Posted on 03/17/2013 11:13:56 AM PDT by Rufus2007
On this Sunday’s broadcast of ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos,” Washington Post columnist George Will criticized a New York Times article by Jim Rutenberg and Richard Stevenson that suggested the Conservative Political Action Conference revealed deep divisions in the conservative movement.
“First, here’s The New York Times headline on the CPAC conference: ‘GOP divisions fester at conservative retreat,’” Will said. “Festering an infected wound — it’s awful. I guarantee you, if there were a liberal conclave comparable to this, and there were vigorous debates going on there, The New York Times headline would be ‘Healthy diversity flourishes at the liberal conclave.’”
“Republicans have been arguing — social conservatives and libertarian free-market conservatives — since the 1950s, when the National Review was founded on the idea of the fusion of the two,” he continued. “It has worked before with Ronald Reagan. It can work again. What I did see at CPAC was the rise of the libertarian strand of Republicanism, which has an affected foreign policy that is a pullback from nation-building
...more (w/video)...
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
Libertarianism is now civil libertarianism, I suppose. And that used to reserved for the kooks at the ACLU.
People should be VERY cautious when it comes to the libertarian view. I do not buy this idea that a massive majority of people are socially liberal and fiscally conservative. If this were the case, the Libertarian Party would get more than 1%. They don’t. Are there a lot of social liberals nowadays? Yes. But they’re usually either too dumb or stoned to vote, or they’re moochers like Sandra Fluke who need fiscal liberalism to fund their social liberalism.
George knows what he likes ~ expect an announcement any day now.
I’ve been meaning to ask this question here for a long time now: Issue for issue, what are the true differences between Conservative and Libertarian viewpoints?
As a follow-up question: For each issue, which viewpoint best matches those of the Founders?
I’m not altogether for or against either position, necessarily, but I am curious to hear how fellow FReepers sort out the distinctions.
Some people want drugs and penis. When you stand against that they get nasty. That is where the problems will come.
“I’ve been meaning to ask this question here for a long time now: Issue for issue, what are the true differences between Conservative and Libertarian viewpoints?
As a follow-up question: For each issue, which viewpoint best matches those of the Founders?
I’m not altogether for or against either position, necessarily, but I am curious to hear how fellow FReepers sort out the distinctions.”
You’ll probably get as many different answers as there are freepers. Some GOP around here look at any leaning toward libertarianism as akin to inviting the anti christ into your house.
Now, you can use different barometers...let’s take ACU for instance. They give Rand Paul & Rubio 100% conservative, but don’t give it to Ted Cruz.
So, it all depends on who you’re asking. I believe it more in line with the founding fathers than GOPe.
Regulating morality, if ever a good thing by people with unlimited resources and the very power of life and death, is constitutionally up to the various states.
Social engineering and nation building by crony capitalist bureaucrats has got to end sometime, either by choice or by natural collapse.
Libertarians are socially and morally liberal. The Founding Fathers were big on private morality, seeing such people as the only ones that the US Constitution can govern successfully. Libertarians are unaware (or perhaps not) that the Constitution cannot govern amoral and immoral people; I do not see them believing that the welfare of the USA depends on whether the majority in the USA is a moral people who look to God for protection, nor believing that an amoral/immoral people will have God removing His protection from them.
I consider myself to hold many libertarian views but I fail to see why any self described libertarian, people whose fall back position tends to be “get the government out,” would want to creat a whole other area of government to regulate and administer gay marriage. Since “gay marriage” is not real marriage, the current laws governing the act would not be sufficient to govern what the homosexuals propose and the result woud be more government and laws added.
I for one would support removing marriage from the realm of government all together and returning it to the church.
“I see this more as a needed pullback from the nanny state and big, all-knowing government that regulates every aspect of our lives.
Regulating morality, if ever a good thing by people with unlimited resources and the very power of life and death, is constitutionally up to the various states.
Social engineering and nation building by crony capitalist bureaucrats has got to end sometime, either by choice or by natural collapse.”
Well said.
Where matters go astray would be the fair number of Libertarians who are in fact libertine, on the one hand. Not all are, there are pro-life socially conservative Libertarians. But to the libertines who at times appear to predominate, they're openly hostile to any sort of social sanction or taboo pertaining to morals or behavior. This is unlike the Founders who more or less institutionalized an ability to shape the public square and acceptable behavior from the State level on down the line. Freedom of association also means not being forced to associate with those of whom you disapprove.
On the other hand, we have very ardent social conservatives who become decided champions of authoritarian heavy-handedness pertaining to certain moral issues. They don't like it or believe it to be immoral, they immediately want to bring the coercive power of the state to bear, in order to stamp it out. This is very unlike the Founders as well.
There is middle ground to be found, and the Founders exemplify it. Freedom of conscience doesn't mean just what the oddly lockstep “Free Thinkers” say it does. Freedom of association does not only apply to individuals and groups historically marginalized, it applies to all.
I tend to wind up on many of the libertarian-centric threads and have found it to be the anti-libertarian crowd that gets nasty. This thread is new but I bet within 25 posts there will be someone referring to libertarians as “brain dead” or using some other pejorative with drug connotations.
The Libertarian view is utterly disastrous for Conservatism. No, the enemy of my enemy is NOT your friend.
Thank you for your replies. Nicely balanced, and helpful in sorting all this out.
I’m happy to get other input people might have, and TIA.
Marriage is about KIDS... Gays cannot have kids.. unless they buy them..
-OR- lie to some heterosexual women(man) about their preference..
Marriage is about KIDs not Love..
I place great importance on both fiscal and social conservatism — but if forced to choose one over the other, I would choose social conservatism as primary. The Libertarianism doesn’t do it for me.
Not really. The Conservative people tend to be older Christians, respectful and patient.
Often I feel sorry for them as they get rudely pounced on by Libertarians who use the keywords for exactly that purpose.
In my opinion, the libertarians are right on, but in our culture it wouldn't work anymore. America was built on personal freedoms, but without self accountability, those personal freedoms become a burden on everyone else. The masses become slaves to the fallen.
IF the libertarians were to end all social programs today, so people would be held personally responsible for their own choices, it would be great, but I don't see that happening.
Social liberalism leads to destroyed lives. People don't always make the right choices. Today, those who choose to destroy their lives are rewarded with a life time of care. They not only get what they need - they even get those things they want. It's destroying the nation rather than strengthening it.
IF libertarians were able to free people from being held responsible for other peoples bad choices, we'd have the country our founding fathers left for us. We'd all be free.
While I don’t claim this to be any definitive answer, it’s a point to consider that, if you really think in depth about it, holds completely true... One of my political mentors described modern libertarianism (paraphrased) as thus: “The quest for drugs”.
Modern Ls ALWAYS have drug legalization somewhere in the mix. When you look at their border stance, you get the free movement of drugs on the backs of illegals. When you look at their opposition to conservatism, even though they share a great number of our views, the drug legalization issue ALWAYS comes up as a bargaining chip. ALWAYS.
I could go on with examples, but just look at any time a libertarian gets a podium. Drug legalization is always in the mix. And the nanosecond anyone speaks against it, the ‘libertarian’ suddenly becomes a ‘moderate’ who ‘sees the other side’...AKA LIBERALISM.
We all have various views on the drug war. But the Ls have codified this as their line in the sand and will put all other issues subservient to their progress relating to it. History has shown that to be the case. Just look at RonPaul’s army. It was ALL ABOUT the drug issue. And they are the core of modern libertarianism.
The people who created this nation would have lynched a libertarian calling for homosexualizing the military, abortion, gay marriage, and legal prostitution etc., etc.
America was so social conservative the it is difficult for even a conservative to imagine it today.
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.