Libertarians to Conservatives: Drop Dead

National Review Online ^ | Aug 6, 2007 | Carol Iannone

[DesScorp]

I just recently caught up with the exchange on conservatism and the culture wars between Brink Lindsey and Ramesh Ponnuru, in which Lindsey exhorts conservatives to give up any further efforts in the culture war, which he deems finished. And I also heard some of a Cato Institute talk that featured Lindsey and David Brooks, who agrees with Lindsey on this point. I agree with Peter Wood who commented on PBC that if the culture war is over, efforts to reform the university are pointless, and we obviously don't think such efforts are pointless or we wouldn't be here at PBC. Neither would the Manhattan Institute have initiated its Minding the Campus feature. Neither would Regnery be issuing its politically incorrect guides to various subjects. And so forth.

I also think that Lindsey's view of modern life as the “exuberantly pluralistic pursuit of personal fulfillment through an ever-expanding division of labor” is utterly soulless.

Also, Lindsey made some remarks in his part of the exchange, that the Right should be embarrassed about previous racism, sexism, and prudery. I don't have the exchange in front of me now, but I think that's close to what he said. In the National Review I read as a teenager, edited by William Buckley, I don't recall any of that. I recall its being sound, elegant, rational, cultured, with high intellectual standards. Lindsey should be prevailed upon to give specific examples of what he means by the sins of the Right in these areas.

[DesScorp]

In short, this confirms something I've suspected for awhile now...the natural alliance between social conservatives and libertarians is breaking down because while libertarians used to be social conservative personally, this newer generation is increasingly leftist in personal habits.

In the past few years, the most vigorous defense of pornography, drug use, and allowing sleaze on the airwaves has come from Libertarians. Not even Democrats in the 1970's heyday would defend these things as much now. Libertarians also seem to have a much higher level of atheism and hostility to faith in their ranks than they once did.

Libertarianism ain't what it used to be.

[MNJohnnie]

Yep. Libertarianism is now Libertinism.

Libertarianism was based on the assumption that the individual could be responsible for himself. That he had the discipline and self restraint to rule himself.

NOW days what Libertarians want is to be free of ANY restraint of any kind. That is not liberty, that is license.

[lesser_satan]

bump

[edcoil]

conservatives should stop when every liberal is long gone. Until then, it ain’t over.

[donna]

They also, like Moslems, hate women.

[xcamel]

“licentiousinism”, “licentioustinarians”

[EagleUSA]

NOW days what Libertarians want is to be free of ANY restraint of any kind. That is not liberty, that is license.
:::::
There is a happy ground between radical opporessive socialism (the American left) and libertarianism (virtually no government, or purely consensual government). That happy ground I call a “Constitutional Republic” where RESPONSIBLE government and law prevail. We true American conservatives continue to fight to maintain that middle ground. :-)

[SubGeniusX]

They also, like Moslems, hate women.

Please explain...

[gridlock]

Conservatives should embrace the values of limited government. This should include limiting the intrusion of government into personal behavior, which is to say the libertarian value.

If progress is to be made in the moral sphere, it will be made through persuasion and development of morals-friendly social institutions, such as churches or groups of concerned citizens. But the first impulse of these institutions must not be to legislate morality, because then we are right back where we started.

It seems puzzling to me that conservatives rightly believe that government cannot achieve anything in the commercial sector and have a healthy skepticism about the power of regulation, but somehow suppose the government will be effective in legislating morality.

This is just something the government is not very good at. If we fight on this battlefield, we will lose, over and over again. I suspect the people who want to fight these fights just want to build electoral coalitions. But that is not a sufficient reason.

[SubGeniusX]

Ummm.....

This thread should get interesting ...

PING!!!

[M203M4]

That’s why I recoil today when offered the label of “libertarian”, and feel the need to hyphenate with a “conservative” in front. I don’t so much think it is a rift between libertarianism and conservatism as much as it is a rift between the two major strains of libertarianism (right vs left - as you say, liberty vs license...the third minor strain of libertarianism is the anarchist camp).

For example, a hotel having the ability to not serve gays is, IMO, entirely compatible with true liberty - while the government busting into private bedrooms to look for evidence of sodomy is not. To some, that is a subtle difference...which is a pity.

[ken21]

whatta bout contemporary racism by minorities

towards whites?

in socal everyday in public you can wait longer in line than the spanish-speaking,

or be dissed as a clerk in the local drugstore for not speaking spanish.

[JamesP81]

I also think that Lindsey's view of modern life as the “exuberantly pluralistic pursuit of personal fulfillment through an ever-expanding division of labor” is utterly soulless.

A lot of truth in that sentence.

[Lurker]

Libertarianism ain't what it used to be.

Wrong. It's 'conservatism' that's been bastardized completely beyond recognition by the Republican Party. The new unofficial credo of the Pubs is now "Us too, just not so fast!"

Real conservatives and real libertarians should be natural allies. The damned shame of it is that there are no more than half a dozen real conservatives left in the National GOP, and not one of them is in a leadership position.

Hypocrisy, thy name is GOP.

L

[RKV]

Not really. In fact not even close. What many libertarians want is limited government. Many conservatives have proven that they don't want that. And there's the rub. As far a being "free from restraint of any kind" that's an obvious overgeneralization. Most libertarians want what Jefferson wanted when he said ...

"Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."

Most conservatives on the other hand, think that majoritiarian tyranny is OK. It boils down to this - if what I do doesn't directly affect you, you have limited reason to control me.

[Kevmo]

I see it also. Thanks for posting this article.

[fr_freak]

What the "anything goes" libertarian types (as opposed to the limited government, classic liberal type of libertarian) do not realize is that, in a country where there is moral breakdown among individuals and society at large, an increase in government size, power, and oppression is inevitable. Where morality once restrained people, and thus made a strong government unnecessary, now a whole slew of laws are put into place to keep people from killing and robbing each other in the streets and, of course, the accompanying paramilitary agencies put in place to enforce those laws.

Any libertarian who realy wanted to see limited government would pray for morality to return. Quite frankly, widespread, common morality is impossible without religion (and some religions are more moral than others). Given that even those who believe in Judeo-Christian morality often fall prey to the temptations of this world, certainly those without a higher reason to be moral will be more prone to succumb.

[A CA Guy]

I think I have written here before over FR that one of the interesting things about Libertarians for me was reading their willingness to vote Democrat or throw their vote down holes and tell others to do the same here at times (which benefits Democrats).

I’ve read post years back by some boasting of voting Democrat or against the Republican who had a chance to win out over the Democrat.

I think Libertarians from my readings of them at times have displayed a level of anarchism in their views.

I sure can’t believe the group that posts here like a pot worshiping drug cult as one-note Johnnys.
I have gone to read what stupidity DU folks write for a half hour about twice a year and there is a duplicate pot/drug worshiping one-note Johnny crowd there that repeats verbatim what some of our zealous drug promoting folks do.

I don’t know, I for one can see electing a Libertarian dog catcher, but I kind of at this point consider them more anarchist who are a bit radical from what I have read.

You can take things too far and I consider Libertarians at times as being extreme.

Just think of their past open border stances, drug stances, nearly NO government and basically no war stances that have been posted here.
Yeah, war isn’t pretty. War isn’t wanted or cherished as a goal, but sometimes various generations are required to put it out there for the sake of future generations and the right to continue to post on wonderful forums such as Free Republic.

Just my opinion, nothing set in stone here, I always read and may change my opinion somewhat later.

[RKV]

Well said. Conservatism is definitely not embracing limited government at this time. If you want to improve someones morals better to convert them to Christianity than to expect the government to do the job.

[Pilgrim1611]

I absolutely agree with you. While searching for exactly what I believe in or strongly disagree with . . I came across Libertarians. And when they indeed started defending what you correctly call sleaze, I knew that was NOT where I would want to be.

I am a registered to vote as a Conservative. I would be a registered Constitutionalist if New York State ‘recognized’ them. A party has to garner a certain percentage of votes to be officially recognized.

Actually I think the breakdown is because it never truly was a ‘natural’ alliance. It was more a convenience.

BTW, this is my first post. I just signed on today. I am just finishing Richard Poe’s “Hillary’s Secret War” and was inspired to come here. I also post at another Conservative forum.

Nice to meet you. : )