Posted on 02/09/2012 9:52:24 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Rick Santorum had a somewhat super Tuesday on February 7th. He won all three Republican presidential primaries, thereby reviving a campaign that had failed to follow up on his victory in Iowa. Santorum could become the sole alternative to Romney for the Republican nomination. If that happens, he could become the GOP nominee in 2012. Should libertarians vote for him?
Here’s my (broad) definition of a libertarian. A libertarian cares about individual liberty and thus limited government. Those concerns lead to further commitments to free markets in economics, moral pluralism in culture, and realism and restraint in foreign policy. Government provides a legal order in which individuals pursue their vision of the good life. Politics is more about living together at peace than about making people virtuous.
By his own account, Santorum is anti-libertarian, describing the philosophy as “radical individualism” and a source of cultural decay. He opposes moral pluralism in favor of a society and government that recognizes and acts on Christian virtues. Santorum speaks of free markets, but his cultural commitments are bound to require limits on economic liberty. He also indulges in an economic populism that implies protectionist policies that favor the manufacturing sector. Like many Republicans these days, Santorum also seeks salvation for the Middle East through American military power.
So will libertarians support Obama in the fall? Not necessarily. They will be able to vote for former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson, the likely candidate of the Libertarian Party. He offers an easy way around choosing between the president and Rick Santorum.
Maybe not. Let’s stipulate that Johnson cannot win. If libertarians vote for him, and not their second choice (either Obama or Santorum), they might cause the election of their third choice (Obama or Santorum). Hence we come to the question of the lesser evil.
Is Obama a correct second choice for libertarians? The president is similar to the former senator in one way: both see government as pursuing a moral crusade on behalf of some value. Like generations of progressives, Obama wishes to remake American society in pursuit of “social justice,” not Christian morality. As Friedrich Hayek understood, Obama’s search for “social justice” necessarily abridges economic liberty. Obama’s Libya mission shows that his administration shares George W. Bush’s disdain for realism in foreign policy.
As they say in sports, it’s enough to make you wish they both could lose. But they can’t.
Here’s my libertarian case for Rick Santorum’s nomination (though not his election). Since the early 1990s, Christian conservatives have formed an ever larger portion of the GOP. In Santorum, they would have what they have long sought: a candidate embodying their commitments to a politics of faith. Neoconservatives would also have a candidate committed to transforming the world through foreign policy and military action. The Obama-Santorum race would be more than just a struggle for power between two men. It would be a referendum on ideas and policies that have dominated the GOP for more than decade.
One recent poll has the former senator running even with Obama, but most polls have shown a decided gap of about eight points between the incumbent and Santorum. Right now the latter is not well-known to most voters. As Santorum becomes better known, he might close the gap with Obama. More likely, I think he would drive more secular and independent voters away from the GOP ticket. A ten-point Republican loss in a year when economic weakness suggested a close race would be a political disaster not just for the candidate and his party but also for the ideas they embody. Rick Santorum could be the George McGovern of his party.
Such a disaster might open the door for a different kind of GOP along lines indicated earlier, a party of free markets, moral pluralism, and realism in foreign affairs. Ron Paul has taken some steps this year toward creating such a party. He has attracted votes and inspired activism. His son or another candidate might take up the cause in 2016 and build on Paul’s achievements. Fanciful thinking? Perhaps, but it may take an electoral disaster to free the GOP from the ideas and forces that Rick Santorum represents.
-- John Samples is director of the Center for Representative Government at the Cato Institute and the author of The Struggle to Limit Government.
I am just presenting Santorum's statist philosophy. I am not advocating for anarchy. Those are not the only two options.
Santorum's philosophy as he presented it to NPR:
They may very well both be wrong, but they are different.
Moral relativism is the belief that different groups of people can be required to live according to different moral codes, e.g. OK for some African tribes to be cannibals, but not civilized Westerners.
Moral pluralism is the belief that there may very well be one moral code that applies to everyone, but since no one has been able to convince everyone else of a particular set of moral beliefs then it is best to allow each person to live according to his own moral code within reasonable limits.
The U.S. is very much a morally pluralistic culture, and has been since its founding, e.g. there were various protestant and catholic colonies that disagreed vehemently amongst themselves on various moral issues.
Cultures can become too pluralistic in that they can allow individuals to believe and act in ways that are a direct harm to others, for example allowing the abortion of innocent human life. This is where the U.S. is right now unfortunately.
Moral pluralism in and of itself is not a bad thing, especially since we are all imperfect and do not have access to the complete truth about all things, and certainly do not have the capability of fully comprehending all of the implications of what truths we do know. However, the current form of pluralism we live under has been stretched so thin that we are now in self-destruct mode.
Like I said, new definition same old, same old.
Moral relativity is the concept that one set of moral values is as good as any other, here, there, anywhere. The term has been used for years to justify restorative justice in the court system. You know, “It’s not their fault that they grow up to be gang bangers, drug dealers and murderers, because their ancestors were so oppressed by the Western White Capitalist MEN.” “It’s their culture.”
I didn't say what you said. I directly contradicted it.
It doesn't help the conservative cause to be uninformed with regard to philosophy.
It doesn’t help the Libertarian cause to adopt Noam Chomsky-like definitions.
I’d like to add a new post modern definition, language relativity - the redefinition of words and terms to fit a specific agenda.
If you don't like the definitions at the links, then you should stop using your computer. You should see the reams and reams of intricate definitions that were required to design, build, and deploy the computers and networks required for you to access Free Republic! Should we expect philosophy, which hopes to explain the subtleties of human behavior, to be simpler in its definitions?
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is not some libertarian or leftist site. There are numerous articles written by Christian philosophers. It represents the current state of the art in philosophy.
BTW, since it is an American-based site, if anything it leans toward the analytical philosophers who are adamantly opposed to all things "post-modern" such as the deconstructivism of Foucault and Derrida. It is because they are so concerned about explaining and understanding concepts in such detail that the definitions are as fleshed out as they are.
If you are against relativism then you are intelligent and sane.
If you are against pluralism then you are opposed to the American experiment expressed in the Declaration of Independence and our beloved Constitution.
No, pluralism as you define it is value neutral, just like relativism. It is dangerous and insidious because it can be used to over turn our legal system, which is not value neutral.
Our legal system is based on Judeo-Christian law and Sharia Law is in no way equal. To consider any other culture or religion as equal to US culture or the Judeo-Christian value system is insidious and dangerous.
So do you want our laws based on Jewish law or Christian law?
They are not identical.
___________________
Thank you for your explanation of that term. I would have to say that I am always skeptical of moral concepts that seem rather vague, imprecise and/or subject to various interpretations.
Indeed the whole concept seems to be negated by the final “within reasonable limits” clause. That would seem to be a term of art that politicians, lawyers and Marxists (to name a few) could use to justify almost anything!
To agree to do whatever is “reasonable;” w/o a predefined understanding of the scope of that term seems subject to a myriad of interpretations. One thing I learned from the Clinton administration was that words and terms such as, “reasonable” have absolutely no definable meaning or limits when used by the Far Left.
Take care,
-Geoff
Our legal system is only based on the general moral principles of the Judeo/Christian religion, not on the religion itself. It’s based more on the Judeo/Christian culture than on the religious law.
For instance, our legal system does not condemn anyone for taking the name of GOD in vane, or coveting your neighbor’s wife.
On the other hand, Sharia law is a direct dictat of Islam. A man can beat his wife, cheat his neighbor if the neighbor is not a Muslim and do all sorts of other actions that are considered a crime under our legal system. Both your plural relativism and moral relativism would say this too, is a cultural issue and should be considered equal to our Judeo-Christian based legal system.
It’s not equal under the constitution.
Still, it is kind of interesting that, although Sharia Law is very different in content from Judeo-Christian based law, the way it is currently implemented and enforced is quite similar to the way Jewish and Christian law was enforced in the distant past.
This article was written by a covert Romney-bot.
No it’s not interesting at all. The Islamic culture is stuck in the 6th century. That is the reason that there can be no equality between the cultures, no relativity, either.
Hate to break it to you Newt supporters... Newt is done, finished as a Presidential candidate,,, his biggest donor Sheldon Adelson has pulled the plug on Newt’s Presidential campaign, I guess Sheldon Adelson has seen the writing on the wall...
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.