Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves.

In light of this, what pundits often refer to as “infighting” is probably better viewed as just “fighting”, since the various factions in these two parties are of such divergent interests, and not really of the same family. In fact, it can be hard to tell whether changes in party identity are due to calculated steering of the party or strategic moves by interests who jump parties en masse. The recent discussion by libertarian voters about voting Democrat in order to put the brakes on the Republican government is an excellent example. Will the GOP turn more libertarian in order to woo these voters back? Or will it turn less libertarian now that we have left the table? Note that the Libertarian Party is completely insignificant to this discussion, sadly.

Bart Mongoven wrote a piece this past week at Stratfor (subscription required) that asserts that

the overlap between the libertarian Republican point of view and that of religious conservatives has dissolved during the past decade of Republican control of government. For secular libertarians, a small government was the central objective; for the religious conservatives, small government was an element of a strategy to reduce the power -- or at least slow the growth -- of institutions purveying secular values. The growth of government over the past 10 years has suggested to evangelicals that the strategy does not work. The Faith-Based Initiative, for instance, is seen as a small move in a positive direction, but one that also has done nothing to displace secular federal government activity.

Is there any chance that libertarians and evangelicals are both jumping ship in order to express dissatisfaction with each other? Does that leave the ship a bit empty and rudderless? What would that mean for the GOP? Mongoven believes that the party will follow the evangelicals, as they provide more of a geographic base of support – but that evangelicals will have to come more to the middle for that to work. But I don’t know how easy it will be to pull that off before the ’08 elections.

The sense among the evangelical grassroots is that the Republican Party has used them, but only paid lip service to their goals, aspirations and values.

Amen, brother.

Regarding the importance of geography to the evangelical-Republican bond, consider this news article:

”If you look at several states in the Southeast where the evangelical base came out in undiminished numbers, it held for Republicans. When you move to the heartland, there was some peel away. ... The question is why?”

[Author Mark Pinsky] noted that Republican candidates in Florida "who ran to the center" did better than those who ran "hard right." He cited Gov.-elect Charlie Christ, who is pro-life and anti-gay marriage, but who supports civil unions. As attorney general, Christ opposed intervention in the Terri Schiavo case.

"He didn't back away during the primary," Pinsky said. "He must have sensed there was fissure among white evangelicals."

"I think evangelicals are feeling pretty homeless right now," said Janice Shaw Krouse, director and senior fellow of the Beverly LaHaye Institute, a think tank affiliated with Concerned Women for America. "They're increasingly uncomfortable with a party that didn't really make their issues top priority. In 2004, 74 percent of evangelicals voted Republican. In 2006, it was 69 percent. That's a huge difference, politically."

The biggest problem with libertarians may very well be that we are too disorganized to be highlighted in a news article. I have no idea what percentage of libertarians voted Republican in 2004 or 2006. I consider this yet more evidence that the GOP will have a better chance of winning back evangelicals than libertarians. And frankly, that is probably good news for Democrats - and bad news for libertarians of all persuasions.