Sign in to follow this  
Ed Hudgins

Cuccinelli’s Loss and the Libertarian Solution

Recommended Posts

Cuccinelli’s Loss and the Libertarian Solution

By Edward Hudgins

November 5, 2013 — The finger-pointing in the GOP over Republican Ken Cuccinelli’s narrow loss to Democrat Terry McAuliffe in the Virginia governor’s race shows that the party still refuses to come to grips with internal contradictions that continue to lead to epic fail at the ballot box.

Social conservative Cuccinelli’s defeat for Virginia governor shows the need for the GOP to return to a consistent pro-liberty philosophy.

McAuliffe, the former Democratic National Committee chair and Clinton operative, squeaked to victory with 47.7 percent of the votes to Virginia Attorney General Cuccinelli’s 45.3 percent. Libertarian Robert Sarvis earned 6.5 percent. Many Republicans blame the Libertarian for pulling votes away from Cuccinelli. But “libertarian” with a small “l” is not a problem; rather, it is the solution.

Cuccinelli lost it

Let’s begin with the obvious: the election was a loss for Cuccinelli rather than a positive win for McAuliffe. A Washington Post survey in the week before the election found that some 64 percent who planned to support the Democrat said they were voting against Cuccinelli rather than for McAuliffe.

Both candidates went into the race wearing some sleaze. McAuliffe had shady, crony capitalist business dealings, including his chairmanship of the scandal-ridden GreenTech car company. Cuccinelli was caught up in irregularities surrounding campaign contributions from Star Science.

Cuccinelli no doubt lost the votes of many federal workers in Northern Virginia because of the government shutdown; exit polls showed 49 percent of voters blaming the GOP compared to 43 percent blaming Obama. But what cut McAuliffe’s substantial lead and almost cost him the election was the Obamacare fiasco, which Cuccinelli strongly opposed. And yes, there were state issues that divided Cuccinelli and McAuliffe such as whether the government should spend more on highways using increased taxes.

Social conservative poison

But the negatives that Cuccinelli could not overcome were his extreme declarations in support of his social conservative agenda. He wanted to change the law in a way that would eliminate abortion and, perhaps, open a road to banning certain forms of birth control. He wanted to keep Virginia’s anti-sodomy law, which had been ruled unconstitutional, arguing that it was needed to protect children from molesters. It wasn’t, but it could allow the government to persecute gays. Needless to say, Cuccinelli wanted government to continue to bar marriage between same-sex couples.

So in the months before the election the Democrats simply ran ads publicizing Cuccinelli’s social agenda and watched him founder in the polls. The results: Election day exit polls found women favored McAuliffe 51 percent against 42 percent for Cuccinelli, with 67 percent of single women supporting the Democrat but only 25 percent voting for the Republican.

Calling all Libertarians

Trailing in the weeks before the election, the Cuccinelli camp appealed to backers of Sarvis, the Libertarian, to switch to the Republican candidate. The argument was that McAuliffe would be far worse on tax-and-spending policies and much else compared to Cuccinelli. With McAuliffe now heading for Richmond, we’ll probably see that this argument was true. Oh, and the state will likely go all-in on Obamacare.

Exit polls suggest that Cuccinelli would have lost without Sarvis in the race. But in any case, Cuccinelli should have thought of this during the years he was currying favor with social conservatives. He should have pictured himself running for governor and imagining how he’d have to downplay his attempts to limit personal liberty in order to reach libertarians, mainstream women, independents, and many others.

Establishment Republicans, those who want to preserve the welfare state but just make it work a little better, will declare that the lesson of Cuccinelli’s loss is that the GOP should nominate moderates. Really? Like Mitt Romney? Establishment Republicans are part of the problem as well, and that problem is that neither faction offers a consistent pro-liberty message and makes that message the top priority.

A future of freedom

The GOP needs to follow a third path, essentially that of Goldwater and Reagan, the libertarian, pro-liberty path. Social conservative Republicans need to get their priorities straight. They will certainly fail in the short-run to realize their social agenda. But they will succeed in alienating voters, thus helping to usher in Obama-style statism on steroids that will continue to restrict their personal autonomy. Wait until the statists go after home schooling! And establishment Republicans must realize that they are, at best, simply slowing the country’s decline while muddying the distinction between themselves and self-styled “moderate” Democrats.

While the Libertarian Party provides an alternative for pro-liberty Americans disgusted with both Republicans and Democrats, it doesn’t win state-wide or national elections. But if social conservative and establishment Republicans understand just how perilous the country’s situation is, if they make the restoration of liberty Job One, and if they unite with libertarians and lovers of liberty of all stripes, they can save freedom for themselves and their posterity.

Hudgins is director of advocacy and a senior scholar at The Atlas Society.

For further information:

*Edward Hudgins, “GOP Should Invite Social Conservative Extremists to Leave.” April 5, 2013.

*Edward Hudgins, “Republicans Help Virginia Evolve to Democrats.” June 12, 2013.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


Sarvis is a libertarian?


When I look at things like his support of the mileage tax, or taking money from the Democrats for campaign funds, I seem to be missing something...

I think the Virginian Libertarian party sold out big time in this election. And I think Sarvis knew exactly what he was doing.

In my view, the super-heavy spending by McAuliffe played a key role, as did the fact that during the government shutdown, the people in densely populated Northern Virginia regions who are government workers (or family members of those who are) got a scare in their personal finances--with gasoline poured on that fire by very good storytelling propaganda by the Democratic machine.

But even then, look at the poll trends over the last couple of weeks. This was not supposed to have been a close election, yet it was. I have no doubt had the election been one week later, Cuccinelli would have won, given the Obamacare mess.

I agree that social conservatives need to focus more on liberty and less on social issues. But, as Ron Paul said, Cuccinelli was an ally of liberty, not an enemy. Maybe not a perfect ally, but a good one.

It's a shame he lost. I hope he doesn't go away.

And, looking at the Sarvis monkeyshines, the Virginian Libertarian Party is now becoming just like the Republican and Democratic parties. It's all pragmatic principles and backstage deals where these principles are sold. That is not a path I want to support.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

While all this sort of thing is going on, which occupies the headlines and the media talk shows and newscasts, there is another story which is not being told and promises to have a more profound effect on everyone's lives in the near future.

It is a story about an entity which gets passing attention in the press because the head of it is due to retire and be replaced in January be a woman whose mentor at Yale is known to be a hard core Keynesian and she is known to be a dove. This whole realm is presented in such a way as to keep the readers in the dark by degrees of obfuscation.

If one reads the Wall Street journal one learns that a hawk is a Federal Reserve banker who fights inflationary policy while a dove is one who is more than willing to advocate easing the quantity of money being generated by the Fed who uses newly created money to purchase US Treasury Bonds. That simply means it loans money to the US Treasury where it can be used to fund all manner of government spending by the current administration.

Well here is an article which readers of find as an introduction to a more elaborate interview with the author:

Both are worth attending to.

It turns out the the Fed has divested itself of short term debt instruments and currently holds only long term bonds, which go down in value as long term interests rates climb. Something about leverage enters the picture as the number 55 is mentioned, so that if interest rates go up a mere 2% that would be sufficient to wipe out the entire assets held by the Fed!

There is some discussion of the possible need to bail out the Fed if that were to transpire.

See for yourself.

Curious that the whole issue of whether there should be a full transparent audit of the Fed followed by its abolition, given that since its creation in 1913 the purchasing power of the dollar has gone down over 99%, not to mention that there is no authorization for the existence of a central bank in our very own Constitution.

I don't remember ever learning anything about the Federal Reserve in school or college either.

Did you?


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this