Posted on 12/03/2012 7:31:09 AM PST by Brookhaven
Every party has its wings–different sub-groups that are part of the larger organization. The Republican party has three wings that the Republican leadership believes is so dangerous to the future of the party, that they tried to suppress their influence in the last election, and pointed fingers at them as the reason for the GOP’s poor showing in the 2012 election cycle.
The Tea Party
It originally sprung up in opposition to out of control government spending. It has become a grass-roots movement centered around government fiscal responsibility. It has a tendancy to work outside the Republican party machinery, which has engendered the wrath of the GOP establishment.
It’s not unusual for a primary candidate to be scorned by the GOP establishment, simply because the candidate is considered a tea partier. Tea partiers felt like they were locked out of the 2012 convention. The GOP is highly critical of any tea party slip ups and magnifies them into major failures. Conversely, the GOP establishment seems to conveniently fail to give the tea party credit for its successes (Marco Rubio for example). It seems as if the GOP establishment now wishes the tea party would just go away.
Social Conservatives
They are concerned about government using its influence to push the country socially to the left. While they get pigeon-holed as the pro-life/pro-traditional-marriage group, in the larger sense they are concerned about government policies that undermine family integrity (such as the welfare state) and an activist judiciary that (1) creates new rights out of thin air that push the country socially to the left, and (2) thwarts any attempt to reign in government social activism.
And, the GOP establishment hates them. They want their votes, but they don’t want them to speak. The aftermath of the 2012 election produced another flood GOP consultants blaming the loss on social conservatives.
Libertarians
You sometimes forget there is a libertarian wing of the Republican party (because it is so loosely tied to the party), but it’s there. When a libertarian leaning candidate emerges (as Paul did in the last primary), you realize how sizeable (and vocal) this group really is. Unfortunately, this group tends to pack up its toys and go home when it doesn’t get its way. Which, is exactly what the GOP establishment wants. If a group can’t be controlled, they would rather it not be part of the GOP. Libertarians (because they are so focused on individual liberty) are the least controllable of all. This is why they (like tea party activists) were shut out of the 2012 convention.
The core philosophy of libertarians is (1) the government should be limited to its constitutional functions, and (2) individual rights trump government and group “rights.” Not that far out there at all, really. Unfortunately, it’s easy to confuse the libertarian messenge with the libertarian messager. Both Ron Paul and the actual Libertarian party are much farther out onto the edge on a host of issues than the typical libertarian leaning Republican, giving many people the impression that libertarian is a code word for wacko. It’s not. It is though, the only wing of the GOP that attracts large numbers of college students and young voters (something conservatives of all stripes should be very aware of; if you can’t pull in young people, your movement will grow old and die).
The GOP establishment sees all three groups as more trouble than they are worth. Hence its constant maneuvering to silence, shut-out, and shut-down all three. But, without these groups, what would the Republican party be left with? Without tea partiers (fiscal conservatives), without social conservatives (family values and judicial restraint), and without libertarians (individual liberty and adherence to the Constitution) what would be left; what would the Republican party become?
The party of business and defense.
Is that enough? Can the GOP survive (much less flourish) emphasizing business and defense, while deemphasizing everything else? Obviously not, but that would seem to be the path the GOP establishment is taking the party down, as it continues to attempt to suppress the influence of the tea party movement, social conservatives, and libertarians.
Maybe it’s time the red-headed stepchildren focus on working with each other, instead or working with the GOP establishment. I’m not sure if this would take the form of another party, or a redheaded coalition within the GOP, but whatever form, it would certainly be more effective than the current situation.
Don’t think the three groups can work together? Social conservatives tend to be fiscal conservatives, which lines up the the tea party. Tea partiers want government to stay within its constitutional bounds, and so do libertarians. Libertarians are concerned about judges who legislate from the bench, as are social conservatives. When you lay it out, the three groups’ goals, they mesh nicely. Not perfectly, but there is a lot of overlap. Enough, certainly, to form a coalition.
Perhaps it’s time the redheaded stepchildren get together and quit being children.
PS
And, for those that think libertarians are inherently pro-abortion, consider that Ron Paul (the libertarian wing’s poster boy from 2012) is pro-life, Bob Barr (the 2008 Libertarian party nominee) is pro-life, and Michal Bardnarik (the 2004 Libertarian party nominee) is pro-life. Support for abortion does not seem to be a litmus test for libertarian thought. Most libertarians believe that Roe v. Wade should be overturned and the matter returned to the state level. A position a significant number of social conservatives also agree with.
I used to be an active Republican back in the days when Republicans said stuff like, “libertarianism is the heart and soul of conservatism” and “I’m a small ‘l’ libertarian and a capital ‘R’ Republican”.
I used to contribute to campaigns and get out the vote for Republicans. But no more. I’ll vote for Republicans sometimes, but they’ll never get more than that from me.
Libertarians - even libertarians who are conservative in their own personal life but do not want to use big government to oppress other lifestyles — are not welcome in today’s GOP.
Today’s GOP favors big government just as much as the Democrats. Medicare Part D, NCLB, DHS, TSA, TARP, and hellhole nation-building are a few examples. The two major parties differ in priorities, but agree that big government is the way to accomplish their ends.
As long as state laws allow it then so be it.
It’s not that we think they should or not, state laws already restrict such actions and we’re actually fine with that since it doesn’t infringe on their rights, there are various zoning regulations to prevent that and Libertarians are fine with that.
That’s always the defense your type brings up, take something to the illogical extreme and throw up a straw man argument.
You really have no understanding of the Libertarian movement if you really think that way.
And as Libertarians we find your stated belief in freedom and limited government suspect since you’re so willing to use the force of government to make others act as you think they should.
See, we can both play this game...
Tell me the right that gay marriage infringes on?
As for the other stated issues you have with it, that’s strictly a financial in the sense that married couples get tax breaks.
So no, it doesn’t infringe on your rights, you may think so because y9ou’re against it, that’s fine, you’re entitled to your opinion, just not your own facts.
I made a case in point against libertarians with your liberal pro-dope agenda.
Now. You give me an example of how SoCons have been successful in using the “force of government to make others act as you think they should.”
Here. I’ll make it easy for you: We support a public display on public property of the Nativity Scene.
(You may commence freaking out now.)
“Focus on the Tea Partiers and the SoCons...” - Responsibility2nd
“I think the Tea Partiers and Libertarians have the most in common.” - marsh2
It’s ironic how different people see things so differently. But, it’s just another example of living inside your own bubble.
I was a hard-core capital-L libertarian in my youth. As I grew older (and experienced) I became a Reagan style fiscal conservative and a social conservative. And, I was one of the early “members” of the tea party. I feel like I’ve got a foot in all three camps. Which is why I think there is a lot of common ground between all three (including between social conservatives and libertarians).
But, there is a lot of uncommon ground as well.
Responsibility2nd, any proposal that expands the authority of the FEDERAL government is going to be a non-starter with at least 1/2 of all tea partiers. If support of a constitutional amendment to ban abortion is a limit test to work with you, then be prepared to be living with the status-quo for a long, long time (as in forever). There is no conservative majority (or even plurality) that revolves around any idea that expands the reach of the federal government.
marsh2, the other side of this coin is that a significant percentage of tea partiers (perhaps even a majority) are social conservatives. They may not want to expand the federal role on social issues, but they also don’t want to ignore social issues. An alliance that only libertarians and non-social-issue tea pariters would be about as effective as the Libertarian party (and honestly, not a whole lot bigger).
I’m probably one of the few people who believe libertarians and social conservatives actually have a lot in common politically.
The Defense of Marriage Act (no state can be forced to recognize another state’s definition of marriage).
Parental rights (parents have the right to raise their children as they wish, including the right to determine if their child has an abortion).
School choice (the government should not have a monopoly on education; vouchers, home-schooling, etc...)
Activist judges (judges should not be making laws from the bench; much of the “liberalizing” of the law when it comes to social issues has come from the bench, not via elected officials; also it has been activist judges that have blocked state bans on things like partial-birth abortion and gay marriage)
Roe v Wade (should be overturned and the issue returned to the states; a significant percentage of social conservatives see returning this issue to the states as the most practical route to eliminating abortion).
Now libertarians and social conservatives would support these issues for very different reasons. But, the fact is, they would both support them.
There is a lot of commonality between the groups, if they focus on the common areas.
“Here. I’ll make it easy for you: We support a public display on public property of the Nativity Scene.”
The libertarian position on this is: that just fine, as long as other religions can also set up a display during one of their religious holidays.
I think you may have an inaccurate idea of what really constitutes libertarian thought.
You do realize that if any of the founding fathers came back today, they would probably be considered small-l libertarians. Not as far out there are the official Libertarian party, buy way, way, way (way) to the right of today's typical conservative.
The Federalist Papers (and anti-federalist papers, written by people like Patrick Henry who opposed ratifying the Constitution) really sheds a lot of light on how the founders thought. If you think raising a child in a "libertarian society" would be "hell," then you think raising a child in the society envisioned by our founders would be "hell" as well. Because, the society envisioned by the founding fathers (when it comes to the role of government) is a libertarian society.
You too are entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts.
But the real problem is that it is part of a broader agenda, to normalize homosexuality. I give you Canada and their suppression of free speech for an example. do some research.
And as part of an agenda, any specific idea, by itself, might not be so bad. But taken together unopposed, they will steamroller not just social conservatives, but libertarians, too.
But live in your dream world.
Responsibility2nd, any proposal that expands the authority of the FEDERAL government is going to be a non-starter with at least 1/2 of all tea partiers. If support of a constitutional amendment to ban abortion is a limit test to work with you, then be prepared to be living with the status-quo for a long, long time (as in forever). There is no conservative majority (or even plurality) that revolves around any idea that expands the reach of the federal government.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Socons aren’t interested in expanding the “authority of the FEDERAL government”, inasmuch as we want to RESTORE it.
You may or not be right with the Tea Partiers bing 50/50 on our proposal to Constutionally ban abortion. But then... the Tea Party is obsolete.
You seem to place a lot of emphasis on the Tea Party’s place in the GOP. Sorry, but that was never true, and this election confimred that.
(I say this even though I enthusiastically voted for Ted Cruz - who is a stand-out favorite among Tea Partiers - and I am on board with many Tea Party platforms, but their overall effectiveness is gone.)
“The GOP’s Redheaded Stepchildren”
As a red haired person, I am not personally bothered by this expression, but my stepmother would be very offended.
Each state could go fully communist as long as that state did not violate any of the BOR's. Each state could be a Libertarian paradise. The states should be 50 laboratories of governance. If you don't like it in one state you used to be able to vote with your feet. The republic has been so bastardized that it is now under the thumb of the FEDs which are socialist. The original intent of the USC was to prevent that from happening. As such the USC is an utter failure. I totally understand what the original intent was, so spare me.
Your posts are always excellent . . . if depressing! :(
That is the solution. A return to federalism as the Founders understood it. Federalism has been a dead letter since Lincoln, however. The Capitol controls all.
For now.
I think you may have an inaccurate idea of what really constitutes libertarian thought.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And I think not. Have you read - on this thread - the pro-gay marriage thoughts by gjones?
Since he would get the zot if he expressed his real belief that gay marriage is fine, he carefully couches his replies to counter our claims that gay marriage is destructive to our society.
Brook. See my tagline. I’ve had it up for years. And on a daily basis I see liberaltarians here on this supposedly conservative website spouting forth liberal crap. I just want to puke.
No... Sir; I understand the great libertarian thinkers of the past like Buckley, Goldwater and Rand. But that philosophy has been changed and corrupted.
Now Libertarian giants are Ron Paul and Gary Johnson. And Lib freepers are all about legal drugs, prostitution, abortions, and gay marriages.
“I think you may have an inaccurate idea of what really constitutes libertarian thought.”
Consider yourself corrected.
Your argument isn’t one against gay marriage then so much as it’s against the federal system telling you what you can and can’t do as a business owner, that’s a different argument entirely.
Your complaint is that as a business owner you would be forced to supply health insurance to gay couples under your employ, that’s a by product of federal laws forcing you to do so, and that’s something Libertarians are actually against.
Fine, substitute fiscal conservative for tea party, you’ll get the same result.
If you’re goal is to restore the federal govt to its proper role, then I think you’ll find a lot of support from libertarians.
There is more than one way to skin a cat, but the important idea is that the cat ends up being skinned.
” As such the USC is an utter failure. I totally understand what the original intent was, so spare me.”
In other words, you think we should dump the US Constitution and go with...what?
"I love the Union and the Constitution, but I would rather leave the Union with the Constitution than remain in the Union without it."
-- President Davis
However, you don't hear gay rights activists calling for a change in those federal laws, do you? ‘Cause I sure don't.
Look, I don't care what they call their relationship. I just reserve the right to call it something else. They want to say that they are married, I don't care. But I never will. And a libertarian ought to be willing to back that right.
In the meantime, you haven't addressed the agenda, which is to force society to recognize homosexuals as normal instead of the sick and sinful people that they are. (Not that we all aren't sinful in some fashion or other).
But, on a lighter subject: 2 of the liberal coalition groups are the sexual libertines on various sorts and the animal rights groups. Just yesterday I read an article
about erotic zoos for “animal-lovers” of a different sort. I wonder what the PETA position is. For that matter, what is the libertarian position, although I'd be willing to guess.
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.