Young libertarians the future of the GOP?

Maybe so.

HAMILTON, N.Y. — College campuses have long been thought of as a breeding ground for political activism, but not for leaning to the right.

Libertarians, like [Colgate University senior Kyle] Gavin, the Colgate College Republicans President, are rapidly changing that.

“I think that’s the future of the Republican Party,” he said.

And he may be right. Gavin and the college Republicans sold out the biggest name in Libertarianism this week: Ron Paul.

Pollster John Zogby said it was fiscal issues that drove these young people to the Libertarians and the GOP.

“Their numbers are growing, particularly as college educated, young, younger people are feeling the squeeze of the recession and more and more rejecting government as a solution,” Zogby said.

8 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

8 responses to “Young libertarians the future of the GOP?

  1. GFY

    This is nothing new. Libertarianism and Ayn Rand have been popular on college campuses at least since the 80’s. Fortunately, most teen agers grow out of this phase as their politics evolve and they understand how “idealistic” libertarianis / objectivism really is. Makes for interesting dorm room discussions, though.

    • No, they grow out of it to become sheeple, groomed and fattened for slaughter and made complacent by the constant battering of PC professors, who claim that the world is much too complex to believe in simple solutions and is best run by proto – Marxists who will transform the very nature of man – which, of course, is not “idealistic” but the goal of all scientific, rational people like their professors.

      • This is where parents come in handy. Shocking, but actually having conversations and debates with ones children about politics, life, regulations, ideals, goals, and objectivism, while occasionally making for a food fight, in the long run give children a sense of the big picture, how they want to fit into it, and more importantly, what they must do to make the country work. Granted, Mr. EOS and I are extraordinarily political people, the process means the world to us, and we did not give our children any choice to opt out of the discussion. I’m not saying the world doesn’t need the young who want to save the world. Yes, we do. And idealism has a place in politics. But then we face the reality of the nation today – when the president on one side of his mouth says no child should be harmed again by guns, yet says God Bless to the people at Planned Parenthood when PP gets 40% of its income from abortions and performs more than 300,000 of them a year at their clinics. What a mess.

        GFY (love your moniker acronym), I don’t know how many teenagers grow out of this phase. Seems to me fewer and fewer. I hope you are right.

    • CatoRenasci

      Oh, libertarianism has been the next coming thing (other than the counterculture and the New Left) since the ’60s at least … I remember dorm discussions of Rand and objectivism (boy, the Randites hated Whittaker Chambers’ review of Atlas Shrugged) as early as 1967. The real problem with libertarianism is libertarians: most of the people attracted to the nascent Libertarian Party in the late 1960s and early 1970s were third-rate losers who thought they were first-raters, but had been held back by statists of one sort or another. Sort of like the way the people who are active in MENSA give being intelligent a bad name. A few hours around Party Libertarians during the 1970 and 1972 elections convinced me I was a classical liberal, not a “Libertarian”.

  2. Cos Cobber

    What more do you need to know about Washington? Its absolutely shameful any Senator or member of Congress would utter a word for special exemption rules, let alone pursuing it in any manner.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323335404578445042307824784.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read

    The Politico website broke the story Thursday morning that Congressional leaders were in hush-hush talks to exempt themselves and their staff from the wonders of ObamaCare. The story succeeded in blowing up the talks, but there’s a bigger story here about Congressional intentions that is worth telling.

    House Speaker John Boehner quickly took to Twitter after the Politico story appeared, saying that he’s not “sneaking any language into bills to solve” a problem for Democrats. He added that full repeal of the law is “the solution to this & other ObamaCare nightmares.”

    We’re told that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer initiated the discussions. Mr. Reid now says he’s not trying to exempt anyone from the law. Mr. Hoyer’s spokesman says only that the Maryland Democrat wants the law to be “workable for everyone.”

    Enlarge Image

    CloseReuters

    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid
    Mr. Reid’s office says he merely wants to ensure that the generous subsidies in the current federal-employee health plan can continue to flow to Congressional staff once they are required to obtain coverage via ObamaCare’s new insurance exchanges. Since insurance companies are referring to the ObamaCare policies that will be offered on exchanges as “Medicaid plus,” you can see why Congress wants to protect its own.

    The larger truth here is that this story goes back to 2009, when Democrats who passed ObamaCare tried repeatedly to exempt themselves or their key aides. Their problem was Senator Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa), who for years has maintained the heretical belief that politicians ought to obey the laws they write for everyone else. In 1995, he sponsored the Congressional Accountability Act, which for the first time applied to Congress various civil rights, employment and labor laws that the politicians had imposed on the rest of the country.

    In September 2009, Mr. Grassley thought he had succeeded in doing the same for health care when the Senate Finance Committee approved his amendment to require Members of Congress and staff to obtain insurance via the new ObamaCare exchanges. But when Mr. Reid brought the bill to the floor that December, its language had mysteriously changed to exempt those Congressional aides who work for committees and party leaders.

    In March 2010 Mr. Grassley tried again to apply the law to all Congressional personnel and to White House officials. His amendment received every Republican vote but it was defeated with 55 Democrats (plus Socialist Bernie Sanders) voting no. However, thanks to Mr. Grassley’s earlier success, the law still covered Members of Congress and some of their aides—hence their latest effort to wiggle out of the ObamaCare mandates.

    In 2010 Mr. Grassley created enough of a political headache that Mr. Obama was compelled to say that he would personally join a new insurance exchange. This was an empty gesture since the President has no need for health insurance. He has a team of people devoted to his health and surely no one asks him to present a card to receive treatment.

    Congress will eventually find some way to protect itself, but its subterranean scrambling to do so exposes one of ObamaCare’s greatest deceits: That if you like the insurance you have, you’ll be able to keep it. Even the people who wrote the law don’t believe it.

  3. Publius

    The Millennial Generation that is now coming of age, will have little choice but to embrace some level of libertarian thought given the enormous size of today’s government (federal, state and local combined). Additionally, they will be stuck trying to pay the bill, a very large one, for all the liberal programs that started back in the 1930’s, accelerated in the 1960’s and went into hyper drive in the past decade. The old saw that a Republican is a Democrat that has been mugged can be adjusted for today, a Libertarian is an idealist that has to pay the piper

    • Anonymous

      Unfortunately we do not see much evidence of that in Europe yet, where the debt problem is more acute.

  4. Anonymous

    LOL

    maybe young WASPS, in case you haven’t noticed, that’s a dwindling demographic.