There is a kind of person who calls themselves libertarian (small or big L) yet supports Trump. These are the "smash the system" types who view Trump as the non-traditional politician who's here to tear up government, and say and do what he likes. They think there's a vast global conspiracy (deep state, illuminati, a shadowy cabal of nonces) and Trump is the man to stick it to them. They view themselves as akin to the original tea party, rising up against the British oppressors in their castles far away and rejecting their control.
These people are not libertarians in the true sense of libertarianism, which stands for social and economic freedoms - the least amount of government necessary to allow the nation to run without involving itself in people's affairs. They don't support that. They support small government for them, and big government for everyone else. So long as Trump is coming down hard on the gays, and the blacks, and the Muslims, and people who get up to ungodly practices, and anybody who isn't the white middle-class, they don't really care that he's literally a fascist - the furthest away from being in support of social freedoms as it's possible to get. To trot out the metaphor, they want the leopard to eat everyone else's faces, but not theirs; the concept that they're supporting fascism and the leopard might get hungry for their face doesn't even occur.
So they're fringe Republicans, from what it sounds like. I guess I just don't get why it (seemingly) became popular for such individuals decided to call themselves "libertarians," considering that every definition I've come across isn't even in the same zip code as the ideals of these individuals. If anything, I would expect Republicans/Trump supporters to hate actual Libertarians with a burning passion.
Of course you won't find two libertarians who can agree on what the least amount of government necessary actually is. You also won't find one who supports Trump; they're totally opposed positions in terms of social freedoms.
That sounds exhausting, to say the least.
I know right? I don't get it either nor do I support that position since it's not a good look for libertarians.
What gets me (and has for a long time) is that I feel like that being pro-(insert Amendments{s} of choice here) doesn't mean you have to identify with a specific party/group because of that, especially with anything included in the Bill of Rights.
When Reddit started closing down Donald Trump subs, those jackasses moved into r/Libertarian and other like subreddits. I had to leave all of them because it was just so monumentally stupid. Now when I pop back in, it's just a bunch of COVID deniers and pro-Trump idiots. Honestly, GTP is the only place I've ever really found on the internet that I can talk about libertarian ideas and actually have an intelligent conversation with someone.
Ah, that makes a lot more sense, especially with Reddits general lean in mind.
The Libertarian Party is different than libertarian ideas. I'm a card-carrying Libertarian Party member for both the national party and the Utah Libertarian Party. Typically what the party stands for is fiscal responsibility, small government, no war, even less involvement in other country's affairs, and doing away with regulations. While some of the members on the extreme end of things advocate for getting rid of all regulations, most members see that some are needed and just want some of the terrible ones to go away. Above all that, the Libertarian Party wants the government to work the way the Constitution intended and ultimately put more onus back on the states.
Libertarian ideas are all over the map though. Some people will claim they're libertarian (with a small l) and just be pro-gun and nothing else. Others say they're libertarian because they smoke weed. It's really, really weird and unfortunately, those people are some of the most vocal so it kind of casts libertarians in a poor light.
Understandable, but this does raise another (potentially dumb) question for me.
While I understand that the party is already relatively small and has some issues in gaining greater recognition, I feel like at that point it might be a good idea for the party leaders to consider branding the Libertarian Party as something else? As you mentioned further down, there's a concern that a bunch of Republicans (fringe or otherwise) will join the Libertarian Party in an attempt to break away from the mainstream GOP, which has a demonstrably different ideology from (seemingly) both small-L libertarians and the "normal" GOP thought process. Since recent events suggests that people generally can't be arsed to understand that two things with the same/similar names can be totally different, I feel like the party might save itself some trouble by at least considering a change in public identity (I know I'm probably making this sound like some simple feat when it likely isn't).
In American politics right now there are very, very few prominent Libertarians. Some claim to be (I'm looking at you Mike Lee)...
*Googles*
Eughh...
...but really are just Republicans who don't like taxes. Justin Amash is probably the biggest name in the party and if you look him up on Twitter the man hates Donald Trump with the passion I'd wish every politician had. He also called out nearly every member of Congress who tried to block the electoral college vote. Unfortunately, for how big Amash's name is, in the grand scheme of things it's really small. Unless you're from West Michigan or a Libertarian Party member you likely have no idea who he is.
I gotta say, after looking into him, this Amash character is an interesting fellow. I do appreciate his passion, and I do respect his overall consistency on his stances. at the same time, reading through his Wikipedia page does feel like a bit of a rollercoaster, and while I admire his consistency, there are still a couple spots I disagree with him on.
What I fear is that with the way Trump is tearing the Republican Party apart, that many Republicans will shift to the Libertarian Party. This would not be good since the Libertarian Party is very much anti-war, anti-war on drugs, pro-criminal justice reform, open borders, and pro-choice on abortion (this is the touchy one though).
Touchy as in not everyone in the party is Pro-choice, or touchy in the sense of not gaining greater recognition because the party is generally pro-choice?
However, it's a long process to educate people away from their partly fascist desires to control people who don't do the kind of things they want to do while not wanting to be controlled when they do things they want to do - road captains but for all society.
