Instantman, in reference to an article about women and the sexual revolution, says:

This kind of stuff, by the way, is the reason why a lot of Democrats who are basically in agreement with the Republican party are still afraid to vote for Republicans.

This seems to be a common attitude among many libertarians (and to the degree that labels apply, I think that one fits Glenn about as well as any), particularly the ones who approached that philosophy from the left (i.e., former Democrats). I once had an extended email discussion (back during the election) with another libertarian friend (who's also a blogger, but shall remain nameless) about how as much as he disliked the socialism of the Democrats, he felt more culturally comfortable with them. Again, this is a prevalent attitude of products of the sixties. You know, Republicans were uptight fascists, and Democrats were idealistic, free-living, and hip.

While I'm not a conservative, my own sexual and drug-taking values (and life style) tend to be. I just don't think that the government should be involved in either of these areas. But my voting pattern is that I'll occasionally vote Republican (I voted for Dole over Clinton, the only time I've ever voted for a Republican for President), but I never vote for a Democrat for any office. The last time I did so was in 1976, and I'd like that one back.

There are at least two reasons for this.

First, I've found many Republicans who are sympathetic to libertarian arguments, and in fact are often libertarians at heart, but see the Republican Party as the most practical means of achieving the goals. There may be some Democrats out there like that, but I've never run into them. That's the least important reason (partly because I may be mistaken, and have simply suffered from a limited sample space). But fundamentally, the Democratic Party, at least in its current form, seems to me to be utterly antithetical to free markets.

But the most important reason is this--while I find the anti-freedom strains of both parties equally dismaying, the Democrats are a lot better at implementing their government intrusions, and there's good reason to think that this will be the case even if the Republicans get full control of the government.

This is because many of the Democratic Party positions are superficially appealing, if you're ignorant of economics and have never been taught critical thinking.

Who can be against a "living wage"? What's so bad about making sure that everyone, of every skin hue, gets a fair chance at a job? Why shouldn't rich people pay a larger percentage of their income in taxes?--they can afford it. Are you opposed to clean air and water? What's wrong with you? How can you be against social security--do you want old folks to live on Kibbles and Bits?

To fight these kinds of encroachments on liberty requires a lot of effort and argument and, in the end, it often loses anyway. Consider for example, the latest assault on the First Amendment that passed the Senate today, sixty to forty. Many Republicans voted against it. I don't think any Democrats did.

[Thursday morning update: Best of the Web notes that two Democrats did vote against it--John Breaux and Ben Nelson. Good for them. They also have a hall of shame for the Republicans who voted for it.]

On the other hand, the things that libertarians like Glenn and Nameless fear that conservatives will do (e.g., in matters sexual), are so repugnant to most Americans that they'll never get made into law, and if they do, the legislators who do so will quickly get turned out of office. So, you have to ask yourself, even if you dislike the attitude of people who are uncomfortable with the sexual revolution, just what is it, realistically, that you think they'd actually do about it if you voted for them?

The bottom line for me is that Democrats have been slow-boiling the frog for decades now, and they're very good at it. I tend to favor Republicans, not because I necessarily agree with their views on morality, but because I see them as the only force that can turn down the heat on the kettle, and that they're very unlikely to get some of the more extreme policies that they may want, because the public, by and large, views them as extreme.

I'm a little confused here--what is it that we cultural conservatives want to do that's so extreme? We can't be both traditionalist and beyond the pale.

Agreed. If you have to choose between pols who want to control your sex life and pols who want to control how you do business, go with the anti-sex ones every time. There's no way they can possibly get away with restricting your private life as some voters fear. To try would mean antagonizing a large part of the population. OTOH there's plenty of precedent for anti-business control freaks gaining power and destroying the lives of members of productive minority groups, who, unlike people who engage in sex, can be isolated and demonized.

"I'm a little confused here--what is it that we cultural conservatives want to do that's so extreme?"

Good question. And one that I asked (if somewhat implicitly) in the post.

I suspect that the big issue is abortion. But until the courts (and particularly the Supreme Court) can be packed sufficiently to overturn Roe v. Wade (which I think should be done regardless of my or anyone's position on the legality of abortion, because it's such an abortion of a judicial decision and a constitutional fantasy), there's not really anything.

The point is, that social non-conservatives hear what social conservatives have to say about their beliefs, and somehow transmogrify that into some frightening "marching-moron" world in which the government will be monitoring all bedroom activities, to the irrational point that they check their brains at the polling-booth door and vote for Democrats because they fear the boogie man under the bed, while ignoring the very real depredations on freedom that occur every day that we leave them in charge.

Let's face it. We have a choice between a party that is accused of wanting to control what is done in our bedrooms, and a party that demonstrates repeatedly that it wants to, and does, try to control what goes on in our kitchen, our living room, our bathroom, our back yard, our vehicle, our place of work and where we vacation.

Now tell me again, you people (like the nameless one) who seem to have a problem with "social conservatives", because they dare to not completely approve of your lifestyle choices, why I should fear the first party but not the second one?

My life is not confined to my bedroom.

Damn. I forgot to fill in the name.

You bring up something I've long believed, Rand. I am against abortion and do not believe that it is, except to save the mother's life, morally the right thing to do. I also believe that Roe v. Wade was a travesty.

At the same time, I'm scared to death of it ever getting overturned. The minute it does, we (refering to the GOP here) win on one issue in certain states, but we run the risk of never getting elected to any position of responsibility again.

What you say makes a lot of sense and I hope some libertarians take it to heart. It will continue to make sense until Roe v. Wade is overturned, then the anti-abortion folks will have to decide if it's really worth sabotaging the rest of their agenda. I don't have enough faith in my party to come to the right decision.

You bring up something I've long believed, Rand. I am against abortion and do not believe that it is, except to save the mother's life, morally the right thing to do. I also believe that Roe v. Wade was a travesty.

At the same time, I'm scared to death of it ever getting overturned. The minute it does, we (refering to the GOP here) win on one issue in certain states, but we run the risk of never getting elected to any position of responsibility again.

What you say makes a lot of sense and I hope some libertarians take it to heart. It will continue to make sense until Roe v. Wade is overturned, then the anti-abortion folks will have to decide if it's really worth sabotaging the rest of their agenda. I don't have enough faith in my party to come to the right decision.

You raise an interesting point that echoes my experiences with Australian politics. Our government is a coalition of the Liberal Party (a misnomer) and National Party (traditionally a rural-based party).

The Liberals are actually social conservatives, much like Republicans, and most of their social policy is unappealing to me. Issues of symbolic national importance like an apology to the indigenous population for policies of past governments that involved the forced removal of children from their parents, as well as the issue of whether Australia should become a republic, have been exploited by the government.

On the other hand, the party in opposition is the Labor Party. Whilst the name alludes to a union background, in recent times the party has represented a reasonably wide left-leaning platform, like the Democrats.

To me, Labor's social agenda is far more appealing. But as soon as it comes to economics, you wouldn't go near them with a barge pole. Free markets, small government, etc. etc. are the domain of the Liberal Party. Which is a shame, because the current Liberal administration is an utter disgrace in its handling of Afghan asylum-seekers, Aboriginal reconciliation, issues of homosexuality, etc.

Very good piece and something I keep trying to hammer home to the "all Republicans/Conservatives" are fascist brigade. There are quite a few libertarians in both the Tory Party (UK) and the GOP in the US either in their private lives and/or instinctively. Many of them are just to chicken to show it to anyone other than an admitted libertarian like me.

I believe there is more progress that way in the UK. Bringing up the legalisation of cannabis in a party function for young adults does not cause caniption (sic) fits. Not only that it gets quite a bit of support. Oddly enough wrapping it in the "classical liberal" tag works best, as well as mentioning Hayek et al. These are Thatcher's children and recognise the scribes of freedom.

Democrats can be caricatured just like Republicans, and for every Pat Robertson there's an insufferably sanctimonious left-wing priest like Ralph Nader, Michael Moore or others.

The only thing that keeps Democrats out of the bedroom is that they can't figure out how to tax sex.