On last year’s survey, I found that of American LWers who identify with one of the two major political parties, 80% are Democrat and 20% Republican, which actually sounds pretty balanced compared to some of these other examples.
But it doesn’t last. Pretty much all of those “Republicans” are libertarians who consider the GOP the lesser of two evils. When allowed to choose “libertarian” as an alternative, only 4% of visitors continued to identify as conservative. But that’s still…some. Right?
When I broke the numbers down further, 3 percentage points of those are neoreactionaries, a bizarre local sect that wants to be ruled by a king. Only one percent of LWers were normal everyday God-’n-guns-but-not-George-III conservatives of the type that seem to make up about half of the United States.
I think that “libertarian” is what you’re likely to get when you take “conservative” and remove all the opinions associated with religion. And for obvious reasons, LW is going to have a very low percentage of people who are serious religious believers.
I think that “libertarian” is what you’re likely to get when you take “conservative” and remove all the opinions associated with religion.
I don’t know about that. For a simple counter-example, conservatives tend to love law and order, libertarians—not so much.
A common simplistic understanding of libertarians is “conservative economically, liberal socially”, but even then you don’t get there from conservatives just by removing religion.
Cladistically, libertarianism comes out of the Left, not the Right, and in fact shares fairly close historical ties with socialism. This is obscured somewhat by the fact that modern libertarians talk a lot like modern conservatives and tend to use “socialist” as a loose secular synonym for “the spawn of he whom we call the Desolate One”, but that’s a trend that started no earlier than the Seventies or late Sixties.
For a simple counter-example, conservatives tend to love law and order, libertarians—not so much.
True, there are some non-religious issues which separate conservatives and libertarians, but someone doesn’t have to believe in every libertarian issue to be a libertarian. Are there enough prominent non-religious issues such that someone who takes a conservative position on only the non-religious issues would be considered closer to the conservative side than to the libertarian one?
A common simplistic understanding of libertarians is “conservative economically, liberal socially”, but even then you don’t get there from conservatives just by removing religion.
Don’t you? Most issues where libertarians are socially liberal have the conservative side heavily influenced by religion.
Let’s check internationally. In Japan, for example, religion (Shinto and/or Buddhism) is not a prominent factor in sociopolitical issues. So does this mean that Japanese conservative politicians are essentially libertarians? Doesn’t look like that to me.
In Japan, Shinto is associated with Japanese nationalism. Just because it doesn’t affect people’s views on gay marriage doesn’t mean that it has no effect on politics.
Recall that the original issue was whether libertarians are just conservatives less religion. Are you applying this claim globally or you think it’s purely a US thing?
Going back up a thread a bit
Most issues where libertarians are socially liberal have the conservative side heavily influenced by religion.
I suggested law and order as a conservative issue. You think it’s “heavily influenced by religion”?
It was in Yvain’s dark matter essay.
That surprises me. Pleasantly. Thanks!
I think that “libertarian” is what you’re likely to get when you take “conservative” and remove all the opinions associated with religion. And for obvious reasons, LW is going to have a very low percentage of people who are serious religious believers.
I don’t know about that. For a simple counter-example, conservatives tend to love law and order, libertarians—not so much.
A common simplistic understanding of libertarians is “conservative economically, liberal socially”, but even then you don’t get there from conservatives just by removing religion.
Cladistically, libertarianism comes out of the Left, not the Right, and in fact shares fairly close historical ties with socialism. This is obscured somewhat by the fact that modern libertarians talk a lot like modern conservatives and tend to use “socialist” as a loose secular synonym for “the spawn of he whom we call the Desolate One”, but that’s a trend that started no earlier than the Seventies or late Sixties.
True, there are some non-religious issues which separate conservatives and libertarians, but someone doesn’t have to believe in every libertarian issue to be a libertarian. Are there enough prominent non-religious issues such that someone who takes a conservative position on only the non-religious issues would be considered closer to the conservative side than to the libertarian one?
Don’t you? Most issues where libertarians are socially liberal have the conservative side heavily influenced by religion.
Let’s check internationally. In Japan, for example, religion (Shinto and/or Buddhism) is not a prominent factor in sociopolitical issues. So does this mean that Japanese conservative politicians are essentially libertarians? Doesn’t look like that to me.
In Japan, Shinto is associated with Japanese nationalism. Just because it doesn’t affect people’s views on gay marriage doesn’t mean that it has no effect on politics.
Recall that the original issue was whether libertarians are just conservatives less religion. Are you applying this claim globally or you think it’s purely a US thing?
Going back up a thread a bit
I suggested law and order as a conservative issue. You think it’s “heavily influenced by religion”?
“Most” is not “every issue”.