COLUMN: Liberal lingo – what’s a libertarian?
A not-so-insignificant number of people identify themselves as Libertarian these days. I like to think it’s because the left has focused so exclusively on the faults of the conservative social ideologue that we are left with socially permissive yet economically conservative individuals. I know what you are thinking; those socio-political aberrations shouldn’t be a concern. I mean, when has a Libertarian ever won an office?
The concern is not the viability of Libertarianism (In a two-party system, it’s impressive that they still have a following). The concern is that when people are forced between social and economic policy, they’ll vote the way they feel will help them economically.
The policy doesn’t even have to help the economy or help the individual for that matter as long as they feel it does – which explains why middle America votes in favor of the affluent while shooting their collective selves in the foot. If only a few percent of people identify as Libertarians, it’s their economic policy that’s making leaps and bounds.
While most people know what Libertarianism is, I still meet people on a regular basis who don’t know the difference between a Libertine and a Lieberman, let alone Liberal and Libertarian. Don’t run to Wikipedia; let me refresh your memory.
Liberals require little introduction: They are that other half of America (you know, the ones who aren’t male Anglo-Saxon, upper-class Protestants). They are the Atheists; the Rocky Horror transvestites; the PETA terrorists; the French, Dutch or Canadian abortionists or anyone else who enjoys cannabis-laced lattes.
A Libertarian looks a lot like the old-time conservative – at least economically, back before they had to appeal to fanatical Christianity. (A lot has changed, at one point the South was Democrat territory.) The Libertarian doesn’t give two cents about gay marriage, but if you even think about touching his two cents for tax purposes, there’ll be hell to pay.
For those of you who didn’t know the difference between Libertine and Lieberman, write this down: “The Libertine” was a film starring Johnny Depp, and Lieberman was born in February of 1942 and has been dead to me ever since.
But back to Libertarians. For the record, I don’t wish to mischaracterize or inappropriately stereotype Libertarianism. After all, I have a few Libertarian friends, but I mean that in the same way that some people have gay friends and therefore are entitled to look down on them and the demographic as a whole.
I won’t even tackle their social policy; it’s so out there and space so limited that I’ll move right on to economics. I mean, who really would want to legalize meth?
But as out there as that proposition is, their views on taxes aren’t that unpopular. How is it that people take that fringe policy seriously? Even ardent conservatives and fringe conservatives like Constitutionalists (at least the Utah breed) agree.
At first it sounds like a good idea. I mean, who doesn’t hate taxes, especially so close to April? Even those twisted tax-and-spend Democrats do, I promise. But it is critical that we have them, essential because of the things they fund. No taxes means third-world infrastructure, no public education and a society with as much opportunity as there was in the Dark Ages.
It’s about helping people help themselves. By making a quality education accessible, dismissing systematic discrimination and encouraging a greater understanding and a progressive environment, we are bettering society. Even Conservatives once understood the importance of creating a social safety net. Taxes are a reinvestment into your community to turn things around. We all benefit from a higher living standard, a stronger consumer base and a better skilled workforce.
Class dismissed.
Matthew Blackham is a junior majoring in sociology. Comments can be sent to matblackham@cc.usu.edu.