libertarians

Three years ago, Markos Moulitsas floated the idea of an emerging brand of "libertarian Democrats."   At Cato Unbound, Kos argued that the Democratic Party was "growing increasingly comfortable with moving in a new direction, one in which restrained government, fiscal responsibility, and—most important of all—individual freedoms are paramount."

And in fact, libertarians did swing from voting overwhelmingly from Bush in 2000 to overwhelmingly for Obama in 2008.

Recently, though, the people Kos once sympathetically and invitingly described as "traditionally Republican voters [who] simply want to live their lives in peace, without undue meddling..." have been protesting policies and politicians, both Republicans and Democrats.  The Democratic response to this widespread public concern has been...ridicule.  Thanks for the votes, now get lost.

The Democratic/libertarian alliance won't last long.

I tend to agree with Patrick Ruffini that Gov. Sanford should not be obligated to resign for having an affair (as distinct from his disapperance and deception of his staff).  While I think that resignation is a perfectly legitimate, even appropriate, path to take after disgracing oneself, a personal disgrace should not necessarily require resignation from one's job, whether in politics or the private sector.

Indeed, as I pointed out in the comments there, I've been trying to think of a prominent politician who resigned from their elected political office because of an affair (note: McGreevey and Spitzer resigned because of the major ethics/legal violations involved, not the affair), and the only one I can come up with is Rep. Livingston, who resigned his Congressional seat in 1999 after admitting an affair.  I'm sure there are others - probably more at the State/local level - but I can't think of them offhand.

On the other hand, I have to disagree with part of what Max Borders wrote here.

The Right is now reaping what it sowed. By making social conservatism central to its platform, it left no room in the GOP for sinners.

I don't think the backlash against Gov. Sanford has a lot to do with social conservatism.  Social conservatives do not have a unique position on adultery.  Pretty much everybody considers it immoral.  And the social conservative position on gay marriage (which Sanford shared) is not predicated on heterosexual people being uniquely faithful, either.  The appropriate criticism is not so much hypocrisy as it is failure.

Ultimately, there are no political or ideological lessons to be drawn from Mark Sanford's affair.  There are only human lessons.

I also think Max is wrong on a practical and logical level to conclude from this story that "it is time to purge the Right’s politics of social conservatism".  As a libertarian, I certainly favor the harm principle over the offense principle - that is, I think politics should focus on addressing force and fraud instead of things which are merely unpleasant.

I believe that libertarianism is a very internally consistent way of marrying the personal and political spheres, but I actually don't think it works. Or rather, it's wonderful in theory, but human nature has not adopted that theory for any large, sustained social group in history.

For my part, I've come to believe that libertarianism is a personal moral philosophy, not a political philosophy. It describes how we ought to behave individually, but it does not give us practical advice for how we can resolve social disputes in a political system.

The political system requires accomodation.  Libertarians can either disengage or they can find a way to work within a coalition.  Unprincipled?  Maybe.  But so is everybody.  That's human nature.

But there is one final, very important point: Social conservatism is basically a personal moral philosophy (or tendency), as well.  As Hayek said of conservatism, "It is that by its very nature it cannot offer an alternative to the direction in which we are moving. It may succeed by its resistance to current tendencies in slowing down undesirable developments, but, since it does not indicate another direction, it cannot prevent their continuance. It has, for this reason, invariably been the fate of conservatism to be dragged along a path not of its own choosing. The tug of war between conservatives and progressives can only affect the speed, not the direction, of contemporary developments."

Social conservatives also need to accomodate libertarians.  That does not mean they must minimize their objections to immorality, but it does mean they are going to have to accept fewer litmus tests and, if trends hold, a somewhat less decisive role within the Right's coalition.

Social conservatives and libertarians do have some common interests.  The Right's coalition has worked best when they have focused on those common interests and left the rest to the social and personal spheres.

I address this question to our Social Conservative and National Security Conservative brethren:

How will you advance the cause of liberty?

I have heard much about how we apostate libertarians have forgotten our natural allegiance.  Most recently, Mr. Soren Dayton posted on this subject.  Apparently, some still claim that allegiance to the Republican party, even in its current dismal state, is still the best vehicle for a liberal agenda. Some would even say that their is synergy between SoCon and Nation Security Conservative causes and libertarianism.

I beg to differ.

There is an old saying: "Put five libertarians in a room together, and you end up with ten factions." To a certain extent, this is true.  There are some libertarians who support the War on Drugs.  There are some libertarians who support border fences. There are some libertarians who support any number of things that most don't, and many have clear rationales based on libertarian philosophy.  Unlike some of our recent allies, we don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.  That is our (possibly only) strength.  Whatever our occasional differences, we do stand together on one non-negotiable concept: freedom.

Without acrimony, I will list what I believe are major aspects of Social Conservativism that are incompatible with libertarianism:

Support for the Drug War

Support for Anti-Gambling legislation

Support for Anti-Pornography legislation

Support for Anti-Alcohol laws.

Support for religious tests for public office (not sure anyone really overtly supports this, but people sure pay lip service to it.  "Oh my Lord!  He's a Muslim!  How did he ever get elected?!")

Support for school prayer, Ten Commandments legislation, adding "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance, and any number of other strictly Christian religious laws and sical changes. How can we say liberal social engineering is bad when "our" side engages in the same?

As to National Security Conservatives, I won't bother to list.  Almost their entire agenda has the unfortunate effect of decreasing liberty, sometimes to a staggering degree.    

So, I repeat the question: How will you advance the cause of liberty?

It has been said that the Republican party is now "in the wilderness."  Well, guess what?  Libertarians have been in the wilderness FOR A LONG TIME.  We were fooled by rhetoric and a few token sops to believe that we were part of a team.  We were wrong.

I know that some folks will point to economic policies as the great uniter.  Sorry, no.  To my mind (and I think I speak for many of my fellow libertarians), social liberty and economic liberty go hand-in-hand.  Increase freedom and I will naturally have many more opportunities to prosper.  Heck, just letting a guy smoke his joint instead of locking him in a cell gives him greater economic freedom.

Well, we are now at a place where we can really help each other out.  Tell us in clear, concise terms how you will support our causes. We understand that we can't have everything.  Even REAL compromises would be a great first step.

Help us, and we will help you.  We can ALL get out of the wilderness.

Received the following comment via email to a post over at Tapscott's Copy Desk. Just wondering what The Next Right readers think of the author's assertions:

"Having spent years organizing tech workers, make this comment. In the engineering fields (including computers) tech workers tend to be conservative with libertarian leanings. However, there has been complete disgust at the GOP.

"The GOP cannot distinguish tech voters from tech campagin cash. Every computer publication knows the two best ways to start firestorm is to run an article with any criticism of Linux or to mention H-1B visas. The idiots running the GOP simply do not get it.

"One of the best examples of this voter/money disconnect was the 2000 reelection campaign of the Senator from Silicon Valley Spencer "for sale" Abraham. Abraham's work to allow employers to replace U.S. tech workers with lower-paid foreign workers made him the face of the GOP for this voter group.

"Dittos to George Allen. I don't want to claim that his pissing off tech workers (not to mention Jim Webb's reaching out) was *the* thing that cost him reelection but it certainly was one factor.....one large enough to have made the difference.

"John McCain? Well his name is simply mud. As conservative as I am, I could not vote for him.

"Sen. Grassley is starting to become a here in the tech community for his efforts to look out for their interest. But for the most part, the GOP has done everything possible to alienate tech voters.

"Remember the Tech Contract with America the GOP came out with -- guarenteed to piss off tech voters?

"My phone rings and the e-mail starts flowing every night at 8 pm -- when the Lou Dobbs show ends. That's what the tech voters are watching. "I point out that the Democrats are no better. They are just not as "in-your-face" as the GOP is." 

Thoughts anybody?

We've seen a lot of social conservatives upset over today's intemperate attack by Kathleen Parker (Note: she was unnecessarily contemptuous, but her point that "the Republican Party -- and conservatism with it -- eventually will die out unless religion is returned to the privacy of one's heart where it belongs" is worth serious consideration).

Well, I am a libertarian, so let's talk about the Kathleen Parker of the social conservative crowd: Mike Huckabee.

This week, Huckabee called libertarians the "real threat" to the Republican Party...

In a chapter titled "Faux-Cons: Worse than Liberalism," Huckabee identifies what he calls the "real threat" to the Republican Party: "libertarianism masked as conservatism." ... "I don't take issue with what they believe, but the smugness with which they believe it," writes Huckabee, who raised some taxes as governor and cut deals with his state's Democratic legislature. "Faux-Cons aren't interested in spirited or thoughtful debate, because such an endeavor requires accountability for the logical conclusion of their argument." 

We've come quite some way since 1975, when Reagan said "I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism."  

Oh, and it happens that Huckabee does, in fact, take issue with what we believe. In May of 2008, Huckabee called blamed election losses on Republicans being too "libertarian" (this is obviously some strange usage of the word "libertarian" that I was previously unaware of), accused us of being un-American (my response to that is unprintable, but I would be glad to say it to his face if he wanted to repeat his comment to my face) and then proceeded to make the standard, cartoonish Democratic argument against libertarianism.

The greatest threat to classic Republicanism is not liberalism; it's this new brand of libertarianism, which is social liberalism and economic conservatism, but it's a heartless, callous, soulless type of economic conservatism because it says "look, we want to cut taxes and eliminate government. If it means that elderly people don't get their Medicare drugs, so be it. If it means little kids go without education and healthcare, so be it." Well, that might be a quote pure economic conservative message, but it's not an American message. ...

If you have a breakdown in the social structure of a community, it's going to result in a more costly government ... police on the streets, prison beds, court costs, alcohol abuse centers, domestic violence shelters, all are very expensive. What's the answer to that? Cut them out? Well, the libertarians say "yes, we shouldn't be funding that stuff."

Excepting the anarcho-capitalists (who basically aren't a part of the electoral equation, anyway), I don't know a single libertarian who says we shouldn't fund police, prisons or courts.  Most libertarians who are aligned with the Right or the Republican Party are less concerned about the few billion that Huckabee describes here than they are about the few trillion other dollars the government is spending, or the uncountable additional costs of unnecessary regulation and legislation. (This is a perfect illustration of my problem #3 with Mike Huckabee, noted below)

So, let me boil down my problems with Mike Huckabee.

• Huckabee is a Rawlsian liberal + social conservative: Mike Huckabee describes his political philosophy as (a) the Golden Rule ("Do unto others as you would have them do unto to you", and (b) a passage from the Bible ("Inasmuch as you have done to the least of these my brethren, you have done it unto me").   This is not "conservatism"; it is basic Rawlsian liberalism.
• Huckabee makes little distinction between religion and politics: It's not that he's religious.  It's that Mike Huckabee appears to be incapable of drawing a meaningful distinction between religion and politics.  For instance, in 1997, Governor Huckabee held up a disaster relief bill for weeks because he objected to its description of floods and tornados as "an act of God".   He explained his position on another bill by saying "I drink a different kind of Jesus juice."  He has asserted a Christian duty to support other policies.  The Right desperately needs to remember that where the government intrudes, church recedes.
• Huckabee accepts the Democratic framing: Mike Huckabee seems to have far more complaints with Republicans than with Democrats.  Worse, he embraces liberal or Democratic caricatures to attack Republicans.  Whether it is his attacks on libertarians, business or the Club for Growth, Huckabee almost invariably misrepresents their views, portraying them in the same cartoon terms that Democrats like to use (see the examples quoted earlier in this post).

This is easily as contemptuous, as offensive as anything Kathleen Parker has written about social conservatives.  So, yeah, a columnist express disdain for social conservatives.  Cry me a river.  We libertarians had a social conservative Governor and Presidential candidate call us the "real threat" and "smug", and brazenly misrepresent our views before calling our message un-American.

Social conservatives have to realize that they need the fiscally conservative, socially moderate/tolerant voters if they want to be a part of a winning coalition.  The limited government message won revolutionary victories for Republicans in 1980 and 1994; it is the only viable organizing principle for the current Republican coalition. 

Huckabee may believe libertarians are the "real threat", but his God, Guns and Butter agenda would destroy the Right far more effectively than the libertarian cartoons that exist in Huckabee's head.

I have spent the last week recovering from the disappointment of election day. I have spent a lot of time talking to the mid-level operatives from the McCain campaign. (the top level are on TV playing the recriminations games, in undisclosed locations, or drinking their brains out in Vegas)  There are things that we can learn from this election.

The first is that John McCain won the primary because of an often neglected part of the coalition: military voters. Redstate's Erick Erickson said the point well on the night of the Florida primary:

Tonight was not a failure of conservatism, but a triumph of military voters who have made their home in the Republican Party because we are the party of a strong national defense.

In both South Carolina and Florida, they won it for McCain. In the grand coalition of the GOP, we've talked about social conservatives and fiscal conservatives. We've all ignored the military voters, except John McCain. And he won them big. His message resonated.

This is not a sufficient grassroots for the GOP in a national race, but it was a powerful one in the primary. We as a party should feel and water this part of the coalition better than we have done in the past. We will likely get a generation of candidates who served in Iraq and/or Afghanistan who will be powered by the volunteer work of volunteers who supported McCain. In addition, I wouldn't be surprised if this developed into a meaningful faction in GOP politics in the next couple of years.

Second, the GOP is good at managing the mechanics of GOTV. However, we are not very good at managing and empowering our grassroots. The Democrats are. Open Left's Mike Lux, now on the Obama transition team, said:

I am grateful that field organizing and working with grassroots volunteers is actually in fashion again, and in so much bigger a way than it has ever been in my lifetime.

At a time that technological and volunteer energy was at an all-time high, even on the GOP side, the RNC deployed a mythically small number of field staff, opened a mythically small number of campaign offices, and generally deprioritized grassroots. We simply didn't tap into that energy effectively. Often we failed because we were inept. Often, these were the product of intentional decisions by state parties (see below) who were afraid of new people (see above). More broadly, a whole number of volunteer engagement plans failed to materialize. I still have drafts of some of them.

Third, many of our state parties are completely dysfunctional. COMPLETELY. There have been some horror stories out of state parties that should have been able to pull their own weight but simply weren't. I won't name names yet, but it is not good. There is indeed a correlation between the states that have lost elections and the state of their parties. There are two solutions to this. Either someone needs to take them over from below or, much less preferably, they need to be fixed top-down from DC with new staff, bypassing and eventually surpassing the state parties.

Fourth, history will probably show that the mistake of squashing of the libertarian grassroots out west in the form of the Ron Paul campaign could resonate for years. Fewer activists, less money, etc. Many people will try to blame McCain and/or his campaign, but I do not believe that a single state party stood up for a significant part of their grassroots. Often, the parties were so weak that they ended up being complicit in tossing out Paul-supporting libertarians because they were afraid of new people coming in and taking over. These same parties were already in desperate places because of their inability to respond to the growing strength of latino voting blocs with outreach to bring them over. These are not the responses of healthy parties.

NOTE:  Cross Posted At Political Capital

Ah, moderates.  I've been hearing that term thrown around a lot lately, but unfortunately I haven't seen a great deal of exploration of the concept - instead it seems like the "go to" word when describing a faction of the party which is not of the socially conservative ilk. 

It is unfortunate that this article is necessary, but alas in many recent readings (such as here) I have come across descriptions of the friction within the Republican Party, and what has struck me has been the remarkable lack of understanding of basic political philosophy in not only the media, but in the right as well, including honestly grasping what a moderate is, and who exactly is about to "go to war" inside the right.

The upcoming “war for the soul of the GOP” as its being called lately is being described almost universally as “Moderates vs. social conservatives”.

::sigh::

First of all, lets get something straight - there are a lot more than just two factions within the Republican Party, and it is certainly a hell of a lot more in-depth than “moderates vs. conservatives”. Such descriptions hearken to the notion that politics is bi-polar, which is born of a two party system I suppose. You are apparently either left or right, or somewhere in the middle.

Sorry folks, but there is no "right" and "left" and "center".  Those concepts are artificial creations.  We keep hearing, "does the republican party need to go further right?" - but what are they asking?  Should the party go more right economically, socially or both?  If you go left on one and right on another, does that make you a "moderate"?  (no it doesn't)

Such descriptions, as I’ve noted before, are completely divorced from reality or critical thought. There are at lest four main “groups” of political thought across the landscape of political philosophy, popularized by the libertarian party’s two dimensional model of political thought. For the sake of reference, I’ll be referring to them as such:

• Authoritarians - Economic statism, Social statism
• Libertarians - Economic liberalism, Social liberalism
• Progressives - Economic statism, Social liberalism
• Conservatives - Economic liberalism, Social statism

This isn’t just a theory, this is more or less the general makeup of everyone’s political brain. Yes, there are variations on all of these things - I’ve met libertarians for example that range from isolationists to broad internationalists on foreign policy - but lets not use those fractures distract from the fact that most people fall in these general categories. We can deal with the dozen or so verifiable “strains” of Republicanism at another time, but for now, lets deal with the three main factions that we see competing - conservatives, libertarians, and true moderates. I say true moderates for a reason that I will outline below.

When somebody says the war within the Republican Party is “moderates vs. conservatives” - what in the living hell are they talking about?

The only thing they can be talking about is social policy and the culture wars.

Why? Because primarily the grassroots of the Republican Party is made up of a collection of conservatives and libertarians, both of whom agree on economic liberalism. Yes, I know the leaders of the party have acted like authoritarians - who cares? We know they don’t represent the actual grassroots of the party, so lets just set that aside and agree that nearly everyone in this country who would be predisposed to vote for a Republican would be either a libertarian or a conservative. But then again, there are the “moderates”.

So what is a moderate? A true moderate is somebody who can’t make up their damned mind and just blows with the wind on any and all issues. These are the real cancer within the party - the folks who conspire with Democrats to increase spending, expand entitlements, raise taxes, support earmarks, and the entire litany of state loving activities of the left. They do so because they see compromise on those government issues as “the center” and don’t want to be extreme. They do the same thing with social policy as well for the exactly same reason.

These are the people that need to be excommunicated from the party. These state loving, compromising, wishy washy, sail where the wind blows you lawmakers are the ones who don’t belong with us, and aren’t helping us anyway.

But it isn’t where the war within the party is going to be fought. True moderates as I just described are widely hated by everyone within our party - libertarians hate them because they compromise all freedom oriented principles, both economic and social, as they run to the politically safe road. Conservatives hate them because they tax and spend like Democrats, and they are much more liberal on social issues. I think we’re all on board with not liking these people.

But the coming war isn’t with this definition of moderates, which is the essence of my problem with the description I keep seeing in the media about the Republican schism.

No, the real war is between the culture warriors and the libertarians, about what role, and how much of a role, social issues will play in the Republican Party’s new strategy. Since both libertarians and conservatives are agreed on economic liberalism, this is the only place they can fight - but since the media needs to label something they don’t understand, they do the intellectually lazy thing and say it is “moderates” vs. “conservatives”.

I’m sorry, but moderates aren’t going to war with anyone. They’re out of the equasion, and to even bring up that label when discussing the future of the party is a dis-service to the conversation. If for no other reason that it irritates the living hell out of libertarians to be labeled as moderates, because they are moderate about nothing.

In any event, social issues is where the friction really is within the party - but the continual, inaccurate description of the conflict that is coming as “moderates vs. conservatives” feeds into the insanity that Soren Dayton talked about the other day - the idea being propagated by Rush Limbaugh and others that the problem with the party is that “true conservatives” have been betrayed, and that “moderates” have corrupted our core principles.

This gets us into people within the party labeling other people RINOs, when some of those “RINOs” are anti-government crusaders that would just as soon eliminate 10 executive departments, cut taxes by 20% across the board, and institute market reforms on every entitlement we have, but simply have a disagreement about the role of social warfare within our politics.

This is an ideological contest between people who want to almost exclusively fight the Republican political war on the culture battlefield vs. people who want to downplay the culture wars, and focus on what unifies the two camps, economic liberalism and good government reform.

Count me squarely with the libertarians in this fight - and not just because I am one. I, nor anyone in this camp is a “moderate” about anything - indeed I would argue it is likely I am more hawkish on economic liberalism and government reform than 95% of the Republican Party.

We simply see that stressing a message of economic freedom, low taxes, spending restraint, balanced budgets, government reform and a strong national defense are much more effective in uniting people across multiple regions than the culture wars are. Hell, I’m a religious person (Catholic), militantly pro-life, and I’m not exactly the biggest fan of the homosexual lobby, but that doesn’t mean I want that to be my sales pitch to the American people.

Many social conservatives that I know are in this line of thinking as well, because they recognize that no matter how “right” the Republican social agenda is, it remains divisive and will shrink the base of support of the party if it is the focus and lead argument for the party. Such fights may be appropriate to make - but by defining your movement by them, you give the impression that you aren’t really interested in serious governing, you simply want to use the government as a tool of social control.

For better or worse, my friends, people want to elect people they believe will be good stewards of government. They want it to be as efficient and minimalistic as it can be, they don’t want it to waste resources or profit on its existence, they want common sense, good solutions, they want their money protected, and they want to feel safe living in this country. They don’t like power being more important than protecting the people, and they want to trust.

That appeals to our common agreements between libertarians and conservatives. Moderates do in fact have a place, and I would not dream of throwing them out with the bathwater (no political party in a two party system competing with such an unbreakable wall in entertainment and education as the Democrats have, could ever hope to be viable without at least a few moderates) - but the real division in the party has nothing to do with moderates.

Ronald Reagan built an electoral model on unifying the splintered, broken and seemingly defeated Republican Party, and he didn’t do it by campaigning on a gay-marriage ban in the constitution. He did it by asking us to believe in ourselves, take individual responsibility, fight the growth and power of the Federal Government, and reform our most basic institutions so they serve the people.

Unifying narratives work.  If you think that somehow not fighting the social wars as a central theme of campaigning will somehow mean we cede those issues, or "give up" on them, you are a political novice.  Messages to voters that unify and inspire are what work - things that inherently divide us (like culture) do not work.  This is why Barack Obama has thrived on quite literally nothing.  He got people to buy into a message - and for better or worse, he portrayed it as a message of pragmatic unity. 

Well, the right has its own unifying message of common sense and pragmatism, and its about time we stopped sniping each other over social and cultural issues, and set out to push forward with a unifying message - such as what was done during the Reagan Revolution and the 1994 overthrow of Congress.  Those movements were about common sense, good government ideas, and a positive inspiring vision of America.

We've lacked "that vision thing" for quite some time now, and become little more than economic statists increasingly fighting one battle - culture.  Lets hit the reset buttom and understand not only what our common causes are, but what any random generic American - yes independents and democrats - can see about our agenda that they like.  Small government, reform, efficiency, and intelligence.

That is a message we can all come together on (hell, even the moderates can probably hop on board that train), and if the Republican Party had any sense left in it, this would be the focus of our party as we pick up the pieces from 2008. But more than that, we can’t just sell ourselves that way, we must behave that way once we regain power.

I for one am hoping that this is the consensus the party arrives at after the election. But for the love of all that is holy, lets stop speaking about ourselves as though there are “true conservatives” and “moderates”, because politics is not bi-polar, and the people being labeled as moderates are not moderate by any definition of the word.

Hot Air's Ed Morrissey points out a new Rassmussen poll that suggests libertarians are a swing vote...and they're swinging to Obama.

Libertarian voters make up 4% of the nation’s likely voters and they favor Barack Obama over John McCain by a 53% to 38% margin. Three percent (3%) would vote for some other candidate and 5% are not sure. These results, from an analysis of 15,000 Likely Voter interviews conducted by Rasmussen Reports, challenges the conventional wisdom which assumes that strong support for a Libertarian candidate would hurt John McCain.

Contrast that with a Pew study in 2004, which showed libertarians "favored George W. Bush over John Kerry, 59 to 41 percent."   Note, also, that other polls show more libertarian representation in the general public: "9 to 13 percent libertarians in the Gallup surveys, 14 percent in the Pew Research Center Typology Survey, and 13 percent in the American National Election Studies..."  This is a very sizable swing vote.

Reasonable arguments can be made for libertarians to vote for Barack Obama, John McCain or Bob Barr.  So far, though, the only argument that stands out has been Robert Samuelson's...

So, vote for McBama. Though their differences on Iraq are clear, neither has forthrightly addressed some of America's obvious domestic problems—costly government retirement programs, immigration, our energy appetite. For me, McCain does have one provisional and accidental advantage. By most appraisals, the Republicans will get slaughtered in the congressional elections, and I have a visceral dislike of one-party government. It didn't work well under Bill Clinton or George W. Bush.

Divided government doesn't ensure good government, but it may limit bad government by checking the worst instincts of both parties.

Milton Friedman has also touted gridlock as the best way to restrain government.  In fact, even Howard Dean has made the pro-gridlock argument, saying in 2005 that "Do we want a Democratic Party that's in charge of everything? Well, you know, I suppose it's my job to say yes. But the truth is, as an American, it's better when parties share power."  

I understand the desire of many libertarians to punish the Republican Party, though I wonder if they are turning from the current battle to fight the last one.  I also understand the desire of many libertarians to explore a coalition with the Democratic Party, though I suspect that interest will fade after a few years of practical experience with Democratic power.   

There is, however, some undeniable libertarian value in gridlock.   Voting for Obama suggests a great deal of faith in one-party rule.  I'm not sure why that would work out better with Democrats that it did with Republicans.

[Promoted - Rick Sincere, a smart political observer, who blogs at Rick Sincere News and Thoughts, offers a good overview and analysis of the VA-8 Republican Primary race.  This is a good contrast between the Huckabee wing of the Republican Party (Ellmore) and the Goldwater wing of th Republican Party (Singh).  You can put me in the Amit Singh camp - Jon Henke]

An otherwise low-key congressional nomination contest in Virginia’s Eighth District took an intriguing turn three days before the Republican primary, when the Washington Post reported that one of the candidates had, in an effort to discredit his opponent, made up quotations from that newspaper in a campaign flier.

(promoted by Soren. I think that this is tremendously important and that there is more for our party to gain by figuring out how to embrace Ron Paul supporters, although I confess to not knowing what that will really mean. Again, looking for thoughts.)

We all know the kind of success Ron Paul had during the presidential primaries: he organized a legion of followers with unparalleled levels of commitment and passion, not to mention outfundraising nearly every other Republican candidate.  By the same token, he never translated his organization into electoral victory.  But it's become apparent to me recently that the Ron Paul revolution is alive and well, and the implications could be far-reaching for the GOP. 

Last weekend, at the Virginia state GOP convention, unknown delegate Bob Marshall came within just a few votes of defeating former Governor Jim Gilmore for the nomination to run for U.S. Senate.  While some of Marshall's success stemmed from Gilmore's less-than-pure abortion stance, and far better organization on Marshall's part, Marshall also capitalized on the under-the-radar efforts of the Paul campaign to take over state, district and county parties.  As a voting delegate to the convention, I received mailers from Marshall attacking Gilmore for his ties to the Council on Foreign Relations, and he also implied that Gilmore supported a "North American Union."  Nothing in Marshall's career suggests that he's ever been active on those sorts of issues, but he clearly saw them as a way to stimulate the Paul followers and it paid off.  Gilmore, who went in expected to walk away with a 60-65% victory, won the nomination by less than 1%.

In VA-8 (my district), Amit Singh, who has been endorsed by Ron Paul and reaped benefits financially, faces social conservative Mark Ellmore in a primary this Tuesday, June 10th.  Needless to say the results of this primary are worth watching.  While it's unlikely either candidate will be able to defeat Jim Moran in November, the primary will be another indicator of whether the Ron Paul revolution may in fact change the Republican Party.

Paul is a little out there for me, but I think it's fair to say that Ron Paul Republicanism is just about the only kind of Republicanism that's thriving at the moment.  Has Ron Paul reshaped the party?  Will Ron Paul-lite candidates succeed in 2008 and beyond?  Does the GOP only borrow a few thoughts from the Paul crowd and discard the rest, or return to its pre-internationalist past?  The world wonders...