- Share This Post
- submit
- 5
-
Sparkle (0)
I had to stop and think today, when confronted with this Rasmussen Report. Apparently, whatever Rassmusen defines as “libertarian” is more willing to vote for Obama than for John McCain.
Libertarian voters make up 4% of the nation’s likely voters and they favor Barack Obama over John McCain by a 53% to 38% margin. Three percent (3%) would vote for some other candidate and 5% are not sure. These results, from an analysis of 15,000 Likely Voter interviews conducted by Rasmussen Reports, challenges the conventional wisdom which assumes that strong support for a Libertarian candidate would hurt John McCain…
The next biggest block of voters, representing 20% of all voters, are both fiscally and socially moderate. Forty-nine percent (49%) of these voters are Democrats and 33% are not affiliated with either major party. They are a bit less likely than the population at large to have completed college but demographically reflect the nation in most ways. Obama leads among these voters 59% to 30%.
The problem with this study is, of course, that none of the people that Rassmusen polled or counted as “libertarian” told Rassmusen whether they self-identified as libertarians. Rassmusen just assumed that anyone who was socially liberal but not quite to the point where they felt the burning need to redistribute American wealth contributed money to the Ron Paul campaign once upon a time when it was still doing cool things like running a blimp.
Someone has a tenuous grasp on political identities, methinks.
Sure, we do fit into that general description: we’re fiscally conservative (radically, one might say) and a lot of libertarians tend to be socially liberal, or at least socially permissive, but its not the kind of social “tolerance” one would expect from the segment of the population that has a proclivity for patchouli and homemade clothing. Personally, this boils down to “I don’t really care what you do, don’t intend to legislate on the matter and please leave me the hell alone.” I don’t think I’m remiss in saying that the “non-interference” attitude is what drives people toward libertarianism rather than progressivism; I have no desire to see the country mandate any kind of social behavior, least of all my personal opinion.
Which is precisely why I find it hard to believe that libertarians are suddenly flocking to Obama. Not only does the militant, religious nature of his campaign creep the hell out of most free-thinking people (dear gawd, that symbol!), but his campaign platform includes almost a complete redistribution of American wealth. The man isn’t shy about championing a system that works to actively maintain a “balance,” taking from the productive and giving to the non-productive until we’re one big, happy, possibly smelly community. He advocates for massive government oversight programs including a wide-net universal health care program, increases in the minimum wage and taxes on businesses, expansion of welfare, government subsidies for environmental reform, and dramatically increased support for those government-run organizations that drive libertarians crazy: labor unions, public schools and the subsidized farm. He’s like a modern day FDR with a couple of shakes of non-benevolent dictator all nicely packaged with a navy blue wool bow, and if there’s one thing that gives me a rash, its the possibility of an overbearing, centralized government run by a man who thinks Milton Friedman is a curse word.
I might have issues with those who are further right in this country over things like abortion, gay marriage and drug usage, but in the long run, I can firmly say that the theocracy many on the far left were predicting would come out of a Bush Presidency will never come to fruition so long as Pat Buchanan is safely labeled a nutcase and religious right is safely disenfranchised. If we ever had the opportunity to establish a fascist right-wing jackbooted state, the Bush Administration was the time, and we carelessly flitted away that opportunity. I don’t need to vote for a progressive to feel a sense of complacency about that long-term situation. John McCain is so similarly incompetent at legislating morality that I’m comfortable with him as a choice in that respect.
The same goes for foreign policy. While I don’t happen to be a fan of continued war, nor of future war, nor of John McCain in general, but there’s really no denying that there’s a huge number of people out there who have nothing to do but sit around their Mosques and plan how best to kill Americans in large numbers on American soil. I’m not stupid.
