Posted on 02/27/2005 2:55:24 PM PST by 82Marine89
"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.
I really can't take anything seriously that's posted in Comic Book font.
robertpaulsen wrote:
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.
In post #144 you said there was a need for a constitutional amendment. You made the initial claim, yet I'm the one who has to support my challenge to your claim?
Fine. But then you owe me proof why the 18th amendment was required -- some reference or cite to that effect.
"An amendment to the Constitution obviously appealed to temperance reformers more than a federal statute banning liquor. A simple congressional majority could adopt a statute but, with the shift of a relatively few votes, could likewise topple one. Drys feared that an ordinary law would be in constant danger of being overturned owing to pressure from liquor industry interests or the growing population of liquor-using immigrants. A constitutional amendment, on the other hand, though more difficult to achieve, would be impervious to change. Their reform would not only have been adopted, the Anti-Saloon League reasoned, but would be protected from future human weakness and backsliding."
-- druglibrary.org/schaffer/history/rnp/RNP1.html
In addition, Congress did pass some statutes against liquor during this period:
1) The Webb-Kenyon Act in 1913, a long-sought federal statute against transporting liquor into states that wished to block its entry.
2) The Lever Food and Fuel Control Act of August 1917 banned the production of distilled spirits for the duration of the war.
3) The War Prohibition Act of November 1918 forbade the manufacture and sale of all intoxicating beverages of more than 2.75 percent alcohol content, beer and wine as well as hard liquor, until demobilization was completed.
Perhaps the best proof that the federal government had the power to regulate alcohol is the fact that the 21st amendment contained a Section 2. Section 1 repealed the 18th amendment. But Section 2 was added, turning the power to regulate alcohol from the federal government exclusively to the states.
"This Court promptly recognized the impact of the Twenty-First Amendment, noting that it “sanctions the right of a state to legislate concerning intoxicating liquors brought from without, unfettered by the Commerce Clause.”Ziffrin, Inc. v.Reeves, 308 U.S. 132, 138 (1939). This Court has continued to recognize that the Twenty-First Amendment “primarily created an exception to the normal operation of the Commerce Clause,”Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190, 206(1976), and that the resultant authority of the state under the Amendment over importation of alcohol beverages “is transparently clear.”
-- In a Brief for MICHIGAN BEER & WINE WHOLESALERS ASSOCIATION v. ELEANOR HEALD
Defending? I call it explaining. But I do it for those who are interested in the truth.
You, on the other hand, may be quite content to rant and rave that FDR "expanded" and "twisted" the Commerce Clause to suit his agenda. This is what you've heard. This is what you believe. This is what you repeat.
Those who disagree with you -- well, you smugly quip, "They're 'defending the FDR agenda'".
"Explain" away kiddo.
Once again you've outed yourself..
You sentences contradict each other, once the weasel-words "various federal enactments" are clearly defined.
Baloney.
The Commerce Clause is what it is. FDR merely took advantage of the Necessary and Proper Clause power to implement and enforce interstate regulations. The Commerce Clause wasn't "stretched" -- how could it be?
Now, this seems to be just fine with you as long as the Necessary and Proper Clause is used to regulate commerce by removing intrastate obstacles (One might ask, without that clause, where would you be? Answer: Stretching the Commerce Clause).
But you get your panties in a knot when it's used to regulate commerce by prohibiting intrastate activities, even though the courts have ruled that "to regulate" includes "to prohibit".
You're pretty selective as to how you interpret the constitution.
Took unjustified "advantage," yes.
Now, this seems to be just fine with you as long as the Necessary and Proper Clause is used to regulate commerce by removing intrastate obstacles
I never said that. Let me know if you're ever ready to address what I've actually said.
the courts have ruled
FDR (or post) courts?
I'm paraphrasing, weasel.
We only privatize the procurement end of it, not the actual military forces.
1) The Webb-Kenyon Act in 1913, a long-sought federal statute against transporting liquor into states that wished to block its entry.
That actually does fall under interstate commerce.
Irrelevant.
2) The Lever Food and Fuel Control Act of August 1917 banned the production of distilled spirits for the duration of the war.
3) The War Prohibition Act of November 1918 forbade the manufacture and sale of all intoxicating beverages of more than 2.75 percent alcohol content, beer and wine as well as hard liquor, until demobilization was completed.
War acts are also irrelevant as Congress and the President may indeed overstep their peace time powers in times of war.
Once again irrelevant.
Got anything better?
The First World War ended on November 11, 1918 -- The War Prohibition Act passed on November 21, 1918. We were no longer at war.
You're silent on the 21st amendment. Why was Section 2 added?
I mean, Section 1 repealed the 18th amendment. Bada bing, bada boom, that's all that's needed. According to you, the states then have exclusive power -- like they did before the 18th was ratified, right?
Then why Section 2? Section 2 which reads: "The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited."
Seems to me that the power to regulate alcohol now lies exclusively with the state, not the federal government. Note that it doesn't say, "in violation of state or federal laws".
"This Court's decisions since have confirmed that the (wording of 2 of the Twenty-first) Amendment primarily created an exception to the normal operation of the Commerce Clause. See, e. g., Hostetter v. Idlewild Bon Voyage Liquor Corp., 377 U.S. 324, 330 (1964); Carter v. Virginia, 321 U.S. 131, 139 -140 (1944) (Frankfurter, J., concurring); Finch & Co. v. McKittrick, 305 U.S. 395, 398 (1939).
-- Justice Brennan, Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976)
The first ten amendments are an excellent example. The Founding Fathers themselves stated that they were redundant.
You notice that they put an ending time on it showing that they knew where the power was coming from.
"The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited."
It returned the rights to the states that had been taken from them.
The eighteenth amendment did two things. It outlawed "intoxicating liquors" and it took the right out of the hands of the state. When you reverse something like that you must put things back the way you found them. Section 2 confirmed that this was done.
Section 1 did that.
Prior to Prohibition, the states had the power. As I previously posted, half of them had already prohibited liquor in one form or another.
If you want to return to the way things were, you simply repeal the 18th. Yes? No? What's so hard to understand?
Section 2 went farther then a simple repeal. It placed the power to regulate alcohol exclusively with the states. The states wrote the laws, not the federal government. That's different. That didn't exist before.
The federal government, however, kept some form of control. That is, if a state prohibited alcohol to women, for example, that would violate the Equal Protection Clause and the feds could step in.
But the federal government could not use the Commerce Clause anymore to regulate alcohol.
Third request. Where is your documentation that the 18th wasrequired?
That is because you are not a Libertarian. Don't let LP con men tell you differently. We Libertarians have a few things in common with political conservatives, but as Libertarians we are not politically conservative.
Personally I'm quite conservative. But when I present my Libertarian views, I am definitely not conservative.
Twentyfive years ago, the LP would have kicked out half the conservative members it now holds in high esteem. Now it attempts to quietly jump past its anti-conservative agenda. This passive form of dishonesty is not going to last. The LP will either become a conservative compromising spoiler in American politics, or it will return to its principles and thereby reinvigorate it greatest potential, that is to carry the message of economic freedom to those who other wise will not listen. If in the process, the movement grows so as to make make the LP a truly major political party, fine. If not, so what? As the LP will have successfully accomplished something great for America regardless.
You are correct sir!
You're misrepresenting ... as usual.
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.