Skip to comments.Libertarians Seeking 'True Conservatives'
Posted on 02/24/2005 6:27:01 AM PST by Happy2BMe
Libertarians Seeking 'True Conservatives'
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Morning Editor
February 24, 2005
(CNSNews.com) -- The Libertarian Party says its representatives were "very well received" by conservatives at a recent conference in Washington.
"We met a lot of people who are either supportive of our ideas or who simply support having an alternative to the big-government ideal put forward by the Republicans and Democrats," said Sam New, who organized the Libertarian Party's activities at the Conservative Political Action Committee Conference in Washington.
The Libertarian Party was a first-time cosponsor of the Feb. 17-19 CPAC Conference, and its involvement was a "big step forward" for the Party, said Executive Director Joe Seehusen in a report on the group's website.
"Our profile has been low for some time, and we were able to showcase our party in a positive light to many people and groups, including a large number of students and small business owners."
Seehusen, who considers President George W. Bush a socialist, said the Libertarians' support for limited government and appreciation for individual rights strikes a cord with many people who call themselves Republicans or conservatives.
"Many of them stopped by our booth to learn more," which is exactly why the Libertarians decided to take part in CPAC this year, he said.
The Libertarians believe they can appeal to "true conservatives" (as opposed to "big-government neo-conservatives") on a number of issues.
"By taking part in this CPAC conference, we hope to show that Libertarians are the true fiscal conservatives -- much more so than the Republicans are," Seehusen said on the Libertarian website.
He said the party is studying how successful groups market themselves, so the Libertarian Party "can more effectively reach out to conservatives" in the future.
I will never vote on their ticket. I have voted Republican for nearly 35 years, and that is the only ticket I have ever voted on..
But 'conservativism' is undergoing an identity crisis now in the Republican Party.
They are right- but I don't think the Libertarian party can win national elections anytime soon.
They need to infiltrate the Republican party and move it farther right, and they need to learn how to play politics.
As long as they want felons to vote and legalizing recreational drugs in this country, they can sure as hell count me out.
Conservatism in the Republican party died with Ronald Reagan.
The Libertarians are on the mark on most fiscal issues, way off on foreign policy, and sometimes right, sometimes wrong on social issues. The problem is this-most Republicans I know are more libertarian than they realize, but think that most Libertarian party candidates are nuts.
Give me Reaganite conservatism any day of the week.
True moral-liberals looking for true conservatives.
Sure does with this life-long republican.
How true. I think that the Republicans will split into the old Zell Miller DixieCrats, and conservatives.
A lot of folks, including conservatives, want another look at the drug war.
I don't get this thing about felons. Why shouldn't a felon vote if/when they have completed their sentence and done something to prove that they are no longer a criminal threat? Now, before you pull out the flame thrower, hear me out.
I am not saying a 2-time convicted child rapist should be voting. I am talking about people (and there are many) who, a decade or so ago, did something stupid and have now changed their lives. I think those people should be allowed to vote. What about this example:
Take someone who was involved in a bar brawl in the early 90s and was charged and convicted of felonius assault. They did their time, then after prison started a business and a family. This person is now a good "model citizen" and still can't vote.
I think that's the mission of the Republican Liberty Caucus.
"As long as they want felons to vote and legalizing recreational drugs in this country, they can sure as hell count me out."
That makes you a big government supporter. The "war on drugs" has eroded the 4th Amendment, lead to rampant government spending, and limits personal liberty. Moreover, the black market in drugs leads to a spike in real crime associated with that market. If people want to get high, just let them. Do you want to ban alcohol next? Alcohol is a recreational drug, so I guess you want to interfere with my 23rd Amendment rights? You are anti-constitution!
My guess is you lack sufficient faith in yourself to not do drugs, so you want the government to play daddy.
I agree. If they've completed their sentence, then their debt to society is paid and their rights should be re-instated.
That's where they concentrate now. I think the national candidates are just for name recognition.
"As long as they [libertarians]want felons to vote and legalizing recreational drugs in this country, they can sure as hell count me out."
They also want to legalized porn & prostitution to have open borders, and believe that greed is good.
Libertarianism would spell the death of the Republic. With them, no real social cohesion is possible.
I used to have libertarian leanings. The Libertarian Party is isolationist, wants totally open borders with Mexico, and has no philosophy that shares my cultural values. I have no use for them.
I don't think those things should be legal.
HOWEVER-those should be STATE issues, not FEDERAL.
Part of that debt paid to society can be the loss of rights. It is perfectly valid for the people of a society to mandate the avoidance of another individual, or a weapon, or any number of things.
I don't think the Libertarians would be very good running the country either. Here's my dream scenario right now: We elect quite a few Libertarians state and federal levels, not enough to sieze power and implement their crazier ideas, but enough to be able to stop the current government expansion and abuses.
For example, you know we wouldn't be seeing these eminent domain abuses currently in front of SCOTUS if the Libertarians had any significant representation. I certainly don't see the Republicans or Democrats doing anything for these people.
Sounds sensible. Won't happen though. The only way to get any libertarian ideas in place is to elect Republicans (or even Dems) that have libertarian beliefs (like Ron Paul).
Completly untrue. Libertarians simply believe that forcing others to believe as they do through coersion is wrong.
The State does not exist to provide you with a giant gun to point at people whose behavior/tastes you don't like. Its only purpose is to protect individual rights- remember "free will"? That's where virtue comes from, and virtue is what made this Republic great.
The law varies between the states, but I believe some states implement your model. A felon who's served his time can re-apply for suffrage, with those such as your example being granted it. I like this system.
"True moral-liberals looking for true conservatives."
Yeah, whatever. Most small 'l' libertarians such as myself who usually to vote Republican (I live in Manhattan, so I often have the luxury of a protest vote), think government should stay the hell out of the morals business. And out of the business business. Nothing turns me off more than a Republican telling me how to live my life - that's the job of Democrats and other lefties.
True conservatism is about getting the government off our backs and keeping it off. I trust the marketplace. And that includes morality. People need to learn to be moral by acting moral - and not depending on the government to enforce morality. And if you can't convince people to adopt your morality without using the government to shove it down my throat, then suck it up. In that case you lost in the marketplace of ideas, and it is not the job of the government to prop up marketplace losers. That, my friend, is called communism.
"Completly untrue. Libertarians simply believe that forcing others to believe as they do through coersion is wrong.
The State does not exist to provide you with a giant gun to point at people whose behavior/tastes you don't like."
Their fiscal conservatism was certainly demonstrated in their behavior in the Ohio and New Mexico elections.
Alright. Works for me.
Libertarians oppose social programs, true. But on the social issues, they're way to the left of the liberals.
Libertarians want the government out of abortion, drugs, suicide, prostitution, pornography, and gambling, favor gay rights, and believe that "children always have the right to establish their maturity by assuming administration and protection of their own rights, ending dependency upon their parents or other guardians, and assuming all responsibilities of adulthood."
(ie., if a 13-year-old girl goes out on her own, supporting herself by prostitution or pornography, she's an adult.)
OK, all you conservatives out there! Let's hold hands with the Libertarians.
I know, it's sad. The Republicrats have erected too many barriers for third-party participation in the political process. The problem with someone like Ron Paul is that at some point the party leadership will force him to vote against his conscience and for big government. Like George Washington said, parties are self-serving.
I am not saying legalize those things. What I am saying, however, is that the Founding Fathers intended all those things to be State issues since they aren't specific powers given in the Constitution to the Federal gov't.
Fair point, but a decade is not enough. They need to repeat the vote qualifier of maintaining a body temperature of 37°C for a period of 18 years.
Greed IS good. What on earth are you doing in FR (instead of DU) if you have a problem with people getting rich?
The only name I recall was sinkspur, so I guess a "PING!" is called for (since I'm mentioning him).
You have to hand it to President Reagan though. He gave it his best shot. It didnt take. Sad.
Good (if you're the sort of person who belongs here rather than amongst the government-worshippers of DU).
"For example, you know we wouldn't be seeing these eminent domain abuses currently in front of SCOTUS if the Libertarians had any significant representation. I certainly don't see the Republicans or Democrats doing anything for these people."
Right. And it is worth noting that the White House was set to file a brief supporting the right of the city to use eminent domain. This is like the brief the White House filed in the Michigan affirmative action cases that supported affirmative action in principle. WTF!? Nothing galls me more than when Republicans get behind leftist causes. Eminent domain is communism pure and simple, and then we find Republicans about to go along? Thankfully, the
White House came to its senses and did not file the brief. But the fact that they even considered it, let alone worked on it, is cause for disturbance. Right now, Reagan is spinning in his grave so fast, we could hook up electrodes and power New York for free.
That makes you a kook. Disagreements on drug policy are expected. But immediately flailing into such exaggerations and personal accusations with so little evidence is absurd. Its a sign of immaturity at best or perhaps emotional problems. Either way, its counter productive to promoting your beliefs.
Show me a "true conservative" who can support abortion on demand or dissolving of the nations borders and I'll show you a liar. Two of the main reasons I could not vote for the Libertarian platform.
Ill agree to allowing felons to vote when government welfare is abolished. Until then, if the left is going to game the system to drain me, I support draining them of 20 million voters.
You got that right. Excellent post BTW. We need to support more RLC candidates. See if we can't throw our support behind real conservatives within the GOP. It is rather embarassing that a Democrat, Zell Miller, is further Right poltiically than half of those currently in the GOP.
I'll take a truck load. Where can I find it?
I didn't know that. It's downright scary. Now we know Bush hasn't changed his ways, that the administration supports land grabs and abolishment of property rights, but they're just too chicken to say it outright.
Okay, that's it, give me Reagan back, even with his faults a better president than his three successors.
But what are we to do when virtue goes away -- when people define for themselves what is right and what is wrong? Do we stand by and watch the Republic die, in order for a minority of selfish, self-centered, immoral, hedonistic adults to have their way?
Or does the majority draw a line in the sand over which we, as a society, will not cross?
John Adams stated, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people, and is wholly inadequate for the government of any other." The re-institution of virtue into our society will make moot the plethora of laws that have arisen to counter the movement towards immorality.
Also, get rid of welfare, handouts, and restore the second amendment to what it is supposed to be, we wouldn't HAVE a border problem. Although, so far President Bush is a dismal failure at securing our border during a "Terror War".
Link does not work. Typing in keyword "WORKINGLINK" does.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.