Posted on 11/14/2008 5:53:14 PM PST by tj21807
A new conservative movement that takes libertarian ideas seriously could use the inertia created by the nation's new progressivism to slingshot itself into the future on a platform of reduced government, lower taxes, and limited interventionism, while also respecting climate change (adjusting the tax code to encourage green reform without any expense to taxpayers) and reforming the immigration system (opening the borders as the market demands labor without sacrificing security).
The Republican Party has a chance to transform itself into something it has never been: a party of small government based on classical liberal principles. It doesn't have to be one of David Brooks' visions of the GOP. In fact, if the Republican Party wants to return to power it will recognize the flaws in both approaches, avoid them like Road Runner toying with Wile E. Coyote, and embrace libertarianism instead.
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...
Do I like gay marriage? No, but I don't think we should ban it.
As far as immigration, I don't like or support the massive influx, but we clearly have a problem and some guest worker type status may be the best solution.
No, but I don't think we should ban morons.
A Republican party based on the U.S. Constitution would gain traction. Challenge the Supreme Court on a wide range of issues, including Social Security, gun laws, freedom of speech, property rights. Add a campaign to get rid of the federal income tax, and replace it with a national sales tax. Add some emphasis on states’ rights.
It describes an alternative to the dichotomy of a Communist totalitarian approach or a classic liberal free market approach.
Tony's Third Way was socialism.
I'm surprised the author wasn't aware of this.
The long-run solution is to eliminate the welfare state and its redistributionist entitlement system, to maintain the rule of law, and then to establish "Ellis Island" checkpoint systems at ports of entry. Then, as new immigrants arrive, let the States pick and choose who they want to sponsor and welcome to their respective States.
As for amnesty, it's just plain wrong because it violates the rule of law, a fundamental principle of American society and government.
I am in favor of Reagan’s form of Conservatism.
Naturally this was expected. Libertarians always want to undermine modern conservative ideology. Trash the military, open the borders and let women kill their unborn children. A general call for anarchy.
No thanks.
In the somewhat abridged words of Thomas Sowell, Heterosexuals who want to marry to make a point, can not do so either..so, there is no discrimination. Maybe lesbians can't marry lesbians, but hetero females can't either.
As far as immigration, I don't like or support the massive influx, but we clearly have a problem and some guest worker type status may be the best solution.
A legal way to work i this Country already exists.
Replace the current graduated and progressive rate income tax with a single-rate wage and royalty income tax of ten percent, with the first $100,000 of household income free from taxation. (In other words, tax an individual once and only once: no income taxation on dividends, interest, and capital gains.) Remove all the credits and deductions used for social engineering.
Yep me too, I am sticking with Reagan and his proven formula.
The nonsense is nonsense no matter how you explain it.
I stopped reading there.
The idea that man-made global warming is a threat to the earth is political science, not real science. Those who talk about “climate change” are politicians who don’t want to utter “global warming”, but they are talking about the same BS. McCain talked about “climate change”, as have other Republican “Congresspersons”.
The Republican Party should be telling the public the facts, not pandering to the Borons.
Fact: greenhouse gases occur naturally in the atmosphere, and without them the earth would be too cold for humans. A major “greenhouse gas” is water vapor. The public thinks that “greenhouse gases” are evil, when in fact they are essential.
ETC. ETC. ETC.
Regarding immigration, the Swiss model is one to look at. Unlike other European countries, the Swiss have far less problems with immigration. Unlike for example Holland, the Swiss don’t require guest workers to pay into social services, such as public health and social security. Once a guest worker loses his/her job, they are given a short time to get a new job, or otherwise are required to leave.
The Dutch required guest workers to pay into social services, and as a result these guests became the guests who never left, and are a major drain on the social services structure, because many never put in what they are taking out.
The head-line sounded promising…
I know it sounds bizarre but I honestly believe that the change rhetoric of progressives and liberals is so inherently vacuous that we should take all the dumb alternative labels being thrown at us “reform” “progressive” “third way” and say ‘yup that’s us’ and then explain the policies of pro-life, pro social conservative, less taxes, pro military, pro America, pro capitalism as if that is exactly what those terms mean.
Then say, yeah we are tired of ‘traditional Republican party politics,’ this is something new.
I don’t think 40% of Obama supporters know whether Palin is the VP or not. This is so ridiculous when people pretend there is a substantive reason that Republicans lost and therefore we have to become like libertarians or liberals to win.
I say Bull.
McCain was not particularly conservative. Dole was not particularly conservative. Bush was barely conservative enough. In some ways, I don’t even think Reagan was as fully conservative as might be ideal.
let’s just say traditional conservatism is the new progressivism. Until we annihilate this stupid language game we will keep getting busted on the silly “change” meme. That is how dems win. Clinton did it and then Obama did it.
There is no substance.
Its sad but true.
For as long as I have been in FreeRepublic, there have always been libertarians who have jumped at this kind of bait.
I have news for them. The liberty guaranteed by the Constitution involves such freedoms as the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The right to bear arms and defend yourself. Freedom of religion. Freedom of speech. The right to raise your children as you think best.
It does NOT mean doing whatever the hell you want, regardless of others and regardless of the fact that healthy and moral families are the foundation of any free republic.
At LEAST half of those who call themselves libertarians vote Democrat, because they want abortions, dope, and free sex.
Whenever a libertarian candidate has run without the support of social and religious conservatives, they have been lucky to get 3 or 4 percent of the vote.
Forget it. It’s not only immoral and destructive to our country, it’s a political loser.
There is no need need for a “marriage” of people of the same sex.
The idea is ridiculous. It always was, and always will be.
I cannot accept it under any terms.
just sayin’....
A new Libertarian movement that takes libertarian ideas seriously
The Atlantic Monthly | March 2003
QUESTION:
What is the current state of “Third Way” thinking internationally? With Bill Clinton out of office and with Al Gore not succeeding him, and with the current emphasis on post September 11 policies and politics, how much is left of the “Third Way” movement?
BLAIR:
We recently held an international seminar here on the Third Way which drew political figures and policy makers from all over the world including, I’m delighted to say, President Clinton. I’m giving no secrets away by saying his contribution was, for many people, the highlight of the weekend.
I think anyone who attended would know that there is plenty of life left in the Third Way and that it is influencing policy strongly across the world. No one should be surprised about this.
There has never been a time when it has been more important that we have thinking and policies which combine the need for addressing global security and global poverty, or for tackling social injustice and promoting business. What the Third Way is showing is that these goals are not in conflict, as some have suggested in the past, but must be achieved together.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/899839/posts?page=118#118
Third Way = continued aberration from Conservatism.
Don’t go there.
When you’re in the middle of the road, you get run over from both directions....
So much BS.I will stick to conservative principles.
Libertarianism is NOT Conservatism.
I’ve thought about this a long, long time and have been forced to admit that there’s just no Constitutional principle that would preclude gay marriage. Doesn’t mean I like it, and it certainly doesn’t mean I welcome it, but my understanding of being a “social conservative” (which I very much consider myself) relies first and foremost for respect of the Constitution.
Believe me, I’d love to be shown the error of my thinking.
What the article says between the lines, IMO. Is that conservatism is dead - that if conservatives don’t “change” they have no chance.
We must embrace a new way of thinking - or a new way of presenting ourselves (like liberals do) that that is the only way forward.
It’s so much trash.
Excerpts from a few sources re: the "Third Way" ...
THE THIRD WAY - Politics Of The Radical Center
In his January 27 State of the Union Address, President Clinton claimed that his government represents a "Third Way":
"We have moved past the sterile debate between those who say government is the enemy and those who say government is the answer. My fellow Americans, we have found a third way. We have the smallest government in 35 years, but a more progressive one. We have a smaller government, but a stronger nation. We are moving steadily toward an even stronger America in the 21st century: an economy that offers opportunity, a society rooted in responsibility and a nation that lives as a community."
...
"...in a 'Third Way' society, private property must be allowed. Rather than government owning all property and the means of production, as in pure socialism, an alternative is used. In a 'Third Way' society, property and business is heavily controlled by government regulation, rather than government ownership.
"However, in a 'Third Way' society, the laws to keep us citizens in line come from the communist model of government -- which means complete government control of everything from womb to tomb. We are to have a semblance of freedom. But the working class people must never have enough freedom (or accumulative power) to interfere effectively in either commerce or government. The moneyed elite, however, work under the capitalist system, and capitalist rules, so as to continue generating wealth. The elite get the freedom, the workers get strictly controlled."
...
The unpleasant fact is that the massive network of non-governmental organizations represent constituencies which are unwittingly collaborating with their ideological adversaries. The success of this Third Way endeavor gives testimony to the genius of using NGOs as instruments of consensus building, as noted in the Nov. 7 Tampa Bay Online:
"'Nonprofits are a way to avoid overreliance either on the state or the market. They have this wonderful way of tapping individual initiative, but they do it for public purpose,' said Lester M. Salamon, co-author of a new report for Johns Hopkins University that details the NGO movement's rapid growth.
"Once viewed primarily as 'do-gooders' and religious groups trying to 'save the world,'' NGOs have evolved into a movement of liberals and conservatives. British Prime Minister Tony Blair calls it the 'third way' in world affairs. German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder dubs it the 'new middle.' To academics it's an emerging 'civil society.'''
...
about The Third Way - Democratic Leadership Council
Defining the Third Way
PPI's (The Progressive Policy Institute) mission arises from the belief that America is ill-served by an obsolete left-right debate that is out of step with the powerful forces re-shaping our society and economy. The Institute advocates a philosophy that adapts the progressive tradition in American politics to the realities of the Information Age and points to a "third way" beyond the liberal impulse to defend the bureaucratic status quo and the conservative bid to simply dismantle government. The Institute envisions government as society's servant, not its master -- as a catalyst for a broader civic enterprise controlled by and responsive to the needs of citizens and the communities where they live and work.
...
Third Way or Third Reich? - FrontPageMagazine.com | June 22, 2000
On November 14, 1998, while most of us were distracted by sex scandals, The New York Times quietly reported that, in response to the growing worldwide recession, "Mr. Clinton has proposed a `third way' between capitalism and socialism."
Actually, Clinton has been touting the Third Way since 1992. But his evasive language prevented most people from figuring out what he meant by it.
"We have moved past the sterile debate between those who say government is the enemy and those who say government is the answer," Clinton said in his 1998 State of the Union address. "My fellow Americans, we have found a third way."
Of course, most Americans didn't even know we were looking for one. But now that we've found it, how does it work?
Among other things, the Third Way calls for business and government to join hands as "partners."
"We are working with business to use technology, research and market incentives to meet national goals," Clinton told the Economic Club of Detroit in February. "Some have called this political philosophy the third way."
What Clinton means by this gobbledygook is that Big Business will own the economy (as under capitalism), while Big Government runs it (as under socialism).
Corporations will be bribed into obedience through subsidies, tax breaks, customized legislation and other special privileges.
...
Governor promises a 'post-partisan' era - Hint Hint..
Schwarzenegger gave his strongest and clearest statement to date that he is displeased with the direction of his own party. He said he wants to chart a third way that combines elements of both Democratic and Republican ideologies.
"I believe that we have the opportunity to move past partisanship, past bipartisanship to post-partisanship," the governor said before about 3,000 invited guests. "Post-partisanship is not simply Republicans and Democrats each bringing their proposals to the table and working out differences. Post-partisanship is Republicans and Democrats actively giving birth to new ideas together.
"I believe it would promote a new centrism and a new trust in our political system," he said. "And I believe we have a window to do it right now."
Conservative principles = liberalism...in the true sense of the word liberalism, not the crappy Democratic Party variant or the Liberals of today.
However, Thomas Jefferson would call our ideas and the Constitution a “liberal” document.
But this is just semantics, in our country the word Liberal means “pro-union, protectionism, baby killing surrender monkey.” I don’t support that Liberal ideology, but I do support the liberal ideology of the founding father’s and the Constitution.
But this is just semantics....
“Naturally this was expected. Libertarians always want to undermine modern conservative ideology. Trash the military, open the borders and let women kill their unborn children. A general call for anarchy.”
See, I think a new true “Conservative” party can carry over the free-market, policies that have been seemingly abandoned by the GOP and are now only supported by Libertarians.
Unfortunately the Libertarians (notice the capital L) in this country are too utopian/anarchist. Trashing the military is absurd, letting women kill their babies is also absurd.
But free-market economics, self-reliance, accountability,(ending entitlements) and respect for human life is needed...
“I’ve thought about this a long, long time and have been forced to admit that there’s just no Constitutional principle that would preclude gay marriage. Doesn’t mean I like it, and it certainly doesn’t mean I welcome it, but my understanding of being a “social conservative” (which I very much consider myself) relies first and foremost for respect of the Constitution.”
Exactly, the founding fathers believed people should have the freedom to make their own choices good or bad and live with the consequences. I am sure the founding fathers would comment on gay marriage “that is disgusting, but to each their own, sins will be punished by god, not by the state.”
The Republican Party must concentrate on developing strong, charasmatic, articulate, communicative, yes.... handsome looking conservatives who aren't afraid to speak to the dreams and fears of the vast American psyche.
A large percentage of American voters subconsciously want a President who stands tall, speaks boldly, LOOKS Presidential, and can explain why conservatism is the heart and soul of American strength and prosperity.
McCain had NONE of those abilities.
Yes, he has a history of military honor.... but let's face it, McCain has an irritating nasal sounding voice. He is frumpy and out of touch, and he has been a political wimp....
and don't give me this Maverick stuff.
A maverick is simply a lib media term for someone who slams and insults conservatives or Republicans or evangelicals.... something McCain has made a career of doing.
If I never hear from John Mccain for another 10 years, it will be too soon.
Naturally this was expected. Libertarians always want to undermine modern conservative ideology. Trash the military, open the borders and let women kill their unborn children. A general call for anarchy.
*****************************************************
I don’t see that at all ,, a reasoned libertarian response could easily include provisions for a strong national defense including border defense and protection of unborn human babies without compromising libertarian principles ,,, the only reason libertarians by a small margin would allow abortion is because the unborn haven’t been defined as humans with inalienable rights ,, once babies become a human legally then the arguments in favor disappear.
We are about to be handed a real gift... Obama will overreach ,, the monetary system is failing which will lead to a new system (goodbye fed reserve) and possibly the replacement of the income tax... he will probably try to go all the way to “dictator for life”... if we can keep this experiment in government alive we may be able to slingshot back to say the level of gov’t we had in the 1950’s in a very short time just using the “blowback” he will experience in a kind of “judo” like move ,, especially if we have a charismatic leader who can speak directly to the people above the MSM ...
Yes, libertarians and conservatives naturally should work together at the national level.
But this is an awful essay, full of the most shallow and sophomoric junk.
The Brits didn't acquire their large Empire by a desire to gain territory. They were a small trading nation. However, they learned they had to intervene internationally to protect their trade routes and their sources of trade items. As Macauley said: "England gained an Empire in a fit of absent-mindedness."
You misstate the issue. It's not that we are banning gay marriage. It's that the left is attempting to radically change the definition of marriage. There is no society in the history of the world that recognized same sex marriage, even among those that have been tolerant of homosexual activity. No religion has ever endorsed it, not just Christianity, but Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Confucianism, or any other.
Moreover, it is a winning issue. In liberal CA a ban on same sex marriage just passed, with a majority of blacks and Hispanics voting for it. Opposing a radical redefinition of marriage is not in any way anti-libertarian in any case. Being for liberty doesn't require allowing a minority to define society for everyone else.
I don’t think it’s exactly that simple. I have zero doubt that not a single person involved with the Constitution (drafting it, debating it, ratifying it) would have outlawed “gay marriage” immediately and with no debate whatsoever had they conceived in their wildest imaginations that such a thing would ever considered. But they couldn’t possibly have foreseen such an occasion and wrote a Constitution titled toward individual liberty as much as possible. And now we’re in this mess.
I’m first and foremost a libertarian in that small government, property and 2A rights are what animate me the most. That said, I want no part of a Conservative movement that does not bring social and religious conservatives along as full, equal partners.
In a word...........No. Two words...........H**l No!
“the only reason libertarians by a small margin would allow abortion is because the unborn haven’t been defined as humans with inalienable rights ,, once babies become a human legally then the arguments in favor disappear.”
See Libertarians are all about the baby killing....but I think a true libertarian (notice the lack of a capital) would want to defend a human life. Second libertarians (small l) support the idea of following the Constitution, well one of the few powers the Const. does give is that in national defense, so no a strong potent military is not out of the question for a small l libertarian.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Obama Says A Baby Is A Punishment
Obama: “If they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”
I approach this the same way I approach Obama's notion that he will "work across the aisle" with Republicans -- OK, what ideas are YOU willing to give up on? Or is it only the Republicans who need to give up their ideas in order to compromise with Obama?
On the subject of Libertarians, although I personally support the war on drugs, I might be willing to adopt the Libertarian position on that. So that's my first offering. Now... What will the Libertarians give up to please me? Their abortion position? Immigration? Homosexuality?
What?
If libertarians are ever going to have the slightest chance of political power, they need to stop bashing social conservatives. Just because you don’t have a problem with immorality (gay marriage is the example you give) doesn’t mean millions of socons are going give up things that are important to them.
Plus, I’d like to know what you mean by “regulation of the bedroom.” That’s an argument the left uses all the time, and it’s mostly a straw man. Do you really think resistance to gay marriage equates to regulation of the bedroom?
Indeed.
We and they must both give up the same thing: our expansive view of the Fourteenth Amendment.
It benefits both conservative’s and libertarian’s goals to do so.
Of course taking our disagreements out of the national sphere accentuates them at the State level. Where they should be.
November 14, 2008
Elephants Look for Big Tent Support
Right on schedule, a small group of GOP centrists started wagging their fingers at values voters this week, blaming them for every lost opportunity on November 4. In the post-election dust up, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), and Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) say they want to revisit a losing strategy for Republicans-moving Left. “The answer,” they claim, “is not to become a more conservative, combative party,” but to acquiesce on the GOP’s core issues in favor of energy and the environment.
Christine Todd Whitman, co-chair of the Republican Leadership Council, joined them in a blistering op-ed that blames the pro-family movement for everything from lost congressional seats to John McCain's campaign defeat. She claims Republicans are “hostage to social fundamentalists” and damns the party to a “long time in the political wilderness” unless it rejects values voters. She cites the selection of Sarah Palin, a “sop” to social conservatives, as evidence of the problem.
The unpleasant reality for Whitman is that Palin was the most compelling part of the Republican ticket-not in spite of her pro-family beliefs, but because of them. In a Rasmussen poll, more Republicans actually believed that Palin was the “right choice” (71%) for the GOP ticket than John McCain (65%). There is no better rebuttal to these disgruntled partisans than passage of the state marriage amendments. Despite what the centrists claim, it was a social issue-not energy or the environment-that delivered the most sweeping, bipartisan victory in the entire election.
Republicans are in this wilderness, not because they spent the last six years embracing limited government and moral values, but because the two parties were almost indistinguishable. The future of the GOP depends on strong leaders who will embrace a positive message of faith and family. Only then will the GOP win the respect of voters. “
This is what the so called moderates think of Conservatives!
tj21807: “I am sure the founding fathers would comment on gay marriage “that is disgusting, but to each their own, sins will be punished by god, not by the state.””
Then you haven’t studied history. The founding fathers believed in individual morality which did not include a respect for buggery.
Neidermeyer: “once babies become a human legally then the arguments in favor disappear.”
What a ridiculous statement, that libertarians would stop supporting abortion if a law was passed that declared unborn human. They don’t typically support other laws the restrict human liberty. What makes you think they’d suddenly think it’s OK to restrict a mom’s right to choose?
BTW, I don’t need a law to tell me the unborn are human.
Freedom to Fail and The Price of Hybrid Socialism
Let's not use the term if we can avoid it. We're already well on the way to their utopian dream.
“but we clearly have a problem and some guest worker type status may be the best solution.”
I am clearly in favor of allowing more immigrants if the jobs are there and they are willing to take them. But a guest worker program creates a class of people who have no stake in our country and no interest in assimilating. Immigration has always been about people wanting to make a better life in our country, and not about wanting to make some money and then leave.
Let me tell you, gidget7, we’ve got to crush these moderates. They are killing the Republican Party. Christine Todd Whitman and other Main Street Republicans are going to ensure the Republican Party is banished from Main Street until we return to our core principles of small government, individual liberty, and social morality!
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.