Posted on 03/07/2005 6:13:58 AM PST by rhombus
A COUPLE of weeks ago, a panel gathered in Washington, D.C., to discuss the state of a troubled marriage: the alliance between libertarians and conservatives.
Generally, the two groups have been united by their distrust of big government and their belief in the value of free markets and political liberty -- even if they have disagreed on social issues such as abortion and gay rights, where conservatives have endorsed a traditionalist approach and libertarians an individualist one. The conservative-libertarian coalition was largely responsible for Ronald Reagan's election in 1980 and the Republican victory in Congress in 1994. Yet, ever since the end of the Cold War, the unity has been fraying.
Most libertarians are troubled by the growing clout of the religious right within the Republican Party, the post-9/11 stampede to endorse security measures that sometimes impinge on individual rights (particularly for people detained on suspicion of terrorist involvement), and the unchecked growth of government under the presidency of George W. Bush. In the past election, these concerns led many libertarians who had usually voted Republican to jump ship and either cast a protest vote for the Libertarian Party candidate or, in some cases, back Democrat John Kerry.
Conservatives, in turn, tend to see libertarians as aggressive secularists who disdain the moral and patriotic beliefs of ordinary Americans and cling to an abstract individual-rights absolutism even in the face of an all-too-real threat to our survival.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
That would be 2003, when Arnold Schwarzenegger was elected governor of California.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
The majority of Americans are social conservatives.
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.
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.
One issue proves you are a majority? Is that all there is to being a "social-con"?
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.
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.