This is part three in a series of dairies on libertarianism. My first diary introduced the series and was an open-ended discussion on questions people have about libertarianism. My second diary actually took aim at other "vulgar libertarians" by revealing the claim that the Constitution is a "libertarian document" to be more myth than fact. This diary is now linked from the enormous "Critiques of Libertarianism" website. I now turn to a topic that I've been asked many times, in different forms. Why bother? Why should Democrats care about libertarians. Why should libertarians, even libertarian Democrats like myself, be welcome at Daily Kos? Allow me to explain.
Let us start back at the 2004 election. I will admit to having been a Deaniac during the primary, for a while I was part of a small online "Libertarians for Dean" movement. But I want to focus on the results on election day. The campaign not only featured a focus on foreign policy and Iraq, but a constant strategy by conservatives to bring up social issues like gay marriage to drum up support among the Religious Right. And yet the exit polls revealed something rather surprising.
First, 22% of those who supported legal marriages for same-sex couples voted for George W. Bush. A relatively small amount given that only 25% of voters favored gay marriage; less than 6% of the overall electorate. But Bush also won, although by a narrow 52% to 47%, among those the 35% of voters who favored civil unions. Combined, that's roughly 28 million Bush voters taking the more socially tolerant position in favor of equal rights for gays.
There's more. When asked if government should do more to solve problems, the nation was narrowly divided: 49% said no, 46% said yes. Among those that say no, 29% voted for Kerry. While this is less than a third of all Kerry voters, it means that roughly 17 million Kerry voters believed that government should not do more to solve problems. To simply write them off as unimportant would be foolish, these voters are a valuable part of the Democratic Big Tent.
A study called "The Libertarian Vote" by David Boaz and David Kirby used these examples and more in illustrating that little-l libertarians make up more of the American electorate than just the 1% or so that vote for the Libertarian Party. In fact, they found that only 2% of Americans tend to self-identify as libertarian. But based on surveys that provide broad definitions of libertarianism and focus on finding voters who are socially liberal and fiscally conservative, they estimate that roughly 13% of voters could be seen as little-l libertarians.
This brings me to a few observations that come in handy when talking about libertarian voters.
First, it is wrong to judge the number of libertarian voters by the showing of the Libertarian Party. You wouldn't assume that the showing of Cobb and Nader in 2004 was the only indication of the number of environmentalists, would you?
Second, although it may be confusing at times, keep in mind that Libertarian with a Big-L refers to a member of the Libertarian Party. Using libertarian with a little-l refers to someone who is less dogmatic and just tends to have libertarian-leaning views.
We can see based on the evidence of pro-gay rights Bush voters or Kerry voters skeptical of government that there are libertarian voters who do vote for major party candidates. A discussion of running Democrats who can appeal to libertarian voters is not trying to say that we ought to be appealing to people who vote for the Libertarian Party. Rather, it is focused on keeping the libertarians who already vote Democratic, converting the libertarians who vote Republican, and energizing the libertarian voters who don't vote because they are frustrated with politics as usual.
Having hopefully explained what types of libertarians I'm talking about, let us get back to the 2004 election. Based on answers from ANES data, David Boaz and David Kirby produced this estimate of how the libertarian vote behaved in past elections:
1988:
Republican Candidate: 74%
Democratic Candidate: 26%
Independent Candidate: 0%
1992:
Republican Candidate: 35%
Democratic Candidate: 32%
Independent Candidate: 33%
1996:
Republican Candidate: 58%
Democratic Candidate: 29%
Independent Candidate: 13%
2000:
Republican Candidate: 72%
Democratic Candidate: 20%
Independent Candidate: 8%
2004:
Republican Candidate: 59%
Democratic Candidate: 38%
Independent Candidate: 3%
What we can see here is a Republican average of just over 70% baring the influence of a strong third party candidate (Ross Perot). The only time that the Republican share of the libertarian vote drops significantly without a strong third party challenge is in 2004, when Kerry almost doubled the Democratic share of the libertarian vote.
First, I think this helps to show that libertarian voters are not monolithic. While Republicans have historically had an edge, libertarian voters have shown the ability to swing to another candidate if the circumstances are right. It's easy to see how Perot's anti-establishment message, which was socially liberal and a mixture of fiscally conservative (balanced budgets) and populist flair (opposition to free trade), appealed to libertarians. But why the surge for Kerry?
It's certainly not because they found him significantly more appealing than Gore in 2000. ANES data among these voters that they felt about the same about Kerry as they did about Gore. These were voters fed up with Bush, and for good reason. Many more traditional Democrats can understand how many of these socially liberal voters were fed up with Bush's extreme Religious Right agenda, his invasion of civil liberties under the Patriot Act, and the lies to get into the Iraq War. But it's also to see that as fiscal conservatives they were upset with the squandering of the surplus and the return of budget deficits. Like a number of Democrats (such as Howard Dean and Tony Knowles), they were unhappy with the expanding role of the national government in education under No Child Left Behind. These were voters that were clearly unhappy with the Republican Party and looking for an alternative. And John Kerry, who really did little to reach out to them, was the only way to remove Bush from office.
We can also see this shift in partisan identification. In 2000, 61% of libertarian voters either identified as Republican or independents that leaned to the Republican Party. That dropped to 55% in 2004. On the opposite side of the political spectrum, Democrats and independents leaning to the Democratic Party went from 24% of libertarian voters to 36%.
Not only did libertarians shift to the Democratic Party, but the long term trend may show even greater shifts. While Bush won most age groups among libertarians, John Kerry won libertarians under 30 by a huge 71% to 24% margin.
So we can add to our observations about the libertarian vote.
Although libertarians have been a historically Republican voting group, they have a history of breaking ranks.
Further, evidence from 2004 shows that they are breaking ranks and supporting Democrats.
This pattern is not only true for the Presidential vote, but Congressional as well. The share of the libertarian vote for House Democratic candidates went from 23% in 2000 and 2002 to 44% in 2004. Among Senate candidates it went from 23% in 2000 and 15% in 2002 to 43% in 2004.
My focus of this diary is not how to appeal to libertarian voters, but making the case that they should be under consideration. Too often in making a case in the past for Democrats appealing to libertarians the discussion got bogged down in the details of how. We're better off, I believe, by first establishing an understanding that libertarians are a swing vote.
I want one more piece of evidence I want to make before I end. Jonathan Chait of The New Republic has opposed the idea that libertarians and liberals should work together in the Democratic Party. One reason is that while he admits that Kerry improved among libertarians, non-libertarians shifted towards Bush. Therefore, in Chait's logic, Democratic success rests not in appealing to libertarians, but by emulating Bush's successful appeal to the non-libertarians.
Now, aside from the problem of Democratic success through being Bush Lite, there is the additional problem of Chait overlooking other reason's for Bush's surge (or escalation?) in numbers from 2000 to 2004. Say, for instance, the advantage of the incumbency. Lingering goodwill following 9-11. An economy, that while uneven, was not catastrophic. Based on past performance, many analysts were predicting that Bush could win with 55%. Bush's victory was in fact an under-performance produced by his own polarizing administration. As the incumbent, Bush was able to marginally improve his showing among most demographics. This is no an endorsement of his administration by these voters, simply that things had not gotten bad enough for them to reject him as they did in 2006.
So there you have it, libertarians as swing voters. The focus here is not in appealing to ideologues who will only vote for Third Party candidates. In fact, the use of the term "libertarian" is not vital, as more people embrace libertarian-leaning views than the label "libertarian" itself. "Libertarian" may only help as a way to distinguish this from older Democratic strategies--although I'd prefer to save the specifics of appealing to libertarians for another diary. I'd appreciate any thoughts or questions you have about libertarians as swing voters. Thank you.