So writes Henry Olsen.
Post-Moderns like unions (50 percent favorable), Obamacare (only 16 percent think it will have mainly a bad effect), and the U.N. (60 percent favorable). They are much less likely than Libertarians to say government should be smaller (85 percent vs. 55 percent), and are significantly less likely to say that cutting major programs should be the main way to cut the deficit (47 percent vs. 8 percent). They much prefer expanding alternative energy (79 percent) to producing more fossil fuels (13 percent). And they are more likely than Libertarians to support gun control (54 percent vs. 18 percent) and government efforts to fight childhood obesity (62 percent vs. 24 percent).
His point is that this group, which he claims helps elect Republican governors in some states, is not really libertarian. However, I would point out that they are not really conservative, either.
What positions can Republican politicians take that add more voters than they turn off? Conservatives tend to say, “soften the economic libertarianism, keep the social conservatism.” Libertarians tend to say the opposite.
I keep thinking that the swing voters are what people call “low-information voters.” I picture them as responding to looks, personality and media characterizations. I don’t think ideas matter so much.
Interesting piece. A few observations:
1. Olsen notes that the Post Moderns are relatively young, at least as compared to Libertarians, although otherwise, they’re demographically similar. What this might suggest is that these Post Moderns could shift rightward as they age (as many people of different stripes do), and the demographic similarities suggest that they are more likely to drift toward a more libertarian GOP than a God, Guns, & Gays party full of Mike Huckabee fans. In support of this, note that…
2. Post Moderns appear to be half-retarded. 55% of these people, according to the numbers Olsen cites, think the government is too big, but only 8% want to cut entitlement spending, and majorities favor gun control, are favorably disposed towards the Obamaites, and support some vague government actions aimed to Do Something about childhood obesity. These are pretty contradictory views. Perhaps, if wisdom increases with age, these folks will begin to notice the schizophrenic nature of these stated preferences, particularly as entitlement spending swallows the entire federal budget, and adjust their voting patterns accordingly? Maybe that’s wishful thinking, but if they’re pulling down 75k plus, they can’t be entirely stupid.
3. Even if they are, Post Moderns aren’t the only kinds of independents out there, right? Right?
4.. If Rand Paul is the Republican Party’s Boromir, who, pray tell, is the wise Gandalf or the brave Frodo referred to at the end that is going to that is going to lead the party to victory? The field is looking pretty thin at this point, yes? We seem to have more Sarumans than Gandalfs.
I was going to make some similar points.
Post Moderns appear to be half-retarded.
It strikes me that the “Post-Modern” beliefs you list are unmoored from reality and will soon come crashing down as reality sets in. At least, we hope so.
If Rand Paul is the Republican Party’s Boromir, who, pray tell, is the wise Gandalf or the brave Frodo referred to at the end that is going to that is going to lead the party to victory? The field is looking pretty thin at this point, yes? We seem to have more Sarumans than Gandalfs.
That’s what was pretty funny about Olsen’s piece. He bashes Rand Paul for not having the right strategy, yet he offers nothing better, a Saruman if you will, as Olsen’s real intent is unknown.
I read his piece wanting to disagree with him, but I came out agreeing with him: I don’t think a libertarian can win. In the end, Ron Paul’s effort to spread libertarian ideas is probably much more important than a short-term but likely doomed effort to win the Presidency, particularly when you can’t do much with both houses of Congress filled with non-libertarians, of either party.
I hope Rand Paul realizes this and works just as hard to increase the ranks of libertarian legislators as he appears to be doing to win the Presidency. He certainly has made signals to all the non-libertarian constituencies- take, for example, his harping on border security before deciding not to support the current immigration reform bill or his recent claim that there is a “war on christianity”- so he seems to realize that he can’t win as a libertarian.
I wonder if he sees himself as a libertarian sheep in wolf’s clothing or just the compromises one has to make to grab the ring.
My hope is that though we never win office, we win on what I see as the most important issue, that is ending the war on drugs.
On the other issues I just hope that we can influence people to be smarter. A smart welfare state, might replace most welfare (TANF, SNAP, SS etc.) with either a negative income tax or a basic income guarantee. A smarter tax system would replace the income tax with a progressive consumption tax. It would be smarter to cut defense spending to a level appropriate for the post USSR world. Smart environmentalism would get rid of sill programs like ethanol and CAFE replace them with a carbon tax.
“I would point out that [Post-Moderns] are not really conservative, either.” Agreed; they are basically non-mainstream liberals: influenced to some degree by classic liberal and libertarian thinking, but fundamentally comfortable with the idea of government, not viewing politics through the “coercion/freedom” axis (at least, not exclusively), and thus not really susceptible to typical “hard libertarian” arguments and associated economic policies.
I’m not an expert on UK politics, but it’s possible that US Post-moderns may roughly correspond to the more leftish groups within the Liberal Democrats. In the US they gravitate to the Democratic party because there’s no place for them in the GOP. Based on my personal experience the proportion of Post-Moderns is fairly high within Silicon Valley and other tech communities.
What positions can Republican politicians take that don’t add more voters than they turn off? Seriously. There is only so much room running as anti-Democrats, when Democrats have taken the center. As the right dies off day by day, there are fewer they have to appeal to. I realize Republicans don’t want to be the majority party, but the search to be an ever smaller minority has its limits. If they want a smaller government, perhaps they should seek a more efficient one. If they want more markets, perhaps they should seek to fix broken ones. If they want to be taken seriously, perhaps they should seek to be serious. If they want to be reasoned with, perhaps they should be reasonable. If they want to convey knowledge, perhaps they should acquire some.
“His point is that this group, which he claims helps elect Republican governors in some states, is not really libertarian. However, I would point out that they are not really conservative, either.”
Let’s see:
1. Pro unions
2. Pro Obamacare
3. Theoretically ready to reduce government (barely), but not by eliminating any big programs
4. Alternative energy over fossil fuels
5. Pro gun control
6. Pro government anti-obesity campaign
Liberal, liberal, liberal, liberal, liberal, liberal. Hmmm … Any chance they’re liberals?
“I don’t think ideas matter so much.”
Bingo. It seems to me that these views are widely shared among mainstream reporters, editors, TV personalities, etc., creating a zeitgeist that makes them the default views among people whose engagement with public affairs is casual as opposed to deeply considered – call them non-ideological voters.
Ken