The LP is no longer very libertarian at all
In a poll offered at LP.org, 52% of respondents answered that the current Israeli military operation in Gaza is justified. 15% answered maybe with 34% voting no.
In a struggle that can be documented as recently as the early 1900s with the Sykes-Picot Agreement and the Balfour Declaration (which incidentally, occurred before the Holocaust) or as anciently as the Hebrew Bible, who can say that they know enough to judge either side of the dispute?
What I do know is that it’s not libertarian AT ALL to justify a war action that may be unjust.
I have many friends who may blanch at my position here; my friends with homes in Israel certainly have a different interest in these unceasing skirmishes. My online buddy, Eric has written that he sees the Palestinians animal-like. I think if Eric would perhaps set aside his obvious bias- he is of the Jewish faith- and look at this even from the vantage point of conservative politics starting with United Nations Resolution 181, he would have to admit that the matter was meant to be convoluted.
To the people of faith who seem to desire war to facilitate a return to the Holy Land of each of your religions I’d ask, “Don’t you trust your god enough to do it? Can’t you realize that the most recent conflicts in that area were brought about, at least somewhat, by the desires of men and their efforts at imperialism?”
I’m not an expert with regard to religion or Mid-East history but I’m smart enough to know that I don’t have definitive answers. I am smart enough to know that for a libertarian, the only correct answers to the question posed by the LP are maybe or no. Maybe would show that you have really thought about the crisis and have found the humility to recognize that you don’t have all the answers; no would indicate that in the absence of all the answers, you would err on the side of caution and life. The yes answers show the hubris of the current crop of LPers and I guess I should thank my lucky stars that national can only attract 311 voters to its online poll.
[...] posted @ LibertarianLady. Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)LP Poll [...]
The LP is no longer very libertarian at all « Last Free Voice said this on January 7, 2009 at 9:16 am |
It’s an open poll, so many (most?) of the people voting are not party members.
Who but “libertarians” sift through the national site? So while technically you may be correct- after all I voted and I’m no longer a member- I say that unless the poll was advertised (unlikely given the #s), you could bet that it’s LPers responding.
edit to add: Even though I’m technically a non-member at national, I did not vote yes so I’m assuming that the non-member skew could go either way or balance.
I appreciate your sentiments, Miche, tell me about it. As it happens, in the last couple of days, I’ve endeavored to engage a couple of libertarian blogs, albeit those of the right-wing end of the spectrum, on this issue in a rational manner. They are not only reflexively pro-Israel and justice-blind, but impervious to rational facts outside of their bubble reality. I accept that each of us, including myself, may have biases and perspectival proclivities but the willful total blindness to what is happening is a real phenomenon to behold.
Thank Goodness for alternative media at least: the situation would be even worse without it.
Lots of people visit the LP.org site who are not LP members or even small-l libertarians. Naturally, a larger part of the people who visit LP.org are libertarians than, say, the percentage of people who visit other parties websites.
As you point out, this is old, but I think it is probably still roughly (at least ballpark) accurate as far as the average distribution of the people voting in these polls:
http://www.lp.org/poll/what-is-your-background
What is your background?
Libertarian Party member 25% (243 votes)
Former Libertarian Party member 4% (37 votes)
Politically libertarian 54% (533 votes)
Non-libertarian 18% (176 votes)
Total votes: 989
As a political organization or a government agency the proper libertarian position is neutrality.
As individuals we are free to be reflexively pro-Israel. Or maybe we’ve thought about it quite a bit and decided that we support Israel for what we consider to be pretty good reasons.
That doesn’t give us the right to commandeer anyone else for the fight.
It seems the focus of the LP poll is wrong…as if the LP should have a position as a party about who is right or wrong there.
Instead, the LP should just be promoting getting the US government out of being involved in any way as well as getting rid of the neutrality act, so individual and voluntarily organized groups of Americans can intervene for whichever side they support (currently illegal).
“It seems the focus of the LP poll is wrong…as if the LP should have a position as a party about who is right or wrong there.”
I didn’t read it that way. To me, it’s just a poll and the LP isn’t taking any position (although many LP members ARE taking positions).
Completely agree with the rest of your comment, BTW.
TWC,
You are correct that individuals- even libertarians- are free to make whichever choice they wish when deciding whether or not a war action is justified. But I read the question literally as it was written:
Israel’s current response is one that is killing and maiming more civilians than military personnel. This is a massacre on grand scale. When this happens in an African region, people are quick to condemn yet the acceptance of the same acts in Gaza are treated like no big deal.
I don’t value one life more than the other but it seems that Israel and her supporters in THIS offensive may as well just nuke the areas with Arabs. At least then they’d be fucking honest about their intent.
Aside from the fact some of the respondents are probably not libertarian is the fact the media is HIGHLY pro-Israel as we all know and anyone who still browses the LP National page is probably a newbie libertarian and may not be fully aware of A) our non-interventionist views, and B) how controlled the media is to endorse Israel.
Even if you take the September survey as an example and apply the 18% of non-libertarian respondents across the board of the three possibilities offered in the current poll, it doesn’t bode well for the bedrock of libertarian principle.
Ain’t that the truth, radracr5.
winecommonsewer, anyone is free to be pro-Israel, pro-Palestinian, or pro-anything. To be reflexively so however implies little thought or due attention to the facts; in other words basic standards of reason and rationality to which I’d like to think libertarians meet.
Anne,
I really enjoyed your well thought out comments at the one blog you mentioned. (Hadn’t sifted through all the comments at the 2nd yet.)
Thanks, Miche. The second is rather long and I’m sure you’d have more important ways to pass your time; it is just illustrative of some of the points you make here, methinks.
http://web.archive.org/web/20011130210137/www.lp.org/lpnews/0111/survey.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20011130210209/www.lp.org/lpnews/0111/resolution.html
From the first archive link in 2001
———————————————
These are some of the results from an online poll of Libertarian Party members and subscribers to the party’s “LP.announce” e-mail list, taken October 9-12.
More than 5,000 people participated in the unscientific poll, with 83.8% of them identifying themselves as Libertarian Party members or LP News subscribers. Another 11.3% said they were not LP members, and 4.8% did not furnish any specific partisan affiliation.
It was the first major poll of LP members taken since September 11, when terrorists commandeered four airliners and crashed three of them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. More than 5,000 Americans were killed in the attacks, which have been linked to Osama bin Laden and his al-Qa’eda terrorist network.
In retaliation, the United States began a bomb and missile assault on suspected terrorist facilities in Afghanistan on October 7. The U.S. also bombarded Afghanistan’s Taliban government, which has been accused of safeguarding and supporting bin Laden.
Despite Libertarians’ long-standing aversion to foreign military intervention, 94.8% of survey respondents said they agree the U.S. government “has an obligation to bring the terrorists who are responsible for the September 11 attacks to justice.”
Of that number, 84.0% strongly agree, and 10.8% somewhat agree. Only 2.7% somewhat or strongly disagree, while 2.5% didn’t answer or were undecided.
LP National Director Steve Dasbach said the results seem to indicate that Libertarians see the September 11 terrorist attacks as an “initiation of force” against the United States.
“Libertarians believe that individuals and nations do not have the right to initiate force against others, but they tend to agree that the use of force for self-defense — against rogue nations, criminals, or terrorists — is appropriate,” he said.
“These poll results seem to indicate that most Libertarians think the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, DC qualified as initiation of force, and that a strong military response constitutes legitimate self-defense by our nation.”
However, Libertarians also firmly believe that a non-interventionist foreign policy makes terrorist attacks less likely, according to the poll.
In response to the statement: “If the United States had followed a Libertarian-style policy of foreign non-interventionism over the past several decades, it is less likely that the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States would have occurred,” 78.6% agreed. (55.1% strongly; 23.5% somewhat). Another 13.4% disagreed, while 10.0% were undecided or gave no answer.
When asked if a Libertarian-style policy of foreign non-interventionism would make future terrorist attacks less likely, 69.3% agreed, while 21.6% disagreed.
While the poll showed that Libertarians overwhelmingly endorse bringing terrorists to justice, a smaller majority agrees about how to achieve that goal.
* 73.7% support bomb and missile attacks on bin Laden and his terrorist network. (51.8% strongly; 21.9% somewhat). Another 18% oppose such attacks. (10.1% strongly; 7.9% somewhat).
* 85.8% support American special forces units operating covertly in Afghanistan to try to capture bin Laden. (64.1% strongly; 21.7% somewhat). Another 7.8% oppose such a strategy. (4.4% strongly; 3.4% somewhat).
* 65.1% support putting more substantial numbers of American ground troops in Afghanistan to try to capture bin Laden. (41.5% strongly; 23.6% somewhat). Another 24.3% oppose ground troops. (13.1% strongly; 11.2% somewhat).
* 66.4% support American military attacks against Afghanistan’s Taliban government and against Afghan military targets. (46.4% strongly; 22.0% somewhat). Another 21.4% oppose such attacks. (11.3% strongly; 10.1% somewhat).
* 54.8% support American efforts to topple Afghanistan’s Taliban government and replace it with a less repressive government that doesn’t support terrorism. (33.4% strongly; 21.4% somewhat). Another 30.2% oppose such a plan. (16.7% strongly; 13.5% somewhat).
* 52.9% support future U.S. military action against any nation that supports or endorses terrorism. (28.9% strongly; 23.0% somewhat). Another 30.5% oppose such an open-ended military policy. (16.0% strongly; 14.5% somewhat). Fully 17.5% were undecided or gave no answer.
* 46.4% endorse American support for the Northern Alliance or other groups that are fighting to topple the Taliban government. (20.6% strongly; 25.8% somewhat). Another 34.2% oppose such a policy. (18.0% strongly; 16.2% somewhat). Again, a large number — 19.2% — were undecided or gave no answer.
Those last three questions indicate that Libertarians are unwilling to give the U.S. government carte blanche to engage in limitless military action in the name of fighting terrorism, said Dasbach.
“It’s obvious that as military options move beyond striking back at those terrorists directly responsible for the September 11 attacks, Libertarians grow increasingly uncomfortable,” he said. “A significant number of Libertarians clearly perceive the danger of a War On Terrorism turning into old-fashioned nation-building missions and foreign interventionism.
“They clearly don’t want this anti-bin Laden military effort to turn into an ‘endless war for endless peace.’ That’s where most of the respondents draw the line,” he said.
Poll-takers also strongly support the notion that the United States should not attack any foreign nation without a declaration of war by Congress. Fully 68.8% agreed with that statement, while only 18.1% disagreed.
When asked about the political fallout from the September 11 terrorist attacks — such as Congressional aid for the airline industry, proposed self-defense measures, and anti-terrorism legislation — respondents overwhelmingly oppose granting new power to government, with some exceptions.
* 90.3% oppose a national ID card to fight terrorism, while 5.0% support the proposal.
* 87.8% oppose allowing law enforcement to use the Carnivore e-mail surveillance system. Only 4.9% support it.
* 78.6% oppose new laws that would make it easier for law enforcement to get wiretap warrants, while 12.0% support such laws.
* 65.6% oppose allowing the U.S. Attorney General to detain legal immigrants for up to seven days before filing criminal charges. Another 22.6% support such a plan.
* 91.8% oppose restricting the right of Americans to use strong encryption programs that might also be used by terrorists, while 2.5% support the idea.
* 76.7% oppose the $15 billion federal bail-out of the airline industry, while 14.7% support it.
* 61.7% oppose the creation of a new Office of Homeland Security. Another 23.7% support the agency.
* 47.8% oppose any additional restrictions on immigration into the United States, while 37.8% support such restrictions.
* 84.8% support allowing commercial pilots to carry guns while flying. Only 9.0% oppose the idea.
* 54.6% support allowing passengers to carry weapons while flying. Another 33.8% oppose the idea.
The responses to those questions seem to indicate that Libertarians are, in the words of Benjamin Franklin, unwilling to give up “a little freedom to try to gain a little security,” said Dasbach.
“In most cases, by substantial majorities, poll-takers clearly refused to give up more civil liberties so the government could fight the War On Terrorism,” he said. “However, in areas like immigration control and detention of legal immigrants, a significant minority were apparently willing to consider proposals they thought might prevent future terrorist attacks.”
In other poll questions:
* 72.5% agree there is sufficient credible evidence that Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network are responsible for the September 11 terrorist attacks, while 5.7% disagree. Another 21.8% were undecided or gave no answer.
* 77.4% support putting an American bounty on the head of bin Laden and his terrorist allies. Another 12.0% disagree with that proposal, while 10.5% were undecided or gave no answer.
Paulie,
What do you think are the similarities in the 2001 poll and the current one? I’d say only the number of non-libertarian respondents at 16% and 18% respectively. What the 2001 poll tells me is that in the face of a personal attack, the LP and libertarians thought very carefully about how to proceed in a libertarian manner. The current poll seems to have been written without concern for libertarian principles or purposefully written to evoke a reactionary response.
Given the nature of the presidential primary and the term blowback, a better poll question might have been:
Given that the current escalation in Gaza is directed at the group Hamas and Israel’s funding of Hamas during the 70s and 80s was at least partially funded by U.S. aid given to Israel, would you support ending aid to the area.
OR
Israel preemptively attacked Gaza during a cease fire; do you think that the U.S. preemptive strike against Iraq served as a greenlight for the world to act preemptively?
Hell, I’m no poll writer but it’s my understanding that they should be written to skew your way, to get people thinking about your position. If you concede RadRacer’s point about the LP website being for newbies, why wouldn’t you do what is in your power to write a question that is thinking in nature, not reflexive?
This could have something to do with the vote total:
http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2009/01/government-heavily-manipulates-social.html
What do you think are the similarities in the 2001 poll and the current one?
Well, for example, from the 2001 poll:
* 65.1% support putting more substantial numbers of American ground troops in Afghanistan to try to capture bin Laden.
* 66.4% support American military attacks against Afghanistan’s Taliban government and against Afghan military targets.
* 54.8% support American efforts to topple Afghanistan’s Taliban government and replace it with a less repressive government that doesn’t support terrorism.
* 52.9% support future U.S. military action against any nation that supports or endorses terrorism.
* 37.8% support new restrictions on immigration.
Paulie,
Apples and oranges. The 2001 poll was done just after 9/11 when the talking points weren’t yet proven lies and people were still in a state of manufactured shock. I will give you that the immigration and “any nation that supports/ endorses terrorism” question is more similar though.
The recent poll had to do with a country most people know little about and details about which they know remarkably less.
Again, even in the wake of 9/11 the high percentages of the two noted questions seem disconcerting but I didn’t identify libertarian at the time and was likely feeling the same way. If 9/11 happened after I’d done the reading and learning that I’ve now done, I can assure you my answers would have been different.
Oh well, I guess.