At TCS, David Kirby and David Boaz report data showing that:
In the past, our research shows, most libertarians voted Republican—72 percent for George W. Bush in 2000, for instance, with only 20 percent for Al Gore, and 70 percent for Republican congressional candidates in 2002. ... In 2006, libertarians voted 59-36 for Republican congressional candidates—a 24-point swing from the 2002 mid-term election.
Before we assume the long-rumored realignment of libertarian voters with the Democratic Party, however, consider Jonathan Adler's thoughtful post on fusionism:
With all of this talk about the demise of the conservative-libertarian "fusion," and the potential for "liberaltarianism," I thought it would be worthwhile saying a little bit about the origins and content of "fusionism."
In post-war American conservatism, the term "fusionism" is most closely associated with Frank S. Meyer, a conservative intellectual who was a senior editor at National Review, where he penned the column "Principles & Heresies." Meyer argued American conservatism was a distinct philosophy that blended a traditional conservative emphasis on value, virtue, and order, with a libertarian political outlook. ...
Meyer was no "I'm okay, you're okay," relativistic libertarian - he endorsed traditional conservative notions of virtue and morality - but he nonetheless desired a minimal state in which individual freedom had the widest range of potential expression. ... Meyer believed American conservatism was based upon seven principles:
- the existence of an objective moral order based on ontological foundations;
- the primary reference for political thought and action is the individual, not the collective;
- anti-utopianism;
- the limitation of government power;
- opposition to state control of the economy;
- firm support for the Constitution of the United States as originally conceived;
- anti-communism.
Although Kirby and Boaz claim that "libertarians" constitute 15% of the American electorate, I have a very hard time believing that the nominal libertarians in question hold the radically libertarian views of, say, the Mises Institute folks, the people who write and read Reason, or the principal Volokh conspirators. Instead, I suspect most of those so-called libertarians would be quite comfortable with most (if not all) of Meyer's seven principles.
To the extent libertarians deserted the GOP in 2006, they probably did so for precisely the same reason that a fusionist like me sat out 2006. Bush and the K Street Gang:
- Took a utopian view of foreign policy, believing that they could export democracy by military might. They lost sight of the questions conservative maven Russell Kirk posed to Bush 41: "Are we to saturation-bomb most of Africa and Asia into righteousness, freedom, and democracy? And, having accomplished that, however would we ensure persons yet more unrighteous might not rise up instead of the ogres we had swept away?"
- Lost sight of the fiscal conservatism inherent in Meyer's fourth and fifth bullet points. Russell Kirk predicted that, under Bush 41, the "Republican Party must lose its former good repute for frugality, and become the party of profligate expenditure, 'butter and guns.'" Under Bush 43, that prediction came true. A vast increase in government spending both to fund the Iraq war and an enormous increase in entitlements - guns and butter, indeed - that resulted in huge deficits.
- An enormous increase in national government power, especially over civil liberties and education. No Meyer-like fusionist who believes in "the limitation of government power" could have much use for No Child Left Behind, for example, or some of the worst excesses of security precautions.
The GOP succeeded in breaking out of 40+ years as a minority party because people like Ronald Reagan and, yes, Newt Gingrich consistently embraced a fusionist approach to policy that enabled libertarians, social conservatives, and fusionists to live together more or less peaceably under the same big tent. Bush's departures from fusionism broke the back of that coalition.
Having pondered the GOP's problems, however, how likely is it that libertarians will fuse with the Democratic Party long-term? Democrats tend towards communitarian rather than individualistic policies (except when it comes to sex). At or near the core of modern liberalism is a belief in the perfectibility of human beings, which may be the single greatest - and most erroneous - utopian idea in history. The party of Hillarycare cannot plausibly claim to believe in either the limitation of government power (except when it comes to the rights of criminals and terrorists, if you'll allow me to sneak in a bit of snark) or opposition to significant state control of the economy. The Democrats are the party of judicial activism, not the party of originalism, when it comes to interpreting the Constitution.
The GOP is the natural party of fusionism. A fusionist party is the natural political home of small-l libertarians. Get rid of Bush and his ilk, bring back the Reaganites and Gingrichites, and the GOP's on the road to recovery.
Update: For the benefit of those coming to this poct from Volokh's place, my reply to Adler's comments on this post can be found here. The same reply works for Ilya Somin's criticism, especially since his post reads as though he wrote it based on what Adler had said without even first bothering to read this post. (He only mentions what I actually said in an "update," and he doesn't mention my reply to Adler at all.)
