Unity on the right gets rocky

The Boston Globe ^ | March 7, 2005 | Cathy Young

[Celtjew Libertarian]

When did a libertarian win anything except some obscure congressional district in TX?

That would be 2003, when Arnold Schwarzenegger was elected governor of California.

[TheForceOfOne]

First, there is no excuse to have backed Democrat John Kerry. Second, lets go after the enemy before going at each other, politics should always stop a the waters edge. Third, the differences between Democrats and Republicans/Conservatives/Libertarians is vast and growing larger every day. I don't see how anyone could be one the fence at this time in our history. Either you're with us, or you're against us.

[Uncle Fud]

Third, the differences between Democrats and Republicans/Conservatives/Libertarians is vast

President Bush's domestic policy in his first term was definitely aimed at courting Democrats, to the exclusion of the limited-goverment wing of his own party.

[Phocion]

I agree with you completely. Imposing social legislation on a public not strongly in favor of it is a tall order. You start with changing the public's attitude, then change the law.

Where conservatives and libertarians can really agree is:
1) Social law ought to come from the legislature, not the judiciary.
2) Local and state control over social law is preferable to federal control.

Look for judges who believe in those two planks, and you won't need any kind of "litmus test."

[rhombus]

Another possibility is that the libertarian and conservative parties of the wing will split, because the left-wing Deaniacs drive the Democratic party so far to the left that there is room for two parties to the right of it.

I think this is far likelier than some of the things written in this article. Believe me, no libertarian voted for John (I know what's best for the world) Kerry. On the other hand, I could see libertarians "staying home" as the religious right constantly threatens if they are harassed too much by theocrats, drug warriors and "for the childredn" decency squads.

[hosepipe]

If a reporter for the Boston Globe really knew what was going on...
They'd fire her / him.. She's safe..

[advance_copy]

Arnold is a moderate, but is this what being a "libertarian" means?

On taxes:

"By the time I'm through with this whole thing, I will not be known as the Terminator, I will be known as the Collectinator."

On the right to keep and bear arms:

"I'm against heavy assault weapons, and also to close the loophole, and all those things."

On property rights:

"We have to think about the pollution problems that we have that we have to cut down. You have to think about the water rights."

[rhombus]

If a reporter for the Boston Globe really knew what was going on... They'd fire her / him.. She's safe.

Well it's an op-ed piece but check Jeff Jacoby. He's about as libertarian/conservative (whatever that means) as the Globe can handle.

[rhombus]

We social-cons took Dubya to the dance; he owes US

Perhaps you folks did put Bush over the top... but despite the harping on "moral values" by the left, alone I believe the social-cons (whatever that really means) is still a minority. There's just so many times you can threaten to "stay home" on issues which you may indeed do. But prepare to wash your hands of complicity in Clinton II.

[Phocion]

I think it's a bit presumptuous to say that one group handed Bush the presidency. Like all campaigns, Bush's team put together a coalition of people to vote for him. Many were primarily supporters of Bush's foreign policy. Some were primarily in favor of Bush's social agenda, or his stewardship of the economy. Some people just hated Kerry's guts. The fact is, without ANY of these groups, Bush would be an ex-president.

[advance_copy]

The majority of Americans are social conservatives.

[Celtjew Libertarian]

Yeah, he ran as more Libertarian than he's governed as... which has been the problem with a lot of candidates, who run libertarian.

However, his statement "By the time I'm through with this whole thing, I will not be known as the Terminator, I will be known as the Collectinator." does not refer to raising taxes. He was saying he was going to ask for more money from Washington to cover responsibilities that the feds have given to the state of California.... Like holding illegal aliens.

And he's still less regulatory than most Democrats would be with regard to the environment.

[LS]

Well, it's common: the bigger your "tent," the more likely people who were drawn by just one or another issue are going to carp. It's also irrelvant---all that matters is how they vote, and who dominates the overall policy direction. I don't think we really have to worry too much about people "diluting" the party.

[rhombus]

EVERY place that an amendment or initiative banning same-sex "marriage"--even in the bluest of states--was on the ballot it was a slam dunk (14 out of 14 states IIRC). Hardly a "minority" sentiment.

One issue proves you are a majority? Is that all there is to being a "social-con"?

[Phocion]

If such amendments were slam dunks in even "the bluest of states", that implies that social conservatism was not the sole driving factor that caused people to vote for Bush.

[advance_copy]

Arnold's comments about guns, taxes, pollution, etc. were from a Larry King interview on September 18, 2003 (before he was elected governor). You're correct that Arnold isn't as liberal as the Democrats, but there's not a whole lot about him that is conservative or libertarian. He's all about "after school programs" and the like. You really can't say Arnold won by running as a libertarian, he won by running as a big-time movie star and a "moderate" (i.e. RINO).