The Libertarian movement began gaining great ground after 2012 to 2016, after many people were dissatisfied with the two major political parties. This might have even been the inroads of a third major party into having an influence on U.S. politics, some thought. But the reason it failed is it was too divided. This was from the very beginning, there were conservative and liberal factions. Many of these Libertarians do not want to admit this and tried to unite around their common core ideology, but the truth of the matter is most of the supporters who were rallying in this direction were not pure hardcore Libertarians, and had their own various political orientations besides from the Libertarian party line. Just a few examples, some of these divisions were along the lines of immigration and trade polices. There were also intellectual contention on race issues, abortion, and how to handle drug issues, although these probably did not matter as much in real physical terms, so they probably only contributed to the feelings of division rather than creating an actual political split. In the broadest terms, the Libertarian banner could appeal to many within the Right and Left, but some of these platforms were mutually exclusive. For example, the movement actually drew a much larger amount of support from the popular conservative group than the economically conservative group, even though it was the latter who would have been in agreement with many of the economics espoused from Libertarian ideology. Some of those with Hispanic backgrounds thought Libertarian policy would translate into more freedom of people across borders. In the end, it seemed that each side wanted to selectively pick and choose what it liked from the Libertarian philosophy like a buffet, and these were not exactly the same things. This put the Libertarian movement's figurehead Ron Paul in a difficult situation and he tried to only focus on the core Libertarian issues, which to his credit he did a good job of doing when it came to setting platforms and being asked questions. It's worth pointing out that when Ron Paul failed in the Republican party primaries, the Libertarian party put forth Gary Johnson, who was contrarily much more on the liberal Libertarian side. Perhaps the truth is the movement couldn't appeal to enough supporters on both sides simultaneously. Perhaps the Libertarian leaders realized this and instead tried to make philosophical and intellectual inroads into both major parties.
I dont know about failed. It still exists and still comes in third in most elections. But it has not succeeded in being a force yet either. I think the biggest hurdle is exposure during the major debates. The two big parties get to dictate what criteria is needed for a 3rd party to even get on stage. Strangely it is always just a bit beyond the reach of anyone that is not a Republican or Democrat.
Libertarians are the wave of the future. And always will be. Libertarians did stall out a bit since the movement has gone full autistic ("never go full autistic") on immigration and trade. Since they have a distorted view of human nature they will never go anywhere, but I assume they have the best pot at their get togethers.
I've always said America is headed toward becoming conservative fiscally and liberal socially. But the Dems have attached too many people to the government teet. Everyone just wants their government check. The Libertarian message won't be received well when everyone lives off government. We suck.
Ouch. The little part of me that's ideological is still libertarian, but this has gone from a central part of my political philosophy to a footnote. Even I do still hope that Americans take a more libertarian perspective in general, I believe that individualism is the best hope for escaping the identity politics trap we're hurtling towards.
As much as I may sympathize with your position, I think it's very possible that individualism, in the Western, enlightenment way that we understand it, is on it's way out as a philosophical basis for culture and governance. That's not where the "kids" are now.
Regardless of how popular or unpopular the ideology is, the deck is now and always has been unfairly stacked against libertarians, just as it is against moderates and third parties in general, particularly the types which overlap in some areas with either or both of the two 'main' parties. There are ways to fix this though. I posted a thread earlier today which uses a method of voting which actually gives third parties and moderates a fair shot. Check it out if you have time, and feel free to cast a vote yourself. The more the merrier! http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/ranked-vote-what-is-the-best-smartphone.530505/ -Meta
I don't think that the United States will ever be monocultural enough to be some kind of collective monolith. No single subculture is able to subsume the rest, as much as Greater New Englanders might want to. But identity politics, especially as it relates to anglo-whites and Latinos, carries the seeds of catastrophe.
My point is that a single doctrine is incapable of permeating American culture as a result of significantly different regional subcultures. As a working American always hovering on the borders between the Greater American South, the American West, and the Mexican Borderland, I can say that Progressivism and Socialism don't have much of a future in this country.
Well in that case, I have to disagree. There is a leftist doctrine that dominates the media, both entertainment and news, academia, social media, and even establishment churches, so I've no idea why you think regional subcultures are immune to this. That's been lost a long time ago.
Greater New Englanders and New Yorkers have always been disproportionately influential in the fields of academia, finance, and media. That hasn't changed.
The implication is that you're reading as some kind of tsunami-like trend a fact that has always been a feature of our Republic.
No, because those "Greater New Englanders and New Yorkers" were individualists a century ago. Now they are over it. I see freedom contracting, not expanding.
The Progressive movement of a century ago is a direct ancestor of today's Progressive movement. The Roundhead movement of centuries ago was an ancestor of both. Whatever one might accuse Roundheads of, the Pilgrims among them, "individualism" must surely be at the bottom of the list. The United States has never been libertarian. Not in the North, not in the South, not the westward reaches into Appalachia. It is worth noting that my particular subculture, that of the American West, is among the most libertarian cultures on the planet. I, too, am merely a product of history.
The potential of the Libertarian movement to be a force for good is inversely proportional to the percentage of Libertarians who are atheists, who can almost invariably be depended on to confuse liberty with license.
An implication of your post is that libertarianism can be either a force for good or a force for ill. I'm trying to understand any manner in which libertarianism as a force for ill can be combatted other than through non-liberty. So I'm making sure I understand you correctly. Would you prefer liberty with license or neither?
Libertarianism is founded upon the non-aggression principle. That principle is the lodestone. If you don't agree with the non-aggression principle, you're not a libertarian.