libertarian revolution, while marginally plausible, is not all that realistic
Well, it just might become more plausible if they don’t straighten their acts up and stop communicating with us like we are Jerry Springer audiences. The American public is lot more savvy than either side is giving us credit for and folks will start looking for a real alternative.
With that said, I am going to put my democratic cheerleaders costume back on and grab my pom poms.
Give me a L
Give me a I
Give me a N
Give me a D
Give me a E
Give me a E
Give me a N
Goooooooooooooooo Monica!
By Chad on Sep 14, 2006 | Reply
Damn Wal-Mart! Limiting our choices AGAIN!
By R;. Alex on Sep 14, 2006 | Reply
Perhaps it’s because I was living in Mormon Idaho, but for the most part I didn’t find the west nearly as libertarian-minded as I had thought it would be, even among non-Mormons.
Sorta an aside, but has anyone here seen Second Civil War? Idaho (with some help from Montana, the Dakotas, and other states) cause a civil war due to conflicts over immigration.
Because of its controversial manner, HBO squashed the movie almost immediately after making it, despite hiring on Phil Hartman, James Earl Jones, Dennis Leary, James Coburn, Beau Bridges, and a lot of other familiar faces.
By R. Alex on Sep 14, 2006 | Reply
Hmm, for some reason the last paragraph didn’t make it in to the comment:
HBO did so little with it that I originally had to get a preview copy from eBay, though they’ve apparently decided to do an official DVD release.
By Craig on Sep 14, 2006 | Reply
*shiver*
By Dave Budge on Sep 14, 2006 | Reply
I’m doing everything I can. It’s a lonely job but at least I have Walter and GMan guarding the flanks.
One of the reasons I moved back to Montana was the allure of the noticeable lack of government - no speed limits, no open container laws, etc., etc. Unfortunately, in the 9 years I’ve been back, the state has taken on that gray patina caused by legislative and judicial zeal; smoking bans, speed limits, court ordered anti-sustance abuse education, smart growth planning and all the regulatory things that make living in Montana little different from other places (like Chicago for instance.) At least we have the scenery.
It’s too bad really and it confounds me how people look to government to cure all ills. From my perspective we’ve all become a society of nancy boys - unwilling to work things out with our neighbors - looking for some collective authority to stop every encroachment on our delicate sensibilities.
That said, I’m still unable to find a better state - or country for that matter.
By AnalogKid on Sep 15, 2006 | Reply
At least from the West Coast/Seattleite standpoint, I’ve noticed something about the big L Libertarians and that party in general.
In the 80s and 90s, it was common to hear the Libertarians described as “Republicans with a drug problem”.
Nowadays, and since at least 2000 it seems, they have switched antagonists from the D’s to the R’s (although I’ve never heard them described as “Democrats with a drug problem”).
I found that the party itself is a magnet for people who have most of the pro-liberty text correct, but love an underdog a little too much. Their isolationist view of the world, as well as their penchant for switching whom they side against as a party is what drove me nuts, and permanently away from them a few years ago.
But even before 2000, they set of my “weirdar” more than a few times and I had a few instances where I could tell that something just wasn’t right about a lot of those folks. Something about how they liked to lose because it made them feel superior.
I think that if they won an actual significant race, they’d freak out and hate themselves.
And maybe that accounts for their new antagonists: They were getting too close to winning, so they went further into the “weirdosphere”.
But I still hold that there is a larger base of small L libertarians in America than the base of people who vote Republican because of their religious convictions and that if the R’s would stop it with the government imposition of morality, the sane big L’s would swing over and meet up with the small L’s to make local, state and national wins for the R’s like nothing ever seen before.
By SallyT on Sep 15, 2006 | Reply
Craig, I agree with your analysis. I’m still a Reagan conservative, but RNSC backing of Chaffee, as well as continued excrement from McCain, have me about fed up with the GOP.
I apologize if any of the following seems harsh, but I see politics from the energy angle, and, as a former Libertarian, consider some of the ‘no government restrictions’ as not well-thought, betraying ignorance of how cultures use and exchange energy to maintain and promote civilization.
AnaloKid said of Libertarians,
I found that the party itself is a magnet for people who have most of the pro-liberty text correct, but love an underdog a little too much.
I see this, too. And, boy, is it frustrating. :-Z
The candidates I’ve talked to tend to do as little as possible and drift into elitist attitudes comparable to the left.
When Libertarians get too busy arguing that they have all the answers, yet they don’t actually do anything about the problems, they’re not creating the vision, just complaining in the hope someone else will do the job.
The Libertarian candidate in my Senate District has done no campaigning (not even door-to-door), and expects to do none. I thought, for once, I had a choice in my Dem-dominated district, but after calling him & chatting, I realize he’s as stuck in the trivial as any Dem. ex: He loves to argue passionately about the need to legalize marijuana (cuz it’s ‘natural,’ unlike the drugs from greedy pharmaceutical giants), but is all for cutting & running from Iraq. And he’s ex-Air Force
Something about how they liked to lose because it made them feel superior.
JMO: Because the struggle can continue and their policies can remain untested.
…if the R’s would stop it with the government imposition of morality, the sane big L’s would swing over and meet up with the small L’s to make local, state and national wins for the R’s like nothing ever seen before.
Now there ya tweaked me. The whole reason we have a Constitution is because of morality. Morality is the original basis of our Rule of Law (though that basis is swiftly becoming the whim of guys/gals in robes).
The only reason this nation has lasted is because of a culture of morality: the understanding that each was responsible for his own energy, and that each was required to respect others’ energy.
The Ten Commandments in courts across America were placed there to remind us of that; to remind us that those who adhere to these basic guides for our energy use will keep civilization in order, secure for all.
IMO, culturally, we’ve been on a path of determined, blighted ignorance for 50 years or so. Way I see it, the Libertarian utopia ain’t a whole lot different from the Left’s utopia (just different people in charge) because both are based on a curious nihilism, summed up as ‘it’s all about me.’
Both tend to focus on the world as source; lose sight of the bigger picture in favor of pitched battles with fellow citizens; forget that safety within a culture requires a love not humanly possible, ie. a Higher Source.
Anyway, I’d say that, if the L’s would grasp the need for moral guidance of energy & swing over to the R’s, Reagan Republicans might regain control of the GOP.
Thanks, guys. I needed that clarity.
By AnalogKid on Sep 15, 2006 | Reply
My apologies for the tweaking, Sally, I thought I should have expanded on that a bit but had worried I had gone on too long. So let me try this:
The Morality I was implying was shown in the Shaivo case. I disliked the husband so much my wife was calling me a Republican just to spite me, but the law was the law and the fed had no right or reason to attempt to get involved.
Also, national abortion law: that is a state’s rights issue as are prostitution and drugs (and other vices). Marriage, including same-sex marriage is an issue for the states as well.
If the states could compete once again in the market of free ideas, just they now do somewhat with their tax structures, America would be much better off economically, as well as morally.
The main reason for this is that a state whose morality is lesser cannot keep up with the reprocussions of those morals without raising their tax rates. A balance has to occur in order for success.
By SallyT on Sep 15, 2006 | Reply
AnalogKid said:
Also, national abortion law: that is a state’s rights issue as are prostitution and drugs (and other vices).
Agreed, but abortion was made national law by the Supreme Court. Pro-abortion activists made this a federal issue, so Congress either takes on the Supremes or attempts to control at federal level. But, for myriad reasons, the holding judges accountable simply doesn’t appeal to them.
BTW, the Schiavo case was an incident which pointed out what happens when Congress actually tries to hold courts accountable. I was amazed by our culture’s willingness to prefer court edict over a citizen’s petition to Congress. Of course, most never heard the whole story, and were too busy pondering how they felt about incapacitation to consider possibilities for Terri.
Marriage, including same-sex marriage is an issue for the states as well.
Yes, and again, judges are making those decisions for the states, while Congress tries to meddle with the Constitution to avoid confronting the usurpation of power by courts.
I agree that it would be great if the states reclaimed their rights, but (at least according to Supreme Court decisions), the 14th Amendment nullified the Tenth. Until the courts are reigned in, the people are not in charge–through Congressional, Presidential, or even the local representative level.
No matter how many Libertarians get elected, their power will always be restricted by the opinions of judges.
By Cassandra on Sep 19, 2006 | Reply
Libertarianism (small L) is always appealing to the young because of its inner logic. I enjoy the good libertarian bloggers for their analysis of economic issues.
Yet I always detect it the desire to protect pot, porn, prostitution, etc. Ultimately I can’t respect libertarianism if personal vice is always going to be a core value.