Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Neal Boortz, Libertarianism, and Moral Government -- Somebody's morality is going to govern us.
American Thinker ^ | 12/30/2013 | Trevor Thomas

Posted on 12/30/2013 5:11:02 AM PST by SeekAndFind

While substituting for Sean Hannity recently, Neal Boortz went into another of his "libertarian" rants against "social" conservatives. Taking note of the recent flak involving Phil Robertson of "Duck Dynasty," while pleading that the fate of the republic may depend upon Republicans retaking the U.S. Senate, Boortz forebodingly predicted that Republicans would fail in this task because, "they [Republicans] simply cannot resist the urge, the impulse to get into this social conservatism."

Long known for his disdain of the "social" (I prefer "moral") issues, like many others, Boortz masquerades as libertarian while in reality being nothing more than a liberal on the moral issues of our time.

Contrary to what self-described libertarians such as Boortz and John Stossel would have us believe, if conservatives simply shut up about issues like abortion and marriage and focus on things like debt and fiscal responsibility, there's no guarantee when it comes to election time. It is a long-held myth, typically perpetuated by self-described liberals in the mainstream media but also by self-described libertarians, that whenever the moral issues are prominent in elections, conservatives lose. As I have noted before, Jeffrey Bell in his book The Case for Polarized Politics helps dispel this myth.

"Social issues were nonexistent in the period 1932 to 1964," notes Bell. "The Republican Party won two presidential elections out of nine, and they had the Congress for all of four years in that entire period. . . . When social issues came into the mix -- I would date it from the 1968 election . . . the Republican Party won seven out of 11 presidential elections."

(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: homosexualagenda; libertarian; moralabsolutes; morality; nealboortz
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-60 next last

1 posted on 12/30/2013 5:11:02 AM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

“Somebody’s morality is going to govern us”

That’s true, and has always been so, but we battle that out in legislatures, where the people are represented and have a voice.

The liberals would rather have THEIR morality thrust upon us by the unelected, unaccountable and eternal oligarchs in the courts.


2 posted on 12/30/2013 5:18:38 AM PST by cotton1706
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

MEMO TO BOORTZ: Robertson WON this PR battle………

Time to head down to Naples, count your money (you earned it) - but STFU.


3 posted on 12/30/2013 5:19:17 AM PST by C. Edmund Wright (Tokyo Rove is more than a name, it's a GREAT WEBSITE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Neal? the problem with the last two presidential election is that the BASE WAS NOT PRESENT TO VOTE. Why? because of social conservative issues.

Neal you are an idiot.


4 posted on 12/30/2013 5:20:27 AM PST by Vaquero (Don't pick a fight with an old guy. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

THINGS I WISH I HAD SAID
True Liberty is not license. Those who think as you, sir, pervert liberty, and destroy the fundamental principles that allow a culture to thrive economically. This is the error of libertarian philosophy.

What libertarianism proposes is moral relativism under the pretense of “non-interference.” However, in the final measure, the result is that guaranteed outcome of any morally ambiguous system, which denies human nature and the transcendent truths that govern all cause and effect relationships. In practice the imagined utopia of the libertarian is identical in its altruistic deception to that of atheistic communism; and the outcome is predictable: the destruction of the individual and the corporate body of humanity we call society.

Libertarians think they may advance the cause of “social liberalism” simultaneously with “fiscal conservatism;” but this duality of purpose is folly, and works diametrically and insidiously against itself. The social plagues induced by such novel philosophies invariably drain the public treasury, render the distinctions of absolute right and wrong to ambiguity, destroy public confidence in justice, and dissolve private wealth.

Human society does not and cannot exist in a moral vacuum. A society that having no absolute standards of conduct defers all decisions to the individual, exercising little or no restraint on behavior, abdicates the single most legitimate purpose of the state: to increase the common good and uphold the moral order. To quote Edmond Burke:

“Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites, — in proportion as their love to justice is above their rapacity, — in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption, — in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.”

-— Letter to a Member of the National Assembly (1791)

A corrupt society, filled with men of licentious inclinations, cannot maintain its economic stability; or do you suppose the folly of the Roman Republic is worth revisiting in our times? “Give us bread and circuses!”

Economics does not transcend moral absolutes. Economics does not trump the Natural Law. History proves conclusively that no immoral or amoral culture can long prosper, nor survive its growing litany of perversions against the Natural Law; for such a corrupt body becomes its own undoing. Unfettered liberty generates unfettered vice.

Vice is not virtue; even if for a time libertarianism may advance a nation’s economic standing, it remains a foundation of sand because it denies the absolute transcendent truth indelibly stamped on the consciousness of every man by He who created all things. God is not mocked.


5 posted on 12/30/2013 5:25:26 AM PST by RaceBannon (Lk 16:31 And he said unto him If they hear not Moses and the prophets neither will theybe persuaded)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Without a Judaeo-Christian moral background- which presupposes Faith in that area- a pure free market is unworkable.And in this respect, the Christian part of that formula is entirely derivative of the Judeao portion. Other cultures are characterized by family centrism. No one outside the family can be trusted to do what he says he will do. Contracts are viable only insofar as one party has sufficient muscle to intimidate the other party into living up to his end.


6 posted on 12/30/2013 5:33:09 AM PST by arthurus (Read Hazlitt's Economics In One Lesson ONLINEhttp://steshaw.org/economics-in-one-lesson/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Boortz actually said that if the Republicans FOCUS on the moral issues during the upcoming elections, they would lose. I believe he’s correct in his assessment. The election needs to be ‘nationalized’ against 0bamacare, while countering it with good free market ideas. That SHOULD be easy, but never underestimate the Rebublican’s ability to screw it all up. In order to win, matters of economics and overall liberty/freedom are what needs to be focused on this year. The liberals use moral issues as a diversion with straw men and false narratives during debates, interviews, and in the media. The Republicns often takes their bait, and step in it nearly every time.


7 posted on 12/30/2013 5:42:52 AM PST by KoRn (Department of Homeland Security, Certified - "Right Wing Extremist")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
What we have from the LIBERALTARIANS is "legislating morality" is bad... but "legislating immorality" is ok.

"You can't legislate morality" is one of the great lies of our times. We have been legislating morality for hundreds of years, "Thou shall not murder" "Thou shall not steal" etc...

8 posted on 12/30/2013 5:43:12 AM PST by missnry (The truth will set you free ... and drive liberals crazy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The GOPe should know that there aren’t enough millionaires to win elections so that the monied crowd can protect their wealth from the Left. When a McCain or a Romney is nominated, the Christian Right stays home and the Democrats win.
Fortunately for the millionaires, they can buy protection from the Big Government mafia by contributing to their campaigns.


9 posted on 12/30/2013 5:45:12 AM PST by txrefugee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Neil misses how social conservatism ties the whole Conservative / Libertarian package together.

Abortion? We’ve slaughtered 30 million plus potential taxpayers. The elderly have no children or grandchildren to take care of them (and pay Social Security for them). Less moral businesses are trying to import cheap labor in the form of illegal aliens. Tax revenues are impacted because there are fewer taxpayers. The military is impacted by fewer bodies from which to recruit.

Marriage? The biggest indicator of future poverty, crime, etc. is the marital status of the parents. Children with a married father and mother do better than children in single parent households. Children with married, heterosexual parents, that is.

The Constitution was written for a “moral people.” If the people are not moral, they cannot be governed by it. I don’t want to live under what is replacing it...


10 posted on 12/30/2013 6:08:15 AM PST by Little Ray (How did I end up in this hand-basket, and why is it getting so hot?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: txrefugee

I agree with you 100% and I AM A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN... I AM NO LONGER A republican.


11 posted on 12/30/2013 6:12:15 AM PST by LibLieSlayer (FROM MY COLD, DEAD HANDS! BETTER DEAD THAN RED!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: missnry

The mistake on both parts is that the libertarian/liberal fools themselves with the lie of “moral neutrality”,

and we make the mistake of not recognizing that fallacy.


12 posted on 12/30/2013 6:16:53 AM PST by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

There is something that Libertarians always ask:

HOW MUCH IS IT GOING TO COST US?

I don’t see the Republicrats/Democans doing that!

To lump Libertarians as “liberals”, is of the same mindset that all folks who resemble white folks are ‘all white’, and discount how many Native American half-breeds there might be in the crowd.

Libertarians decry ‘the war on drugs’. Have we won any battles yet? Have we lessened the supply or usage over all these years? NO! But we have made a permanent business out of the police/DEA/FBI ‘find the gopher in the hole’, while pouring how much money iunto that operation.

Now, social issues??? What (*) was “The Great Society”??? How much did that help America, really?? How much of a drainhole of federal money has that created? The Dept. of Educ., initiated by Jimmy Carter. Has THAT done us any better, than when the States had their OWN Education system, and requirements? NO. And how much money has
THAT sucked out of the well? Abortion. It isn’t a woman’s right to choose, because abortions mean death of a living cell/zygote/fetus/baby. It has legitimized the wanton behavior that all religious leaders despise. The federal well pays that, too.

So, in all of this, you can argue social issues, legal issues, constitutional issues, personal rights.

The ‘bottom line’, that drives the family budget, or the budget of a single old man, should bre what drives any and all bantered about issue, because somebody’s get their eyes on somebody’s else’s money, for what that dollar monger wants to do with it. Some folks don’t like the Sunday sermon, they pass the plate. Some folks don’t like what they see on TV, they don’t watch it. But they don’t like what a politician does with their money, sorry folks, it’s already out of your pocket.

Someone told me a long time ago, that what you ‘give’ your money to, what comes out of that ‘thing’, it puts it’s stink on you, too, because you paid for it to exist.

If you have a problem with that statement, it was told to me, in the 1980’s by a traveling preacher named Jesse Duplantis.


13 posted on 12/30/2013 6:34:06 AM PST by Terry L Smith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

In the 2006 election, Boortz advocated punishment of the Republican majority in the house and senate. How was putting Nancy and Harry in charge for ya, Neil? Thought so.
One cannot legislate morality, but one can legislate morally. Unless this nation embraces a common moral code to live by we will always be divided.


14 posted on 12/30/2013 6:35:07 AM PST by griswold3 (Post-Christian America is living on borrowed moral heritage)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I hate to say is, but Sean Hannity, on who’s show he was subbing, has the same disdain for moral issues. Why else would he allow the likes of Boortz to sit in?

Likewise, Rush, Mark Levin, and a few others avoid the issues of homo-fascism like the plague.


15 posted on 12/30/2013 7:00:17 AM PST by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: missnry
"What we have from the LIBERALTARIANS is "legislating morality" is bad... but "legislating immorality" is ok."

That in a nut shell is the main problem with Libertarians, control that which is good, and ignore that which is evil, how can Bortz or Stassel, watch an out of control gay pride parade and say it is okay.

16 posted on 12/30/2013 7:10:11 AM PST by PoloSec ( Believe the Gospel: how that Christ died for our sins, was buried and rose again)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Libertarians need to decide with whom it's easier to live: those who share the morality of the vast majority of our founders, who gave us the greatest document for self governance ever created by men

The political mortality of the founders WAS libertarian. Jefferson was certainly libertarian in his political morality and his religious views would shock many. Thomas Paine, who helped kick off the revolution with his pamphlet Common Sense, wrote an entire book on Bible contradictions. The first amendment seems to suggest general opposition to an official government morality, too.

If we REALLY want to go back to the founders' ideas about morality, we'd go back to state's rights (or community rights, IMO) and let each community suffer or succeed based on the fitness of its morality, letting God, or Nature, or fate, or Physics, or Divine Providence, or whatever word you prefer, decide the outcome.

17 posted on 12/30/2013 7:13:25 AM PST by freerepublicchat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fwdude
I hate to say is, but Sean Hannity, on who’s show he was subbing, has the same disdain for moral issues. Why else would he allow the likes of Boortz to sit in?

Because Boortz is very good on fiscal issues, is a big supporter of the Fair Tax and hates Barack Obama. His down side is he's big into self promotion and this rant has kept his name at the top of the headlines so he can be guaranteed to get more calls for subbing in, leading to a very healthy retirement income.

18 posted on 12/30/2013 7:17:45 AM PST by Oshkalaboomboom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Politics is the machinery which advances a worldview. At the moment, the secular humanistic, pragmatic worldview is making great advances.

Yes, you can legislate morality, or the lack thereof.


19 posted on 12/30/2013 7:29:05 AM PST by lurk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
"...if conservatives simply shut up about issues like abortion and marriage and focus on things like debt and fiscal responsibility..."

Our world would look about like it does now, since conservatives haven't had much sway in our say about social issues and fiscal responsibility for a very long time.

We can ignore the innate checks and balances of this world, even use our resources to negate them for a time, but sooner or later the bubble pops and the party ends and our attitude gets adjusted with the pain of our consequences.

That day is coming...

20 posted on 12/30/2013 7:35:41 AM PST by GBA (Here in the Matrix, life is but a dream.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-60 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson