One of the hurdles as a young man who self-associates with Libertarians is the one argument folks on the left have always used; the issue of minority rights. The left, old and young, have an institutionalized the issue of race within schools and party rhetoric, and it mixes with both genuine concern and misused political points to form a standard platform. In my age group, it is commonplace to be tolerant of others regardless of their superficial differences- and that is a terrific thing. The issue is that if you are not a part of the Left, then you are assumed to be either a bigot, or a bigot apologist.
Having formerly been on the Left side of the political spectrum, it is very easy to fall into that simplistic state of mind. The party revolves around a victim mentality, so any opposition to it from the right always came off as a rich white guy in a suit and a bow tie talking down to the masses. One cannot take the issues of fiscal responsibility in budgets seriously when the person is already labeled as some new-age bigot from the days of Jim Crow. So you can imagine it is rather frustrating to engage in civil conversation with the hard left about race when the presumption from them is far from the inclusive message they preach.
That was one of the few main issues I had with the Democrat Party going into college, and discovering my intellectual foundations; how can a party that promotes equality function on such a double standard with race? Not just in conversation, but in rule of law with Affirmative Action for instance, or the Voter’s Right Act recently shot down- they both use a double standard of race to judge the character of American People. Worse yet, they use statistics to judge the issue of race in America, which relies on sets of numbers to determine a subjective feeling within a nation (see my income inequality post for more detail). It seems to me the sleight of hand goes to the benefit of the person judging the statistics, which tends to be a university professor in close connection with the Democrat Party in their area. It did not sit right with me then, and it still does not sit right with me today. There had to be a better way to deal with the rights of all without taking away rights from others.
Enter the libertarian philosophy. The consistently and soundness the ‘classical liberalism’ camp provides shows that treating each person as an individual from the very beginning is the best approach. Government should already not be in the business of legislating by race, but our government was created with the protections for the individuals from the government in the first place. it was supposed to be a moral guideline that already reflected the values our Founding Father’s held from their own belief system. To use race within law is always a dangerous thing, which is evident from Jim Crow laws to the Affirmative Action laws still in effect today.
The Libertarian-leaning politicans in office today are showing more and more their ability to act on issues of race and gender in sensible ways, without using a group’s rights mentality. Take Senator Rand Paul (R., KY), who has pushed for changing the mandatory minimum sentencing in Federal Courts for the past year now. Going back to his father, former senator Ron Paul, the issue of mandatory minimum sentences disproportionately affected black americans over whites due to the unfair nature of the law. Coupled with a poor drug law system we have, these folks who have committed non-violent drug-related offenses are being locked away for long periods of time for all the wrong reasons. Such an issue has profound effects in the community, where many inner-city black families are losing fathers within the family, losing a strong family structure and a stable source of income. See two different takes from opposite ends of the poltitical specturm agreeing on the same issue:
Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/18/rand-paul-mandatory-minimum-laws_n_3949415.html
Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsullum/2013/09/19/rand-paul-is-right-about-the-injustice-of-mandatory-drug-minimums/
Another terrific example is Senator Ted Cruz (R., TX.) who has recently partnered with Representative Sheila Jackson Lee (D, TX) on the issue of School Choice. Both politicians are very far from each other on the political spectrum, and yet they can agree that school choice for K-12 is a serious issue which should be debated on a national level. Given the quality of American Education today in public schools, and the large gap between schools within the cities and the suburbs; it should be deeply considered among Americans how the future of our education system should be. For these two representatives to agree that competition in the choice for schools is good for America’s kids, is an enormous victory for bipartisanship in the making. I can venture a good guess that school choice will eventually enter the national conversation, despite any media resistance against it, in the coming months ahead.
http://www.examiner.com/article/ted-cruz-and-sheila-jackson-lee-join-forces-for-school-choice
Now what about specific hate speech that many on the left say still continues in Republican circles; what do libertarian candidates have to say about that? Representative Justin Amash (R., MI) has recently stood up to a GOP figure in his home state by calling for his resignation over anti-muslim & homophobic rhetoric on twitter. From The Libertarian Republic:
Amash and other members of the Michigan GOP are trying to change that by asking Agema to formally step down. In response to Agema’s hateful diatribe, Amash said in a statement, “Defending civil liberties is at the heart of the Republican Party and our Constitution. As I’ve demonstrated with my words and record, I am trying to grow a new generation of Republicans that includes more gays and lesbians, racial-ethnic minorities, women, and young people.”
http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/amash-asks-gop-figure-step-repeated-hate-speech/#axzz2rG0tgRhO
On other issues like the NSA spying debate, marijuana legalization, libertarian-leaning candidates side with progressive democrats, along with very broad issues of Civil Rights. While libertarians may not agree with democrats on economic liberty, the issues that they do agree on should be welcomed with open arms on the legislative floor. In the uber-polarized political climate we live in today, the major differences we do have should not let us get in the way of what can be solved together.
Perhaps one day our government can function under the idea of protecting the rights of the individual rather than groups. Group rights in law only take away the rights from others- and that is the philosophical difference libertarians have with liberals today. Beyond that, they both agree on a great many things when it comes to inequality in America. How libertarians approach such problems is another issue. The current challenge is that of rebranding the Republican Party, which I believe is in desperate need of a ‘makeover’.
The real challenge is how to end up with a party that maintains the core principles of fiscally responsible government & individualism with the broad base of all people, regardless of race, gender, and religion. Do not let the old right of the McCain’s, Graham’s, and King’s of the GOP lead you to believe conservatives are not inclusive of all; it will be Paul’s, Amash’s, Rubio’s, and Cruz’s of the party that show what libertarian conservatives are about. The fiscal issues of debt, with the right to be left alone by the government and treated like individuals will win over young people today drowned by student loan debt and no jobs if the idea of blanket assignments of bigots for the GOP can be overcome.
The GOP of new, if held together correctly, will be the true party of inclusion. It will be party of Victors, not Victims. It will be the party of prosperity, not dependancy. It will be the party of the age old saying in American history (paraphrased)- the right to be left alone. If the Obama administration has done anything good for society, it is inadvertently taught us that privacy is a virtue we should all fight for. That may very well be the line a future presidential candidate should run on- so long as they can prove once and for all the nation we live in is no longer dominated by race and gender inequality.
Conscience of Liberty 