This is part four in a series of posts I'm doing about small-l libertarianism. I started with an open ended discussion on libertarianism, continued with debunking some misunderstandings that libertarians often display about our history and Constitution, and most recently made an argument that small-l libertarians (not members of the Libertarian Party) are viable swing voters that Democrats should try to win over. In this diary, I will present a number of news stories that I hope will help explain the libertarian mindset.
So what makes a libertarian? There's a tendency to stereotype all libertarian as wealthy white males who read lots of Ayn Rand. I'm surprised that so many activists at Daily Kos embrace the use of stereotypes; how would you respond if someone said that everyone who reads Daily Kos was tax-hiking, government-expanding, latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading, Hollywood-loving, left-wing freak? Let's try to leave stereotypes out of this discussion.
Broadly, groups like the libertarian Cato Institute have profiled libertarian-leaning voters by focusing on voters who have socially liberal, fiscally conservative views with some level of distrust of government authority. This group swung heavily toward John Kerry in 2004, but the majority still voted for George W. Bush. If the Democrats were to make a real effort to reach out to these voters, I suspect that the right Presidential nominee could win the majority of the libertarian vote in 2008.
Let's look at some examples of a libertarian-leaning mindset. Health care is a hot topic in American politics. The last attempt by a Democratic President to expand government health insurance ended in failure partly due to concerns of limiting choice in the new system. People like to have the freedom to choose their doctors. This is an issue that gets people angry not only at government, but out of touch HMOs as well. And this isn't just a problem for Democrats, but some Republicans as well. Mitt Romney's health care plan in Massachusetts appears to have problems in limiting choice as well; as one blogger notes his health insurance plan is now illegal in Massachusetts.
In understanding libertarian-leaning voters, the law of unintended consequences should also be kept in mind. In addition to valuing choice, a lot of libertarian-leaning voters with a suspicion of government tend to see how society is far too complex for government to step in and provide an easily solution. Fidel Castro has pointed out how American ethanol policies increases food prices; it just goes to show you that you don't have to be a libertarian to be skeptical of easy solutions. Another example is an AEI-Brookings study that found that federal safety regulations often increase danger by providing a false sense of security that leads people to take riskier actions. For example, child safety caps often lead to people leaving the caps off because they are harder to get off or leaving the bottles in areas where children can reach it because they assume the cap makes things safer. The result is that more children are poisoned, not less, because of the regulation.
Regulatory excess, even when not causing severe unintended consequences, is a broad issue of concern. For instance, why should it be punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 and up to a year in prison to call yourself an "interior designer" in New Mexico without being certified? Or that moving furniture around is regulated and restricted to "registered interior designers" in Nevada, land of gambling and prostitution? There are a host of industries, primarily service oriented, that have stiff certification requirements that do little more than create a cartel or guild that increases prices for consumers.
These are just a few broad examples. But they should help Democrats understand how to approach libertarian-leaning voters. Policy proposals should make sure that they maintain freedom of choice. When at all possible, proposals should be honest about possible negative side effects that may outweigh the good. Repealing old and outdated regulations, along with cutting wasteful corporate welfare, would show these voters that far from being ideologically committed to government for government's sake, Democrats are promoting good public policy. Just some thoughts.