Remember This-C-SPAN's BookNotes With Brain Lamb- David Brinkley: 'From The New Deal to The Contract With America, From 1995'

Source:Remember This- Longtime NBC News & ABC News anchor David Brinkley.

Source:The New Democrat

“David McClure Brinkley (July 10, 1920 — June 11, 2003) was an American newscaster for NBC and ABC in a career lasting from 1943 to 1997.” 

From Remember This

You could say that David Brinkley saw it all in his life at least as a broadcast journalist and anchor. He had the first and big nightly national newscast the Huntley Brinkley Report, with Chet Huntley from NBC News. During that period there was the Korean War, the start of the Cold War, General Dwight Eisenhower as President of the United States, the early days of the civil rights movement, the civil rights movement in the 1960s, our first Irish-Catholic President of the United States in John F. Kennedy, the 1960s, the 1970s, Watergate, etc, all as either anchor of the Huntley Brinkley Report, or co-anchor of NBC Nightly News. David Brinkley, had a long and great career as either anchor of the NBC News nightly newscast, or as anchor of the ABC News Sunday morning news program This Week. He was the first stars of ABC News when they finally merged as a major player in the network news business in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

David Brinkley had an ability as a good interviewer and commentator. Like Howard Smith at ABC News, he was very good at delivering the news and analyzing it as well. Explaining what the news meant and the JFK assassination in how how he described how the country was feeling and how horrible that tragedy was in 1963, is a perfect example of that. His commentaries about Watergate in the early 1970s, is another example of that. He was very witty as well when he would get a silly story to cover and talk about on his show. He was almost like a great debate moderator on This Week between Conservative George Will and Progressive ABC News White House corespondent Sam Donaldson. The debates they had on that show made This Week worth watching by itself, along with the people they interviewed. And of course he had that great voice and gentlemen demeanor that made him perfect for news programs, because the people there didn't think he was trying to attack them.

The Huntley Brinkley Report, was a two-man nightly newscast with David Brinkley and Chet Huntley. CBS News had Walter Cronkite, who was simply the best at what he did and still is and anchored the CBS Evening News. NBC News had two excellent news anchors and men who worked very well together in Brinkley and Huntley and paired them together. Which worked for a while up until the late 60s or so when the CBS Evening News, became the top not just newscast, but perhaps news show in the country up until the 1980s. David Brinkley, arguably is the first of the great broadcast news anchors and someone who was at the top or near top for almost fifty-years at both NBC News and later ABC News. And is one of the best broadcast journalists we've ever produced, because of his ability to interview, deliver the news, add with when appropriate and could explain the news in a commonsense way that made him very popular. 

The Book Archive: Edwin Black: Why Iraq Failed

Source:The Book Archive- Iraqi Dictator Saddam Hussein.

Source:The New Democrat

This event was done in 2004 and even though it was clear by then that the original reason of why America invaded Iraq in 2003 which was over weapons of mass destruction and preventing the Saddam Hussein Regime from obtaining nuclear weapons, was not there and never justified, because Saddam no longer had WMD at that point, it wasn't clear yet that this war was a failure. In 2004, you could argue that Iraq failed, because the world's superpower the United States invaded them and knocked out their government and removed their dictator. And you could pretty much end it there and then debate more than ten years later if Saddam would still be in power today without the American invasion.

I'm not sure Iraq was ever originally set up to be a successful independent country. It was set up by the United Kingdom as a British colony. And the way the British set it up was to create a state where you had to large ethnic groups. Iraqi Arabs and Iraqi Kurds and two major Islamic factions. The Sunnis and the Shias. With a bunch of other ethnic minorities like the Turkmen's and Assyrians. Iraq, similar to Iran, were set up to become reliable sources for oil and gas for Europe especially the United Kingdom. Unlike the State of Israel that was put together so the Jews could have their own country and not have to worry about being murdered by their own government in another country.

But even pre-2003 Iraq War, you could argue that Saddam Hussein destroyed Iraq. Here he had a fairly large country in land, but with only twenty-five-million people or so and yet most of them are educated, that is not only energy independent, but is one of the largest oil and has producers in the world. And yet he created a third-world country. Because he wasn't interested in developing his country. But holding onto and expanding his dictatorship. And invading countries he thought he could control and steal their energy. Iran and Kuwait, come to mind real fast. So Iraq failed, because it wasn't set up to succeed by the British and Saddam, destroys his country by the way he mismanaged the economy started wars that shouldn't have been fought.

Commonwealth Club: Charles Murray: 'Rebuilding Liberty'

Source:Commonwealth Club- Author Charles Murray, being interviewed at the Commonwealth Club, about his book Rebuilding Liberty.

Source:The New Democrat

"Charles Murray, W.H. Brady Scholar, American Enterprise Institute; Author, By the People: Rebuilding Liberty Without Permission."

From the Commonwealth Club

Charles Murray, at least in the first fifteen minutes of his presentation here, concentrates on what he calls over regulations. And assuming his stories are true, I agree with what he’s saying here.

And I’m not a fan of over regulation either. Passing regulations either through the economy, or in civil life, that tries to control how people behave personally in the economy, or their personal lives, is over regulating and a good example of big government. Government, should regulate how people and organizations, interact with each other. To to stop and prevent predatory behavior. Not to protect people from themselves. Either financially, or personally.

But I’m more interested with this piece about talking about rebuilding liberty in general. And I’m going to do that without bashing government, just big government. And laying out what government can do to actually expand freedom, both personal and economic.

I agree with Charles Murray as a Liberal, that it’s not the job of government to regulate how people live their own lives and what they do with themselves. But regulate how people interact with each other. Not try to prevent people from doing dangerous actions to themselves. And punish them when they do. But to prevent people from hurting innocent people and punish people when they do hurt innocent people.

If government worked the way I’m suggesting here, we wouldn’t have the War on Drugs and so many people in prison in America for non-violent offenses. At least not serving long-term sentences in dangerous prisons for non-violent offenses. And we wouldn’t have so many people in prison in general.

If our safety net, which I’m not against in having one, but if our safety net was designed to empower people in need who are struggling to get themselves on their feet and not just leave them struggling, but with a little more money, we wouldn’t have so many people in poverty in America. Because the less-fortunate, would get on public assistance, but them use some of that assistance to improve themselves. So they can get themselves a good job and get out of poverty all together.

In a true liberal society, or liberal democracy, liberal state even, the job of government would be to protect and expand freedom. Not subtract, or contract freedom, or view freedom as dangerous and try to turn the country into a collectivist society. Where government would collect most of the national resources and decide what everyone needs to live well in life. But again protect freedom for people who already have it and haven’t done anything to lose it.

And also expand freedom for people who don’t have it. Who are living in poverty and help them get themselves out of poverty by learning a trade and getting themselves a good job. Who may be serving time in prison, or jail and empowering them to improve themselves so when they get out, they can become productive citizens. And that is not the type of society that America is right now. But we certainly could become that liberal society.

Fora-TV: Brian Doherty: 1960s Counterculture & Libertarianism

Source:The New Democrat

“1960s Counterculture and Libertarianism”, seems like a strange title to me. And you might say that, “well its the title of your piece, so why did you call it that?” That would be partly true, but the title of this piece has to do with the title of Brian Doherty 2007 book about 1960s counter-culture and libertarianism. But why is that a strange title to me? I’ll tell you anyway, because libertarianism wasn’t even a term back then. They came around in the early 1970s with the creation of the Libertarian Party. Which isn’t much bigger today then it was back in 1972 or so. And I’m not saying there weren’t Libertarians back in the 1960s, because of course there were. Milton Friedman comes to mind and even Ayn Rand, but they were called other things.

People who believed in individual liberty back then were called Liberals and Conservatives. But they had different versions of what individual liberty meant to them. And I’m not talking about the Religious-Right or the New Left. But true Liberals and Conservatives not trying to change the definitions of those terms, but who truly believed in liberalism and conservatism. Conservatives who believes in conserving liberty and conserving the state and not expanding it. And Liberals who believed in expanding liberty for people who don’t have it and protecting liberty for people who don’t have it yet.

And that is where Libertarians come in and that is what gave them their opening. Because Libertarians didn’t want to conserve the state, or expand the state. But they want to expand liberty and they believe the way you that is by shrinking the state and getting government almost completely out of people’s lives. And just leaving government to protect our freedom from predators who would take it away. And by doing this both economic and personal liberty would be expanded to people who don’t have it yet. Which is much different from the Conservative who wants to conserve freedom and decentralize government, but not shrink it. And the Liberal who wants to use government to expand liberty both personal and economic.

One thing that I believe Libertarians can at least respect if not like about the 1960s counter-culture movement. Not the New Left crowd that was not just anti-war and use of force from government and wanting to tear down the American liberal democratic form of government and economic system. And replace it with a socialist collectivist model. But the anti-establishment movement that believed people should be free to live their own lives and even live differently from their parents and grandparents. Which is really individual liberty is about, right. The liberty for the individual to live their life the way they see fit, just as long as they aren’t hurting any innocent person.

Democracy Journal: Paul Starr- Al From, The Frame-Maker: How New Democrats Re-Defined Liberalism

Source:Politics & Prose- Author Al From, speaking at Politics and Prose in Washington.

Source:The New Democrat

"From founded the Democratic Leadership Council in 1984. In the twenty-five years he served as its CEO, he achieved his goal of bringing the Democratic Party back to power. In this political memoir he recounts the development of the centrist philosophy that continues to be instrumental to the Democrats' success."

From Politics & Prose

I agree with most of what Paul Starr said in his piece about New Democrats which I'm one philosophically and what part of the Democratic Party I'm from and how New Democrats have effected the Democratic Party. My only differences would be I don't know how new we are since we've really been around at least going back to the Kennedy Administration in the early 1960s with Jack Kennedy who would definitely be a New Democrat today. And then came back to power in the White House with the Carter-Mondale Administration in the late 1970s with Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale. And of course Bill Clinton and Al Gore in the early 1990s.

And my only other  difference being with Paul Starr and here is where I'll make my argument about the New Democrats has to do with this notion that New Democrats are "moderate or center-right". No we are not, we put center-left back in the Democratic Party with a liberal flavor. Pre-1993 or so Democrats "were seen as tax and spend, soft on crime, soft on defense, anti-personal responsibility, Uncle Sam big federal government know best all the time. Americans are too stupid and can't be trusted with their own lives". We looked like European social democrats or Socialists even putting all of our faith in the state over the individual to create a fair society.

Democrats until the early 1990s whether this was fair or not and I believe a lot of it was fair were seen as big government statists even in a democratic sense. The way the far-left of the party actually is in reality then and today. The New Democrats led by the Democratic Leadership Council and others started changing that right after the Mondale landslide presidential loss in 1984 and started working on an agenda that would counter the Reagan Revolution of the early 1980s. That moved us ahead of the New Deal of the 1930s and the Great Society of the 1960s.

This New Democratic agenda wasn't anti-government, but moved us away from big government and into an era that saw government as one tool that could be used to empower people who needed it to get the tools that they needed to live in freedom and live a self-sufficient life and off of public assistance. By focusing on education, job training, vocational training, infrastructure especially in underdeveloped areas. Empowering the non-profits to help people in need and looking for the states and localities and getting their input to empower people who are in poverty or struggling working class.

When Bill Clinton becomes President in 1993 Democrats were seen as the "tax and spend fiscally irresponsible soft on defense and crime party". As well as being "soft on welfare". To twenty years later we now especially the New Democrats are beating Republicans on all of those issues. To the point that the George McGovern or MSNBC/The Nation social democratic wing of the party badly dislikes if not hates the New Democrats for taking over the party and badly want to reclaim the Democratic Party and take us back to the late 1960s and 1970s where Democrats used to carry all of those stereotypes.

Democracy Now: Kevin Phillips- 'On Roots of American Revolution, Future of American Politics'

Source:Democracy Now interviewing author and political historian Kevin Phillips.

Source:FreeState Now

"With the Republican Party in a state of turmoil following Mitt Romney's loss three weeks ago, we begin today's show with a guest who was once one of the most influential Republican strategists. In 1969 Kevin Phillips wrote the groundbreaking book, "The Emerging Republican Majority." Newsweek described the book as the "political bible of the Nixon administration." After a series of best-selling books on the Bush family, Wall Street and the American theocracy,  Phillips is looking back at the roots of the American Revolution in his new book, "1775: A Good Year for Revolution." "What happened that set the United States in motion in the mid 1770s is still relevant in some ways because what it showed was that you sometimes have to have a lot of very disagreeable politics to make progress. That you don't get anywhere by having all kinds of nice slogans and by trying to barter every difference with a cliche and pretend thats all's well and the United States is in wonderful shape," Phillips says. "The United States is not in wonderful shape and it needs to get back some of that spunk that it had when people were willing to talk very bluntly about harsh and tough measures." 

From Democracy Now

What Democracy Now really wanted to talk to author/historian Kevin Phillips about, was the thing and political strategy that remade the Republican Party to the point that it is today. It was a strategy that was co-authored by Richard Nixon in the mid and late 1960s and by at the time Republican strategist Kevin Phillips. What most people in America know as the Southern Strategy. 

Pre-1968 or so, the Republican Party was almost exclusively a center-right, conservative party, with a right-progressive faction in it, led by Nelson Rockefeller and others. The John Birch Society and others who are part of the populist-far-right in America, were Republicans as well back then. But pre-1968, the Republican Party was almost exclusively a center right party that's common in Britain and Europe. 

What the Southern Strategy did, was bring in what's called the Christian-Right in America, as well as people who opposed the civil rights and cultural revolution of the 1960s and into the Republican Party. To go along with the Classical Conservatives, people who Republican populists view as elitists and RINOS, into the party as well.

David Boaz: 'Toward Liberty: The Idea That Is Changing the World'

Source:Amazon- David Boaz's book.

"Those looking for a comprehensive anthology of libertarian thought on today's pressing issues should seek out Toward Liberty.. -- National Review on June 3, 2002

Jimmy Carter. Tip O'Neill. Energy czars. Gas lines. ABC-NBC-CBS. Mao Tse-tung. The Soviet Union. Apartheid. It was a different era.

What wasn't so obvious at the time was that it was the end of an era.

In 1977 the Soviet Union seemed a permanent fixture. The Democrats controlled Washington, and the big three networks had 91 percent of television viewers. Philosopher-statesman Daniel Patrick Moynihan lamented that "liberal democracy on the North American model has simply no relevance to the future. It is where the world was, not where it is going."

Twenty-five years later, the world has changed so much that we may have forgotten what a different era 1977 was. Within a few years Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher were moving public policy in the direction of lower taxes, less regulation, and privatization.

Today, the conventional wisdom is that Anglo-American democratic capitalism is the only viable model left in the world. After the tyrannies and central planning of the 20th century, true liberalism is making a comeback.

Everywhere that governments will allow it, people are choosing open markets, open societies, and responsibility for their own lives. Information, commerce, and investment increasingly flow in response to the choices of free people, not the dictates of politicians.

But the triumph of liberalism is by no means inevitable. There never was a golden age of liberty, and there never will be. Although we seem to have left behind some of the worst forms of government, we must remember that within the past century we have endured communism, fascism, and national socialism.

In this book are some of the people and ideas associated with the Cato Institute in its first 25 years. ­­Karl Popper on the failure of communism, Peter Bauer on economic development, Helen Suzman on the end of apartheid, F. A. Hayek on money and information, Milton Friedman on markets in China, Mario Vargas Llosa on "neoliberalism," Carolyn Weaver and José Piñera on Social Security, Antonin Scalia and Richard Epstein on the role of judges, Alan Greenspan on globalization, Nadine Strossen on Clinton's constitutional conduct, P. J. O'Rourke on rights and responsibilities, and Walter Williams on affirmative action.

Twenty-five years after Moynihan's dirge, the anti-liberal scholars Stephen Holmes and Cass Sunstein complain that libertarian ideas are "astonishingly widespread in American culture." These essays show why they will continue to be.

From Amazon 

This looks like a book about what liberalism really is and what isn't. Only in America can someone who believes in liberal democracy, be considered center-left or social-democratic, even though the the so-called mainstream media in America calls center-leftists Liberals, where everywhere else, at least in the developed world, center-leftists are called social democrats or just plain in socialists, but in America they're called Liberals. 

According to the mainstream media in America, the most liberal people in the world, are Communists. Not Libertarians or Anarchists, but people who believe in the most centralized, national government and the least amount of individualism and individual liberty. 

For political labels to mean anything, anywhere, definitions also have to mean something as well. Liberals actually believe in liberalism, which comes from liberal democracy, not socialism or any other form of collectivism. The word liberal itself, comes from the word liberty, not socialist or any other collectivist. So someone who is a Liberal, is not someone who believes in no government, because that would be an Anarchist. 

A Liberal is someone who believes in liberty, as well as all the values that come from liberal democracy, not free speech, personal choice, property rights, (economic and personal) the rule of law, decentralization of power, checks and balances, equal rights and equal justice, equality of opportunity, personal mobility, limited but responsible government,  etc. 

A Liberal is not someone who believes that everyone in America is automatically entitled to a quality life in America, simply by being alive in America. And that it's the job of government to take care of everyone from cradle to grave, even people who are physically and mentally able to take care of themselves. 

Harry Browne: 'The Coming Devaluation (1970)'

Source:Amazon- Harry Browne's 1970 book about inflation.

"What happens when central banks lose control of the monetary system&? We don't have to speculate The Great Depression of the 1930s tells us everything we need to know about what to expect in case of a financial collapse. The problem is, very few people understand just how close we really are to repeating this slice of history. All the warning signs are there --asset bubbles, explosive debt, social inequality, and political tensions, to name a few. And yet, we have been able to look the other way, potentially to our peril&--until now.

In The Great Devaluation: How to Embrace, Prepare, and Profit from the Coming Global Monetary Reset, national bestselling author and leading gold investment strategist Adam Baratta shines a spotlight on the state of the monetary system and the Federal Reserve. Baratta brings a fresh and engaging perspective to a topic that investors urgently need to understand. He tells the story of how the Federal Reserve grew to be the secretive, ultra-powerful institution it is today, and how its tactics have resulted in an economy that is on its last, wobbly legs.

Although it isn't easy to open our eyes to the imminent reality of economic collapse, it will be well worth the pain. Baratta reveals the history-proven strategies that we can use to insure ourselves against the coming collapse, recession, and depression. No matter what we do, the system is in trouble. The U.S. Dollar is in trouble. The Fed is in trouble. So, why not benefit by consciously pivoting our investments, our business practices, and our society? George Santayana famously said, "Those that forget history are doomed to repeat it." The Great Devaluation is a history lesson that offers readers a road map for what to expect and how to profit during the next, tumultuous decade." 

From Amazon 

"Taped Sept 3, 1970, this insightful economic conversation remains relevant today. Note Mr. Browne predicts that, "as an act of economic desperation," our government will have to "renege on their promise to foreign governments to pay one ounce of gold for every $35 turned in at the Treasury." On August 15, 1971, the Nixon Administration did so. " 

Source:Liberty Pen- Eliot Janeway debating Harry Browne on Firing Line With William F. Buckley, in 1970.

From Liberty Pen 

"Mr. Browne starts off by explaining that he isn't advocating devaluation--he is simply "looking at the world as it is" and saying that, "as an act of economic desperation," our government will have to "renege on their promise to foreign governments to pay one ounce of gold for every $35 turned in at the Treasury." (The Nixon Administration did so on August 15, 1971.) Mr. Janeway replies engagingly: "Frankly, I find myself a bit off balance being outflanked on the pessimistic side;... they pun on my name all the time and call me Calamity Janeway, and I really regard myself as the last optimist." And we're off on a high-energy discussion of the differences between domestic and international policies, or, as Mr. Janeway puts it, "the hamburger dollar available to us nationals within the sovereignty here [as against] the international dollar."  

Source:Hoover Institution- Eliot Janeway debating Harry Browne on Firing Line With William F. Buckley, in 1970.

From the Hoover Institution  

Eliot Janeway made a good point about Harry Browne when he called him an alarmist. Mr. Browne predicted that there was a coming depression. The 1970s wasn't a great decade economically for America, but other than the mid 1970s, the economy grew and grew fairly well that decade. We even had solid job growth for most of that decade. It was inflation and high interest rates that were the main economic problems of that decade. 

Mises Media: Gerard Casey- 'Libertarian Anarchy: Against The State'

Source:Mises Media- Gerard Casey about his book about Libertarian Anarchy.

Source:FreeState Now 

"Presented at the 2012 Austrian Scholars Conference.  Recorded 8 March 2012 at the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama.  Includes an introduction by Mark Thornton." 

From Mises Media

Just to start off and I doubt I’m the first person to notice this and at risk of sounding awful and mean: doesn’t Gerard Casey, especially with that mustache, resemble Adolf Hitler?

I have a lot of respect for classical libertarianism, even as a Liberal, because libertarianism at its core is the real thing. And what it actually is about both economic and personal freedom. That Americans, have the right to live their own lives as long as they aren’t infringing on others freedom to live their own lives. And that it’s not anti-state, but anti-big state and anti-big government all together. 

When Libertarian Ron Paul says he’s against big government, you better believe him! And when Rick Santorum says he is against big government, you ask him: “So its okay with you if I watch an adult movie, or go to a club with dancers and so-forth?” Because he thinks those things should be outlawed, because he sees them as immoral. But Libertarians are the real thing when it comes to being against big government, because they actually are. And don’t just say they are against big government, because they believe it works for them politically.

It’s not Libertarianism in its real form that I’m against so much as a Liberal. Because real Libertarians are against big government. But they aren’t against government all together. And the key point being that people should be free to live their own lives, as long as they aren’t infringing on others to live there’s. So if two guys want to marry each other, Libertarians wouldn’t have a problem with that. Or if someone wants to go to an adult nightclub with strippers and so-forth, even male strippers, the Libertarian wouldn’t have a problem with that. 

But where I disagree with so-called Anarcho-Libertarians: if someone breaks into someone else’s home without a good reason, or batters that person, or rapes that person, or does other things to infringe on innocent people’s freedom to live their lives, they believe that government has no role to protect us not from ourselves, but from people who would hurt us. See, Classical Libertarians, aren’t anti-government, but they are anti-big government. And believe that the government that we have today is too big and has too much responsibility when it comes to economic and personal issues.

People who I call Anarcho-Libertarians, who are Anarchists. (To be real about it) So I call them Anarcho-Libertarians, because even though they call themselves Libertarians, they aren’t just anti-big government, but they are anti-government period. And do not seem to have a role for government to do anything. And now even seem to believe that government arresting and prosecuting criminals who’ve hurt people, violates these criminals freedoms and constitutional rights. Freedom to do what: hurt innocent people? 

We do have the freedom to hurt innocent people  in this country. Americans tend to want big government out of our wallets, bedrooms, boardrooms and classrooms, out of our personal lives. But they do want government to disappear and not be there to do the things that we need it to do. And tend to believe in things like environmental protection and public education. But generally speaking, libertarianism in its real sense and not the anarcho version, has a real future in American politics.

The Gary Johnson‘s of the world have a real future in American politics. Because they are anti-big government. And even though they would like to see the Federal Government much smaller than it is today and would have to sell that to voters as far as how much smaller and why, they could succeed. Because they do believe there is a proper role of government and not looking to dismantle it. Just dismantle big government. 

But as far as Anarcho-Libertarians are concern, they are essentially Anarchists and are anti-government period. And perhaps would be better off moving to a country that doesn’t have any real government. Like Somalia and see how that works out for them.

Damon Root: 'How FDR Contributed to the Libertarian Movement'

Source:Wikipedia- with a look at President Franklin D. Roosevelt's (Democrat, New York) New Deal agenda.

"The New Deal was a series of programs, public work projects, financial reforms, and regulations enacted by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in the United States between 1933 and 1939. Major federal programs and agencies included the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), the Civil Works Administration (CWA), the Farm Security Administration (FSA), the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 (NIRA) and the Social Security Administration (SSA). They provided support for farmers, the unemployed, youth and the elderly. The New Deal included new constraints and safeguards on the banking industry and efforts to re-inflate the economy after prices had fallen sharply. New Deal programs included both laws passed by Congress as well as presidential executive orders during the first term of the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt.

The programs focused on what historians refer to as the "3 R's": relief for the unemployed and for the poor, recovery of the economy back to normal levels, and reform of the financial system to prevent a repeat depression.[1] The New Deal produced a political realignment, making the Democratic Party the majority (as well as the party that held the White House for seven out of the nine presidential terms from 1933 to 1969) with its base in liberal ideas, the South, big city machines and the newly empowered labor unions, and various ethnic groups. The Republicans were split, with conservatives opposing the entire New Deal as hostile to business and economic growth and liberals in support. The realignment crystallized into the New Deal coalition that dominated presidential elections into the 1960s while the opposing conservative coalition largely controlled Congress in domestic affairs from 1937 to 1964." 

From Wikipedia

"Root tells the tale of several noted leftists of the ’20s who found themselves marked right-wing reactionaries in the wake of FDR’s New Deal. 

Toward the end of a mostly sympathetic profile of the great journalist and critic H. L. Mencken, Christopher Hitchens once claimed that Mencken’s only “brilliance and verve” occurred during “the period between 1910 and the end of Prohibition.” Which is to say, before Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal came along. It’s an all too common refrain. Biographer Terry Teachout characterized Mencken as “blinded partly by his hatred of Roosevelt.” 

Mencken scholar Charles A. Fecher—whom you’d expect to know better—declared Mencken’s opinion of Roosevelt to be “maniacal—there is no other word to use.” Although it’s true that Mencken ended the 1930s as an enemy of what he called FDR’s “More Abundant Life,” he hardly started out the decade that way. 

A self-​described “lifelong Democrat,” Mencken voted for Roosevelt in 1932 and voiced cautious support for the New Deal’s first stirrings, writing in March 1933, “I have the utmost confidence in his good intentions, and I believe further that he has carried on his dictatorship so far with courage, sense and due restraint.” 

It wasn’t until Mencken realized the vast size and intrusive scope of that “dictatorship” that he went on the attack, lambasting the New Deal as a “puerile amalgam of exploded imbecilities, many of them in flat contradiction of the rest.” Indeed, in a passage that could be recycled and reused in our own troubled times, Mencken denounced Roosevelt for proposing “to lift the burden of debt by encouraging fools to incur more debt, and to husband the depleted capital of the nation by outlawing what is left of it... 

You can read the rest of this piece at Libertarianism.Org.  

To put it simply: the reason why we have a smaller Libertarian Party that's part of a broader Libertarian movement in America, is because of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. Thanks Democrats and Republicans for giving us a party, for people who believe in both personal, as well as economic freedom, and limited government, as well as federalism, and the U.S. Constitution. 

Of course there was a Progressive movement in the 1910s and even 1900s, but there wasn't any Federal safety net for America until the 1930s with the New Deal with President Franklin Roosevelt. And then President Harry Truman unsuccessfully tried to expand the New Deal in the 1940s with his Fair Deal agenda. 

We get the Federal, public infrastructure system in the 1950s with President Dwight Eisenhower, who was Center-Right, Progressive Republican. And of course the Great Society in the 1960s with President Lyndon Johnson. 

So the main reason why Libertarians aren't Democrats or Republicans, because both parties have long histories of expanding the Federal state in America. Progressives were a major part of the Republican coalition up until the 1990s or so. And then you have the Christian-Right take over the Republican Party in the 1990s. 

So there hasn't been any real home for Libertarians as far as a political party, at least since the 1920s. Which is why the Libertarian Party was created in the early 1970s.