Last week’s convention was a wake for the GOP as we know it.
This week will be an explanation of why Hillary Clinton is
unacceptable not simply to libertarians but to that plurality of Americans who define themselves as independent, centrist, moderate, or anything other than a dyed-in-the-wool partisan.
On Federal Spending, Foreign Policy and State Surveillance, Free Speech, Social Issues, Immigration, Gun Rights, and Regulations, Trade, and the Sharing Economy, Hillary is just as much an authoritarian as The Donald.
Libertarian Party President/Vice President Ticket Johnson/Weld pulls voters from both parties according to many polls.
Here’s a reason why J/W might pull from Democrats.
Thaya Brook Knight is associate director of financial regulation studies at the Cato institute. And she was profiled for a recent publication of Cato’s Letters. Ms. Knight was asked when she was first drawn to libertarian views. Her response:
I’ve always held libertarian views, although until recently I identified as a liberal Democrat. I believe in a strong First Amendment and strong protections for criminal defendants, I oppose the War on Drugs, and I support gay rights. In the wake of 9/11, I was horrified by the willingness to give up personal liberty in the name of safety. For a time, that meant my beliefs were aligned with the Democratic Party. But I’m also a feminist and it makes me angry when I’m told that, as a woman, I don’t know how to make my own choices or that I should be protected from their consequences, like a child. If we’re serious about equality, all adults must have the freedom and responsibility to order their lives as they see fit.
Highlights mine on what’s important to Ms. Knight. Hillary and many Democrats are attacking many of these issues or are recent converts. They’re also attacking our Due Process rights and Second Amendment rights.
As gay rights advocates intensify their campaign to legalize same-sex marriage in New York, the bulk of their money is coming from an unexpected source: a group of conservative financiers and wealthy donors to the Republican Party, most of whom are known for bankrolling right-leaning candidates and causes.
. . .
The newly recruited donors argue that permitting same-sex marriage is consistent with conservative principles of personal liberty and small government.
“I’m a pretty straight-down-the-line small-government guy,” said Mr. Asness, who described himself as a libertarian who favored less government intrusion in both markets and personal affairs. Mr. Asness, a frequent Republican donor, has praised Tea Party activists on his blog and last year attended a conference of right-leaning donors held by Charles and David Koch, among the leading conservative philanthropists in the nation.
Okay. Let’s get this straight one more time. Conservatives and libertarians are different. They are not synonymous. The three basic governing philosophies in the U.S. are progressive, conservative, and libertarian. The first two are relatively more statist than the last.
Mr. Bloomberg, a Republican-turned-independent, is the most politically centrist of the donors. (He is not coordinating his efforts with the other contributors.)
Bloomberg centrist? Not really. If Bloomberg supports gay marriage and lots of economic regulations, he’s one of the statist philosophies. Libertarians can be viewed as the most centrist because of their consistent application of liberty and limited government. Contrast that with liberals (who also call themselves progressives) and conservatives, both of which propose all kinds of schemes to limit our liberty and to expand government.