There could not be a libertarian Reagan.
Reagan was pro-life as well as pro-military and defense of the USA.
Excellent article.
They could also insist that the Defense bill be about Defense only not the catch all were every congress critter burys their favorite bits of pork
What Libertarians could use is the new Frank Meyer.
Reagan saw Meyer’s importance as the Libertarian voice spanning the small canyon to the conservative icons.
If Goldwater was the “conservative” and Reagan was conservative with libertarian understandings, you need the new Meyer as Paul is not it.
Reagan won his Delegates, fair and square.
Ron Paul lied, cheated and bullied to get his Delegates.
Ronald Reagan could not get nominated in today’s Republican Party - he was simply too conservative, too much of a boat rocker, too keen on trying to rein in spending and the growth of government, as well as simply being too socially conservative for the Party leadership and insider hacks to countenance.
The fusion power of politics. Success is always 20 years down the line.
How about picking a libertarian candidate who
- doesn't have "truther" leanings and
- has some concept on the realities of modern warfare (WMDs, proxy armies, cyberterror, the risks of open boarders, etc)
You lose my attention when you can’t even spell MAINE...credibility goes way down....
Instead of promising to cut welfare, promise to cut corporate welfare (which is by far the bigger problem)
This is possibly true, but I'd like to see some numbers. Distinguishing corporate welfare from legitimate tax deductions is not always clear-cut.
Instead of promising to cut military spending, promise to focus on defense before offense
Apparently the author never heard that the best defense is by definition a good offense.
As Paul Ryan says, instead of cutting middle class entitlements, promise to save them
What!! When did this become a libertarian policy! Middle-class entitlements are at the core of our fiscal problems.
Instead of legalizing drugs, promise to keep them out of children's reach through regulatory enforcement
Not very clear, but presumably this means they'll be legal for adults, and that will make it easier to keep them away from kids. Does anybody really believe that? It works so well for booze and tobacco. There are good arguments for decriminalizing (many) drugs, but this isn't one of them.
Instead of de-regulating industry, point out that laws like the minimum wage only hurt the poor
The problem is that this is not entirely true. Such laws help some poor people and hurt others. Probably the net effect hurts "the poor" as a group, but it's still not a very good argument. And what does the minimum wage have to do with deregulating industry?
Reagan was a grownup.
Next question.