Libertarianism and the GOP

Submitted by Rensen on Fri, 06/06/2008 - 12:06

I'm taking a risk 'thinking out loud' here... and I don't have all the political background material I probably should, so I'm open to a debate on the subject, but...

I think GOP 'Libertarians' should join the Libertarian party, rather that try to reform the GOP into a party that is so libertarian in philosophy, that it becomes about as influential as the Libertarian party, (as in, not very) and cedes the political landscape to the democrats for decades to come.

As a Huckabee republican poking around in the blogosphere this last week or so, I couldn't help but be aware of the outrage and the outpouring of disdain directed at Huckabee by libertarians, from their candidate Barr, down to open letters to the editor from the public, about the supposed slight to their Party that he made during an interview recently.

As usual the analysts cut and paste single sentences out of context, in an attempt to make Huckabee out to be a big government socialist, when the entire commentary makes his position much clearer, and obviously conservative in perspective.

Republicans need to be Republicans. 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. It doesn't fly. People aren't going to buy that, because that's not the way we are as a people. That's not historic Republicanism. Historic Republicanism does not hate government; it's just there to be as little of it as there can be. But they also recognize that government has to be paid for.

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." But what you've done then is exacerbate a serious problem in your community. You can take the cops off the streets and just quit funding prison beds. Are your neighborhoods safer? Is it a better place to live? The net result is you have now a bigger problem than you had before.

My experience in Arkansas was, a lot of the so-called conservatives said "Let's cut the budget." But they wanted to add prison sentences, they wanted to eliminate parole, they wanted to have harsher sentences for various crimes. And I said "OK, that's fine, but that's going to be expensive. So which do you want?" You can't have both, or you do what the federal government has done, and this is where I think Republicans have been especially irresponsible. Their approach has been [to] just kick the can down the road and let your grandkids pay for it.

So they run up huge deficits ... but they've pushed those costs down to the states, and the states have to eat it, because they have to balance their budgets, they don't get to print money or borrow. Or the federal government just runs up more deficits and let's the next couple of generations worry about paying for all this stuff.

People keep failing to realize that Mike's problem was not with libertarianism, or with that party in partiicular.. but with a SOCIALLY LIBERAL Libertarian ideology that is beginning to permeate the GOP. Everyone is gung ho to be economically fiscal hawks.. but hey, anything can fly on the social agenda.

That ends up COSTING more, because government HAS to intervene when you start talking about the criminal justice systems having to compensate for lack of personal responsibility.

If you identify the classic republicanism that worked.. ie Reaganism... that's the GOP brand that produced the greatest level of success for the GOP.. it worked because all three legs of the platform were equally valued.

Conservative idealogues are indeed drifiting back to a 'Goldwater' style of conservatism..that didn't work. It was an excellent governing philosophy, but It failed to produce winning majorities and never quite made it mainstream because it was percieved as being too cold. Perception is relaity in politics.

The GOP thrived when it embraced social conservatism into its fold as well, because it provided a much needed people/responsibility centered balance to the platform.

Huckabee is right. We cannot throw the values/social reform agenda out the window and expect to continue to win on a 'don't tax and spend money' platform alone.

The only mistake he made was using the word Libertarian when talking about his concern in this shift in GOP focus. It got the Libertarians all riled up when he was not in fact attacking their right to their own platform, but concerned about the encroachment of their platform ideas into ours.

I begin to wonder however, if it was deliberate.. Barr, the libertarian candidate is siphoning Huckabee voters dissatisfied with the Mccain nomination in some southern states and threatening to be the GOP Nader this fall.

Was Huckabee trying to throw some ice on libertarian momentum in his capacity as a McCain surrogate? (Especially after Barr tried to capitalize on Mike's NRA gaffe for political exposure)

I think there is some tension between Mike and the Libertarians because McCain and Barr will be battling for the same social conservative votes if Huckabee's not on McCain's ticket. (Something else McCain should consider as he ponders his veep pick)

Is the GOP big tent strong enough to survive a resurgence of Goldwater style republicanism?

Average:

Your rating: None Average: 4 (1 vote)

Rensen's blog
Login or register to post comments

Comments

Strongly disagree.

Submitted by St. Louis Conse... on Fri, 06/06/2008 - 13:00.

We should welcome and foster all branches of the party. If you want to be a Christian Democrat party, get used to being in the minority permanently.

Interesting subject

Submitted by Zarco on Fri, 06/06/2008 - 13:37.

"It got the Libbies all riled up."

Ha! All 4 of them? Seriously, the Liberterian Party has not won more than 1.06% of the vote (Ed Clark in '80). What a pathetic party. Our system is not a 3 or 4 or 5 party system. It's a 2 party system. If you vote for a 3rd party candidate, you're simply throwing your vote away. I bet Bob Barr's going to have a blast this summer. If he campaigns really hard, he might get 1% of the vote! If he slacks a bit he may get 0.2%. Wow, terrific.

And often you end up doing more harm than good. The Republicans would still hold a Senate majority if it weren't for a Liberterian candidate getting 10,000 votes in Montana and Jon Tester defeating Conrad Burns by only 3,000 votes. Obviously Gore would likely have won in 2000 had it not been for Nader.

This an example of the perfect being the enemy of the good. If you hold liberterian views, you likely have much more in common with McCain. Voting for some clown in a minor party is the same as taking that vote for McCain and splitting it 50/50 with Obama. A third party has absolutely zero chance of winning in today's politics.

If you want change in a party, you join the party and try to convince people your way of thinking is right. Party ideals are constantly shifting. Take Ron Paul. I hate the guy, I think he's a lunatic and a wacko, but he ran as a Republican, raised a ton of money, and got a decent little following. If there's anything to his ideas, perhaps the Republican party will slowly adapt some of his ideals. I doubt it, but you change parties from within, not from a fringe 3rd party.

The Republicans should welcome everyone into the party. Being exclusive because someone is "not a real conservative" is no way to win elections, and therefore, no way to change the country for the better.

Please don't be foolish enough to vote for some third party candidate who is running a campaign to make himself feel good.

Yes welcome all.. but the GOP isn't doing that now

Submitted by Rensen on Fri, 06/06/2008 - 13:43.

The key is balance,

The message that seems to be being sent, is that the values agenda is no longer needed or wanted. Just look at the crop of candidates we put into the 'top tier' this year. We shouldn't be pushing one leg of the stool to the exclusion of others.

The message hammered home this cycle was, you could be soft on values, soft on security.. but God forbid you be soft on money..

That's not right. the GOP is a winning coalition.. you break that up and each segment becomes a permanent minority.

They may discover that this year if they continue to disparage the contribution of socially conservative voters

I would leave, but ...

Submitted by Capertree on Fri, 06/06/2008 - 15:04.

Occasionally I read articles about how libertarian-minded people should gravitate to one party or another ... usually written by people with little understanding of the libertarian mindset. That's actually to be expected, since libertarians themselves are plagued by inconsistencies in philiosophy, making choices between evils, or simply disagreeing on what the libertarian position should be. That being said, "libertarian Republican" is exactly how I define myself. I did not support Ron Paul however and ended up casting my primary vote (with little enthusiasm) for Mitt Romney.

For my own brand of libertarianism, I thoroughly disdain an expanding role of government in our lives. That of course, starts with letting me keep more of what I earn. I believe strongly in the market place of ideas as well as goods or services, having faith that "cream rises to the top." Not only does government involvement curtail choice, but it also promotes inefficiencies when government subsidizes or regulates in favor of a weaker choice. I am angered by any attempts at "social engineering."

I believe strongly in the Bill of Rights. At the same time I am a strict constructionist. Yes, I would like to see more freedom enshrined in the Constitution, but having judges make up things that aren't there damages the integrity of the document. How can we be a law-abiding society if the law changes based on who presides over the court?

I also think that about the only legitimate role of government is protecting the lives and property of its citizens and enforcing legal contracts. Therefore as strictly a matter of libertarian principle, I have no problem with the War in Iraq. I see it as a lawful policy decision.

I've always said, conservatives want to regulate sex, and liberals want to regulate everything but sex, which is the greater scheme makes Democrats the lesser of two evils. But with many Republicans (like John McCain) now on board with the great global-warming swindle, and supporting the gutting of the First Amendment with campaign finance reform, and other Republicans so ready to launch their own multi-billion dollar programs, the line is becoming blurrier. It's becoming Democrats or Democrats-Lite.

You can bet that if it weren't for my hope that McCain's choices to the Supreme Court won't be as bad as Obama's. I would vote for Bob Barr in a heartbeat. But for now, we're stuck with each other.

The Supreme Court Swindle

Submitted by Soapboxgod on Fri, 06/06/2008 - 15:22.

"You can bet that if it weren't for my hope that McCain's choices to the Supreme Court won't be as bad as Obama's. I would vote for Bob Barr in a heartbeat. But for now, we're stuck with each other."

Your sentiment is a weak argument I am beginning to hear all too often from Republican voters pondering on whether they are going to hold their nose and vote for McCain. Harboring this believe as a means of justification for voting for McCain ignores reason and logic and replaces is with the politics of fear. The following is taken from my blog addressing this very issue:

Argument #2: The next president will likely make 1 (maybe two) appointments to the United State’s Supreme Court.

Logical Response #2: Before proceeding forward with the, not only obvious but, logical response to the aforementioned argument, I feel it necessary to point out the irony in this situation. On the one hand, McCain apologists argue that we must set aside our want for the implementation of conservative principle in favor of the moderation of Senator McCain so that we can “win” the White House. Lack of Conservative principle and ideology being the primary reason for our opposition to McCain, his apologists then invoke this very Conservative principle and ideology and apply it towards the quest for desirable Supreme Court appointees. Is this not a gross contradiction on their part? Are they not operating on two complete and totally separate premises?

However, moving forward, let us first not get caught up in rhetoric. Be they Democrat or Republican, they are first and foremost politicians. As such, they will say virtually anything in an effort to court potential voters. In this regard, we will then not place emphasis on what John McCain has recently said with respect to Judicial appointments. Instead, we will look at his record which does not suggest he is favorable towards conservative judges (Gang of 14).

Secondly, looking at the 9 member bench, the “conservative” side of the coin comprises judges Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, John Roberts, and Samuel Alito. The oldest of these four members is Scalia at 72. But, although Scalia is the oldest of the four conservatives at 72, it is worth noting that the average age of justices is 68.

Although most commonly referred to as the swing vote on the bench 71 year old Anthony Kennedy will more often than not lean conservative in his opinions. That leaves us with essentially 5 conservatives to 4 liberals on the bench. These 5 aren’t likely going anywhere soon.

Of the more “liberal” side of the bench, you’ve got John Stevens, Ruth Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and David Souter (mind you both Stevens and Souter were appointed by liberal or moderate Republicans. Ford and Bush 41 respectively), the eldest of all 9 members is John Stevens at 88. Ruth Ginsburg is second at 75.

It is not entirely likely that Scalia would step down at 72 years of age or that Kennedy would step down at 71. So, for all practical means that leaves the 88 year old Stevens as the most likely to be replaced in the next president’s term. And, though she’s only three years older than Scalia, perhaps Ruth Ginsburg.

So, as I previously mentioned, that leaves one or two potential Supreme Court appointments for the next president and both of which are on the liberal side of the bench.

Indeed it would be preferable from a conservative standpoint to get another more conservative minded justice appointed to the bench. And, let us suppose John McCain is genuine in his quest to appoint a judge like John Roberts or Samuel Alito. Republicans have neither control of the House or the Senate. And, in fact they have recently lost seats and may very well lose more. As such, while a president McCain may wish to put up judges of that stature, the likely political scenario is that someone like Patrick Lehy, who chairs the Judiciary Committee, would march up to the White House and essentially tell John McCain that he ought not put up an appointee like Roberts or Alito. John McCain, in his “maverick” style tries to then come to a compromise on what sort of justices they might consider.

The worst case scenario is you end up replacing a liberal justice with another liberal.

Though I don’t expect either of these truisms to “take” with McCain’s apologists, those of you teetering on whether to vote McCain or not might want to consider what I’ve just laid out. As this election cycle progresses, we’ll indeed likely see more invocation of the “politics of fear” which are aimed at trumping reason and logic as voters assess their political options. And mind you, while I’ve never been an FDR sort of guy suffice it to say I would caution them by suggesting they heed his resounding words that “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”

Capertree, first off, I doubt

Submitted by Zarco on Fri, 06/06/2008 - 15:27.

Capertree, first off, I doubt you and I disagree on too many issues. But I think you mischaracterize a few points. First, I think it's distorted to say that conservatives want to regulate sex. Most conservatives don't care what people do in their bedroom and don't want to make gay sex illegal. They just want to uphold that marriage is between a man and a woman. Period. Nothing is illegal. Civil unions? Fine. Marriage? Not between two members of the same sex, it destroys a millenia old institution that is fairly consistent across all cultures.

Second, yes, I'm disappointed that many Republicans buy into catastrophic global warming. But as long as major economy-ruining (eg Lieberman-Warner) bills aren't passed, there is little harm with efforts to curb pollution. Our air is a heck of a lot better now that 30 years ago. And it's also a losing issue among young voters.

Third, campaign finance simply isn't a big issue. No candidate is talking about it. I think it is misleading to say it is "gutting the First Amendment." Are your rights being violated? Yes, I agree it's stupid legislation. But McCain-Feingold didn't invent these restrictions. They began in 1971, and are mostly as we know them now in a 1974 amendment to the original law. The '02 bill made the restrictions a bit tighter.

There are so many differences between McCain and Obama it's quite frightening. I'm glad you at least recognize one, judges, that is important enough to keep you from throwing your vote into loony-land.

Judges Smudges

Submitted by Soapboxgod on Fri, 06/06/2008 - 15:37.

It's a weak argument to justify voting for McCain if you can't find anything else. The above post of mine makes this blatantly obvious.

Unless we are sure Obama is a one termer...

Submitted by Ironman on Fri, 06/06/2008 - 15:39.

The oldest of these four members is Scalia at 72. But, although Scalia is the oldest of the four conservatives at 72, it is worth noting that the average age of justices is 68.

This means big problems. It means the next President is statistically likely to appoint multiple jurists.

Perhaps Scalia will be a latter day John Paul Stevens, determined to outlive all his critics. But it's a lot to ask to be sure he makes it into his 80's. By then the Court will have fresh and more liberal replacements for Stevens and Ginsburg. If Kennedy starts swaying left, and we are left with only three good votes, much of what the Rehnquist and Roberts Courts were able to achieve will be rolled back.

Besides, don't think we are going to get milquetoast liberal jurists this time--we are going to get full bore Critical Legal Studies scholars from the likes of Harvard and Yale determined to utlitize the courts te remake human society in their utopian vision.

The politics of fear redux

Submitted by Soapboxgod on Fri, 06/06/2008 - 15:52.

If you permit yourself to justify your vote now by basing that premise on the fact that Obama could serve two terms, you are once again adopting the politics of fear instead of using reason and logic.

It is much the same as Global Warming alarmists who's argument predicates itself exclusively on an unknown; something that may or may not exist in the near future.

At which point does one dismiss reason for something else? It's possible that upon leaving the office today I could get hit by a car and die. While I don't dismiss this possibility, nor can I let it dictate my actions.

I speak from experience

Submitted by Ironman on Fri, 06/06/2008 - 16:15.

We were all sure Bubba was a goner after one term. And the Left was positive the courts couldn't scheme to get Bush 43 a second term. Yep. Both re-elected.

Only once in the 20th Century did a party hold the White House for only one term. (Carter)

If the majority of folks leaving your office were hit by cars immediately upon departure, I'd suggest you not scoff at the risks of playing in traffic

I appreciate the thoughtful responses ...

Submitted by Capertree on Fri, 06/06/2008 - 16:52.

I find any disagreement with any of the posts above a matter of degree rather than a break with philosophy. That in itself suggests I have much more in common with the posters here than I would with another political party. And that, I believe is the original question.

I recognize that McCain's potential appointments will be a crap shoot, but the Supreme Court is just one level of the federal judiciary. No, he won't be able to get another Roberts or Alito through the Democratic-controlled Senate, but his compromise selections will at least occasionally respect the Constitution.

Another big factor leading me to vote for McCain is Barack Obama. He is a pure ideological leftist. At least, there would have been the potential for Hillary to govern in a pragmatic fashion.

Zarco, as to my quip about Republican's regulating sex, it was meant to make a broader point about Republican's traditionally leaving more aspects of our lives untouched by government. As to gay marriage I support the institution of male-female unions only. If, however, the courts continue to degrade the institution, I would prefer to government discontinue the practice of sanctioning or forbidding ANY arrangements between consenting adults. That, at least, would allow us to individually approve or disapprove of such unions ... much the way we can react to another's speech (at least today.)

Great minds think alike

Submitted by Tom Readmond on Fri, 06/06/2008 - 16:59.

I just posted a new blog varying on this theme. http://thenextright.com/tom-readmond/ron-paul-revolution

Maybe I should have posted it as a comment on this one!

I think GOP 'Libertarians'

Submitted by Kevin Boyd on Fri, 06/06/2008 - 17:24.

Okay, I'll go change my registration Monday morning. Good luck winning elections without people like me.

Don't be like that!

Submitted by Rensen on Fri, 06/06/2008 - 17:50.

It was an opinion... not a request...

Maybe I should just have petitioned more for respect of my slice of the GOP pie than against yours.

Just seems these days, the chips all fall your way, and I don't want to end up feeling unwelcome in my own party.

Reagan's 4 legged elephant landslide victory

Submitted by Granny T on Fri, 06/06/2008 - 18:28.

Reagan was the best thing that happened to America in my lifetime. We are still reaping benefits from Reaganomics. McCain has also been good at supporting laws against wasteful spending. He explained his reason for being against the tax cuts was because controlling spending was not included in it. So, McCain is pretty good on that leg. McCain strongest leg is his military background and strenghth. Moral values (social conservativiam) is the leg McCain is weakest on.

Reagan's landslide win was due to his standing on the 4th leg of his elephant. He was a populist that believed "we the people" are the boss. He was against corporate greed and believed people should be paid decent wages. Reagan was able to woo moderate to conservative Democrats because of his strong moral values and populist attitude. Bush was also able to win by standing on those same 4 legs using his "passionate conservatism" form of populism. The difference between the two is Bush hasn't been a hawk on excessive spending like he should have been.

People don't have to buy into the global warming theory to want to have clean air or to try to find other forms of energy. We need to be able to be energy independent. Most Republicans realize we can drill new wells and build new refineries "environmentally friendly." Huckabee could help in communicating that message. The more I study the Fair Tax; the more I like it. If Huckabee has the communication skills many of us believe he has; he might get the Fair Tax passed by McCain, the people, and Congress.

Obama is further to the left than any Democrat I can remember. I have had several Independents and Democrats tell me that if Huckabee is chosen as VP they will vote for McCain. If McCain is smart enough to choose Huckabee; we might see that landslide victory again.

Rhetoric

Submitted by Soapboxgod on Fri, 06/06/2008 - 20:38.

"He explained his reason for being against the tax cuts was because controlling spending was not included in it."

That's what he says now but go back and see what he said at the time. Same old thing the Dems were saying "Tax cuts for the rich."

Considering the wealthy shoulder the tax burden disproportionately, it stands to chance.

What's more, to adopt this "McCain has also been good at supporting laws against wasteful spending." argument is a bunch of rubbish.

While it's noble to be against earmarks like he enjoys touting, earmarks only account for about $16 Billion. When you're looking at a $3 TRILLION budget, that's barely a drop in the bucket.

Moreover, this is the guy who authored an Amnesty bill which would have amounted to the largest welfare increase in 35 years!!!! It would have put the American taxpayer on the hook for $2.6 TRILLION!!!!

As if that weren't enough, he then collaborates with Lieberman on Cap and Trade legislation which resulted in the resent Lieberman-Warner bill thankfully defeated in the Senate.

That my friend would have amounted to the largest tax increase we've known in our time.

John McCain as hawk on spending....puhleeeeze.