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.
The Libertarian view is utterly disastrous for Conservatism. No, the enemy of my enemy is NOT your friend.
A “libertarian” is not someone who is fiscally conservative and socially liberal. That is a “Rockefeller Republican”, not a “libertarian.”
That said, there is social libertarianism, and fiscal libertarianism. Just like there is social conservatism, and fiscal conservatism, and there is social liberalism, and fiscal liberalism.
I would add, there is also the concept of social libertinism, which is not the same thing as social libertarianism.
Social libertarianism is not the same thing as social liberalism.
Social liberalism is based on the culture of victimhood. Social libertarianism is based on the culture of the individual.
Affirmative action, quotas, welfare, etc., these are the tools of the social liberals. Social libertarians believe in meritocracy.
The social libertarian says is “live and let live”, and you must be responsible, and you have to deal with the consequences of your actions.
The social liberal does not believe in “live and let live”. Just witness the gun rights issue. The social liberal wants to pick and choose which issues and behaviors are acceptable. The social liberal does not believe in individual responsibility, and wants the government to minimize the consequences of one’s actions (assuming they are acceptable actions).
The social libertarian says I don’t care what your sexual practices are.
The social liberal says the government must subsidize your sexual practices.
The late, great Milton Friedman described both Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan as libertarians, not conservatives. Ronald Reagan’s Republican coalition was southern social conservatives, western state libertarians (Barry Goldwater, Alan Simpson, and Dick Cheney are examples), and northeastern fiscal conservatives (Bush, Pete Dupont, etc.). The Republicans have lost most of the old northeast fiscal conservative banker class to the Democrats. The western state libertarians seem to be a crowded out to unrestricted immigration. The southern conservatives are still around, but alone are not enough to change the nation.
The Democrats are exceeding their mandate because the communists have taken over the leadership of the party and its affiliated propaganda organ, the MSM. There are businesswomen who voted their “lady parts” and will have their businesses destroyed by ObamaCare. There are young people who at some point will realize ObamaCare and the welfare state are taking away their opportunity.
Embracing libertarianism is a means to regain an electoral majority. It solves the belief in the electorate the Republicans are not a party of fiscal constraint (squandered by GWB), and it weakens the Democrat/communist argument the Republicans will invade America’s bedrooms. It also puts the libertine fake libertarians to the curb. It changes the debate.
I don’t support gay marriage. But Rand’s “get marriage out of the tax code” is an excellent parry. If we passed the Fair Tax, gay “marriage” would provide little beyond “civil unions”. It takes the air out of the message.
We need to think long term. Any battle we could change, and arguably “retreat” from, but in a way that left the victor with greater requirements for personal responsibility is ultimately good.
Howcome the Libertarians could only get a tiny percent of the vote and now they are the next big thing that will save the Republican party? The libertarians were invited into the Republican party by CPAC that is why they are there. They would still be a tiny third party if they had not been invited in by CPAC.