Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
Posted on 02/27/2005 2:55:24 PM PST by 82Marine89
MUTH'S TRUTHS
"Three Big Disagreements With Libertarians"
by Chuck Muth
February 27, 2005
Having recently addressed the campaign nuts-and-bolts of getting limited-government candidates elected as members of the Libertarian Party, let's now take a look at three big issues which I believe currently stop many more conservatives from joining the them: Abortion, foreign policy and immigration. These are NOT minor issues.
Two things to recognize here:
One, it's not necessary (or shouldn't be) for people to agree with 100% of a party's platform in order to be a member in good standing of that party. A party which requires 100% thought compliance isn't a party; it's a cult. Indeed, one should bear in mind Ronald Reagan's wisdom that a person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is an ally, not an enemy.
Second, a principled limited-government voter's disagreement with a party platform position shouldn't be based on a "feeling," but on a reasoned argument derived from the principles of freedom and liberty as envisioned by our Founding Fathers and as enshrined in our Constitution. With that in mind, it is indeed possible to be a member in good standing of the Libertarian Party (or any party) if you can reasonably articulate and defend your disagreement with a particular plank in their platform.
In fact, platforms DO change over the years as opinion and leaders change. Heck, it wasn't all that long ago that the GOP platform called for the elimination of the Department of Education. Whatever happened to that? But I digress.
For many voters, abortion IS a litmus test issue. And for the record, there ARE pro-life Libertarians, as well as pro-choice Libertarians...just as there are pro-life and pro-choice Republicans. That is a fact of life, so to speak, regardless of what the LP platform may or may not say in that regard. But let's take a look at the actual wording of the LP platform position on this hot potato:
"Recognizing that abortion is a very sensitive issue and that people, including libertarians, can hold good-faith views on both sides, we believe the government should be kept out of the question. We condemn state-funded and state-mandated abortions. It is particularly harsh to force someone who believes that abortion is murder to pay for another's abortion."
First, the party recognizes and states unequivocally that people "can hold good-faith views" on BOTH sides of this issue, while remaining consistent in its philosophy that the least government is the best government. More importantly, the LP has taken a position on funding abortions with taxpayer dollars which is even stronger than that of many Republicans. The bottom line: If you are pro-life and the abortion issue is a big thing for you, you CAN find a comfortable home in the Libertarian Party. Ditto if you are pro-choice.
The next big issue, which I think particularly harmed the LP in the last election, is foreign policy - especially since many people already harbor the perception that Libertarians are nothing but a bunch of dope-smoking hippie peaceniks. And although the LP's notion of "just leave them alone and they'll leave us alone" sounds nice in theory, it doesn't acknowledge life in the "real world." For the record, here's part of their platform position on Foreign Affairs.
"The United States government should return to the historic libertarian tradition of avoiding entangling alliances, abstaining totally from foreign quarrels and imperialist adventures, and recognizing the right to unrestricted trade and travel."
Under ideal circumstance in the United States of Utopia this would make sense. But a LOT of people are going to have trouble accepting and defending this position in the world as it actually exists. After all, the Constitution is not a suicide pact.
Recognizing the likes of Mohammed Atta's "right to unrestricted...travel" in the United States is nothing short of an open invitation to conduct more extensive and deadly terrorist operations on our soil. This particular foreign policy position DOES reaffirm the perception that the LP is weak, if not naïve, on national defense.
As to the historic tradition of avoiding entangling alliances - which President Washington was so adamant about in his Farewell Address - it should be noted that had that particular libertarian theory been put into practice by France and other nations during our Revolutionary War, Gen. Washington and the Founders might not have prevailed and we'd all be sipping tea at high noon to this day. Indeed, Ben Franklin and John Adams devoted considerable time and effort trying to persuade others to entangle themselves in our foreign quarrel with King George. Fortunately, some did.
Absolutely, sticking our nose into every foreign dispute is unwise and should be avoided; however, there are foreign alliances which serve the best interests of our national security. The key is to differentiate objectively without becoming the "world's policeman." In any event, I think the LP needs to take off the rose-colored glasses on this issue if they expect more people to join their political ranks.
Last, there's the red-hot issue of immigration. And it's rather disappointing to see the Libertarians acting like Bush Republicans in trying to "spin" this issue and justify their position on it. Here's the LP platform language: "We welcome all refugees to our country and condemn the efforts of U.S. officials to create a new 'Berlin Wall' which would keep them captive."
Note how the LP uses the term "refugee" rather than immigrant. A refugee is someone who flees for protection from war and oppression. Now, there may be a lot of economic problems South of the Border, but I don't think millions of illegal aliens have crossed over the U.S. border to flee war and oppression in Mexico. This is a very disingenuous use of the word "refugee." Kinda like calling an amnesty proposal a "guest worker" program.
The LP platform adds, "We call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally."
The Libertarians can debate their open borders philosophy 'til the cows come home in an academic environment, but politically speaking, "a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally" is DOA with the electorate. It also doesn't square with the views on immigration as articulated by a number of prominent Founding Fathers.
Hearing what Ben Franklin had to say about German immigration, for example, would singe today's politically-correct ears. "Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a colony of aliens who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them," Franklin wrote, "and (who) will never adopt our language or customs any more than they can acquire our complexion." Ouch.
Franklin bemoaned the mass influx of foreign-speaking immigrants noting that "instead of learning our language, we must learn theirs, or live as in a foreign country." Sounds a lot like former Maryland Gov. William Donald Shaeffer, who only last year said of an Hispanic-speaking McDonald's cashier, "I don't want to adjust to another language. This is the United States. I think they ought to adjust to us."
For his part, George Washington questioned the "advantage" of mass immigration, suggesting the number of immigrants be kept small enough for the new citizens to "get assimilated to our customs, measures and laws." And many generally believed that new immigrants should be limited to those who possessed particular and specialized talents, abilities and skills which were needed in the new nation.
Then there was Thomas Jefferson, author of our Declaration of Independence, who warned of the dangers new immigrants posed to our republic: "They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another," Jefferson wrote. "They will infuse into (American society) their spirit, warp and bias its direction, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass." Yikes.
Or as Alexander Hamilton put it: "The safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias and prejudice; and on the love of country, which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education, and family. The opinion advanced in [Jefferson's] Notes on Virginia is undoubtedly correct, that foreigners will generally be apt to bring with them attachments to the persons they have left behind."
Kinda like Californians moving to Nevada.
In their defense, the Libertarians have at least taken a VERY hard line on immigrants and public assistance: "The right to immigrate does not imply a right to welfare -- or any other government service," their platform reads. If only the White House and the Republican Party were so adamant on that position.
In conclusion, I think individuals can take contrary constitutionally defensible positions to the official platform positions of the Libertarian Party and still be good Libertarians; however, I suggest that the Libertarian positions on these three BIG issues discourage a lot of disgruntled limited-government voters, particularly Republicans, from making the leap to their party. The Libertarians would be well advised to go back to the drawing board and come up with some new language on them.
# # #
Chuck Muth is president of Citizen Outreach, a non-profit public policy advocacy organization in Washington, D.C. The views expressed are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Citizen Outreach. He may be reached at chuck@citizenoutreach.com.
The late President Reagan, even more directly, called himself a libertarian on several occasions. But that did not make him a libertarian, or any thing close to it. Recognizing the sentiments of a specific category of potential supporters, then identifying ones self with those sentiments, is a way of saying that your concerns includes their concerns and that your ears are open to their ideas.
I can quite comfortably call my self a socialist.; as I view the free market system as the most progressive, democratic, and social, economic system ever to be conceived. All other economic systems are regressive and anti-social. Since I also identify with many of the motivating concerns that lead many people to become socialists, I find that in certain circumstances, the best way to express this, from time to time, is for me to call my self a socialist. By doing so, certain people will take off the ear plugs and at least listen. Where upon, they will learn about ideas that they otherwise will not learn.
As long as the ideas expressed include the bulk ideas that are generally opposed to by the groups claiming such identity for themselves, no dishonesty has occurred. President Reagan was not a libertarian. But he quite honestly identified him self with libertarian concerns and many of their solutions.
Where does tthe Constitution authorize the DEA?
Article I, Section 8, the Necessary and Proper Clause. Since Congress has the constitutional authority to prohibit the commerce of certain drugs, the Necessary and Proper Clause provides Congress with the federal power to enforce those restrictions. How else?
The same is used to justify the FBI, BATF, IRS, etc.
It would be better if you read this case yourself:
http://www.druglibrary.org/olsen/DPF/visman.html
Seriously. It's not long, and should help you understand.
It is given that the SC now finds ever new and interesting ways to expand their powers well beyond the boundaries that former Justices would have considered Constitutional.
Get me a case from that era or prior that supports your stance.
Article I, Section 8, the Necessary and Proper Clause.
The Necessary and Proper Clause cannot stretch the Commerce Clause, which is carefully worded to exclude intrastate commerce, into including intrastate commerce.
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
three big issues which I believe currently stop many more conservatives from joining the them: Abortion, foreign policy and immigration. These are NOT minor issues.
---
Let's rephrase this:
three big issues which I believe currently stop many more LIBERTARIANS from joining the REPUBLICAN PARTY: BIG GOVERNMENT, BIG GOVERNMENT, BIG GOVERNMENT. These issues triumph everything else.
First of all, I said the regulation of drugs was within Congress' constitutional power. You asked for "evidence to support my position" and I gave it to you.
WTF does that have to do with Prohibition?
Second, if you wanted me to cite pre-Prohibition court cases, or pre-FDR cases, or 19th century cases, you should have said so. I'm not going to play your little back-and-forth game. Next time be more specific.
Stretch? It's not being used to "stretch" the Commerce Clause. It's being used to implement Congress' constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce. The courts have ruled that IF intrastate commerce SUBSTANTIALLY affects the interstate commerce that Congress is regulating, Congress may also regulate that intrastate commerce.
"which is carefully worded to exclude intrastate commerce,"
True. Congress may not regulate intrastate commerce if that intrastate commerce does not affect their interstate regulatory efforts."
"[T]he New Deal Court’s own constitutional justification for its radical expansion of the scope of federal power over commerce was that the congressional measures in question were valid exercises of the power granted by the Necessary and Proper Clause and were not direct exercises of the power to regulate commerce among the several states. That is, the Court did not simply and directly enlarge the scope of the Commerce Clause itself, as is often believed. Rather, it upheld various federal enactments as necessary and proper means to achieve the legitimate objective of regulating interstate commerce."
-- Stephen Gardbaum, Rethinking Constitutional Federalism, 74 Tex. L. Rev. 795, 807-08 (1996)
Wasn't that the intention?
Nuff said. If the previous century-and-a-half of Constitutional jurisprudence didn't detect textual justification for such an expansion, there is none.
There's more to it than welfare. Even without a welfare state, unlimited immigration would still drive down wages - thus destroying the wealth of the nation.
What many Libertarians don't realize is that we already have open borders - between the states within our country. If the standard of living in Mexico was closer to ours (as it is in Canada), then an open border there would not be as big an issue (as it is not with Canada). But even then, security requirements in the modern reality require guarded borders.
The article does a good job of stating my own opinions, as far as it goes. I would like to be a Libertarian, but they won't let me.
"If it was then there would not have been a need for a constitutional amendment to have prohibition." -HTB
--------------------------------------------
An amendment was desired. But it was not required. -robertpaulsen
-----------------------------------------------------
Yes it was. -HTB
---------------------------------------
Again, do you have anything at all to support this statement? -robertpaulsen
--------------------------------------------------
The Constitution it's self.
Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
You notice that it does not say with in the states.
Do you have any evidence to support your position? -HTB
------------------------------------------------
It would be better if you read this case yourself: http://www.druglibrary.org/olsen/DPF/visman.html-robertpaulsen
----------------------------------------------------
"Sorry but that ex post facto. That case was heard long after the 18th and the 21st amendments were passed."-HTB
------------------------------------------------
WTF does that have to do with Prohibition?-robertpaulsen
Clear now?
You said the Necessary and Proper Clause could not stretch the Commerce Clause. I showed where it could and did.
Now you pick up on the word "radical" and want to argue that. Fine. Go argue "radical" with someone else.
Tut-tut. 'Twas merely those goldurn 'unforeseen and unintended consequences'.
After so many years of this, one would think that they would begin to grab a clue. History is purty clear on all this nonsense!
I guess preventing such a learning process is the reason that God gave us memory holes!
You still have not shown why a constitutional amendment was not required for Prohibition as you contend.
No, you showed where FDR courts said that it could and did.
The "FDR court" did not stretch the Commerce Clause. It upheld various federal enactments as necessary and proper means to achieve the legitimate objective of regulating interstate commerce.
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.