Most seem to lean toward the Republicans. This is probably because Republican rhetoric sounds a bit like Libertarianism, with its emphasis on small government.
Yet the past six years has shown that Republicans are just as un-Libertarian as Democrats. The Bush administration, along with a Republican Congress, has invaded two countries, created a new federal entitlement program (the Medicare prescription drug benefit), expanded campaign finance regulation (McCain-Feingold), and adopted intrusive new regulation of business (Sarbanes-Oxley). The Republicans have also let federal spending mushroom, advocated numerous restrictions on civil liberties (warrantless wiretaps, incommunicado detentions), and expanded the federal role in education (No Child Left Behind). It would be hard to design a less libertarian agenda.
Many Democrats, of course, endorsed large parts of this agenda. And Democrats endorse many other policies that Libertarians oppose. So the point here is not that Libertarians should lean toward the Democrats. It is that Republicans and Democrats are both for big government. Libertarians should prefer neither.
What political outcome, then, can Libertarians support?
Divided government.
If one party controls the White House while the other controls Congress, stalemate results, with little expansion of government. This is what occurred during the divided-government Clinton years, in contrast to the past six years of one-party rule.
Since current political realities suggest Republicans will control Congress in the near future, Libertarians should therefore hope for a Democratic presidential victory in 2008. And the more polarizing the Democrat, the better.
Gridlock is good.
Comments