Posted on 11/06/2008 7:40:03 PM PST by Delacon
It's no secret that the Bush years have severely strained and perhaps broken the conservative-libertarian political coalition. Most libertarians were deeply disappointed by the Bush Administration's vast expansion of government spending and regulation, claims of virtually unlimited wartime executive power, and other departures from limited government principles. As a result, many libertarian intellectuals (and to a lesser extent, libertarian voters), actually supported Barack Obama this year, despite his being a very statist liberal. Republican nominee John McCain had opposed some of Bush's excesses, including rejecting Bush's stance on torture and being one of the very few GOP senators to vote against Bush's massive 2003 Medicare prescription drug program. But McCain had numerous statist impulses of his own, including the most famous piece of legislation that bears his name. Even those libertarians who voted for him (myself included) did so with grave reservations.
With Barack Obama in the White House and the Democrats enjoying large majorities in Congress at a time of economic crisis, it is highly likely that they will push for a large expansion of government even beyond that which recently occurred under Bush. That prospect may bring libertarians and conservatives back together. Many of the items on the likely Democratic legislative agenda are anathema to both groups: a vast expansion of government control of health care, new legal privileges for labor unions, expanded regulation of a variety of industries, protectionism, increased government spending on infrastructure and a variety of other purposes, and bailouts for additional industries, such as automakers.
Even if conservatives and libertarians can find a way to work together, it would be naive to expect that they can block all the items on the Obama's agenda. Many are going to pass regardless of what we do. However, a renewed libertarian-conservative coalition could help limit the damage and begin to build the foundation for a new pro-limited government political movement.
Obviously, a lot depends on what conservatives decide to do. If they choose the pro-limited government position advocated by Representative Jeff Flake and some other younger House Republicans, there will be lots of room for cooperation with libertarians. I am happy to see that Flake has denounced "the ill-fitting and unworkable big-government conservatism that defined the Bush administration." Conservatives could, however, adopt the combination of economic populism and social conservatism advocated by Mike Huckabee and others. It is even possible that the latter path will be more politically advantageous, at least in the short term.
Much also depends on what the Democrats do. If Obama opts for moderation and keeps his promise to produce a net decrease in federal spending, a renewed conservative-libertarian coalition will be less attractive to libertarians. However, I highly doubt that Obama and the Democrats will actually take the relatively moderate, budget-cutting path. It would go against both their own instincts and historical precedent from previous periods of united government and economic crisis. If I am right about that, we will need a revamped conservative-libertarian alliance to oppose the vast expansion of government that looms around the corner.
Reforging the conservative-libertarian coalition will be very hard. Relations between the two groups have always been tense, and the last eight years have undeniably drawn down the stock of goodwill. But if we can't find a new way to hang together, we are all too likely to hang separately.
REAGAN: If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.
Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path.
This makes sense.
That is wrong. Liberatarian is a deeply immoral philosophy. Liberty for me, but not for thee. Look, I don't care what consenting adults do in their bedroom, but the social science is in. Children do best when raised by their married biological parents. Virtually all of the hot-button social issues ultimately reduce to consenting adults putting their own self-interest ahead of the best interests of the children.
I know libertarians aren't likely to be swayed by conservative social scientists like James Q. Wilson. So instead pick up some books on evolution like 'The Myth of Mongamy', 'The Triumph of Sociobiology' and 'The Blank Slate.' The lesson is simple: it is a good evolutionary tactic to invest time and energy raising your own biological children. It is a bad evolutionary strategy to invest time and energy raising someone else's child.
“The lesson is simple: it is a good evolutionary tactic to invest time and energy raising your own biological children. It is a bad evolutionary strategy to invest time and energy raising someone else’s child.”
This for me seems like that common path that Reagan speaks of. Libertarians want the freedom to teach their children just as conservatives do.
Nonsense. Libertarianism means liberty for everyone--up to the point that it doesn't infringe on another's liberty.
Not sure how we’ll reconcile the differences on the WOD unless social conservatives concede it’s not in the governments power to enforce.
school vouchers, the privatizing of public education so that parents are in control of their childrens education seem to me to be common libertarian and conservative goals.
Most definitely. (I do have mixed feelings about vouchers however.)
I am paraphrasing but someone once said that the best part of conservatism is its libertarian inclination to ask “can the government do it best.”
“Liberatarian is a deeply immoral philosophy. Liberty for me, but not for thee”
It could also be that imposing your idea of morals on someone else is exactly the same as you said: “Liberty for me, but not for thee”
Just suppose for one second that 90% of America was gay. What do you think they would do to you under your philosophy?
Only if Allen Buckley, fake Libertarian for senate in Georgia, is flayed alive.
The idea a tax lawyer could seriously be considered a Libertarian is bad enough. The fact Buckley threw the senate race into a runoff is unacceptable. However, it was not Buckley's fault, it was the libtards who voted McCain/Buckley, not the card carrying Libertarians who voted Barr/Buckley. What a freaking joke.
If you live in Atlanta, and need a tax lawyer, DO NOT take your business to Buckley. Let Buckley starve.
Ron Paul for example became popular because of his stances on spending, immigration reform, and, of all things, legalization of drugs. Unlike Ronald Reagan, who more than anything else, presented real solutions for the problems of his day, the Republican party has grown rigid and out of touch with contemporary America's problems. Many conservatives did not vote for Mitt Romney just because he was a Mormon. Talk about out of touch.
Conservatives will just have to bite the bullet on this one and recognize it's better to have something all the time instead of trying to have everything all the time and getting nowhere. That's just the reality of politics.
“Conservatives could, however, adopt the combination of economic populism and social conservatism advocated by Mike Huckabee and others.”
HA! Yeah if they wanted yet another big government socialist phony.
There is no tension between libertarians and conservatives. They are one and the same. The only tension is between libertarians and socialists and their cousins the neocons.
Loads of social conservatives have no problem with big government just so long as it forwards their agenda.
I think a big step for conservatives would be to once again recognize and revisit the genius of federalism. Conservatives must hold their noses in the short-term when it comes down to issues such as legalization of drugs, homosexual rights(maybe even marriage *cring*), certain expressions of speech, porn, etc. Abortion, is of course murder and should be outlawed at every level of government, but other issues may be a moral hot button for conservatives who want to see them banned from the entire USA, but were never actually intended to be treated as such by the Constitutional framers.
This type of movement would not solve every moral social problem that conservatives want to solve through government, but would once again give the type of freedom and free thought vital to a healthy Republic, which in turn will give opportunity for local governments to ban immoral activity. As we have it now everything is all or nothing as far as vice and virtue goes. Both can be taken too far.
There’s difference of opinion among libertarians on different issues. But the fundamental principal of libertarianism is liberty from government oppression.
One’s right to swing his cane stops at the tip of another’s nose. I would argue that the right of a would-be abortionist to wield his coat-hanger stops at the edge of the unborn baby’s body.
I consider myself a Christian libertarian. I oppose abortion because it violates the unborn’s right to life.
I oppose gay marriage because marriage is a social contract not just between the couple being wed but also between the couple and society. The marriage institution is the cornerstone of stable families and therefore society has given special privileges to married couples to insure that children are raised in the healthiest environment. (Marriage was instituted by God and is a picture of the relationship of Christ to his people, but that’s a religious point not a political argument.) Homosexual relationships cannot produce children and relationships between two people of the same sex are not the fundamental building block of a stable society that the marriage institution is. If two men or women want to engage in an intimate relationship it is none of the governments business. However, the government does not have to (and should not IMHO) recognize that relationship as being equivalent to the privileged institution of marriage.
But again, although many libertarians will strongly disagree with my views on these issues, the fundamental principle that the government should not interfere with people doing whatever they want to do as long as they are not interfering with another’s rights is what defines libertarianism.
The government that governs least governs best. Libertarians believe that the Federal government should abide by the restrictions that the US Constitution places upon it. That should be an area upon which that conservatives, libertarians and all who believe in the rule of law agree.
Sorry, but in my book there's no such thing as "big-government conservatism". Not possible, an oxymoron. Above all, I believe the very definition of a "conservative" is someone who believes in smaller, limited government. If you're for expanding "big" government, you're NOT a conservative IMHO. Hence, neither Bush I nor Bush II has EVER been a conservative, and describing either as such is insulting to true conservatives.
Nonetheless, it's becoming more & more apparent that being a social conservative vs. an individual liberty conservative are almost independent positions, with one not necessarily having anything to do with the other. When someone says "I'm a conservative" nowadays, I personally don't have any clue where they're coming from, or from what perspective. It could be either of these positions, or something else like "fiscal conservative", or "conservative" on national defense.
In short, being a "conservative" is almost a meaningless label anymore. Tells me nothing. I associate "conservative" with being for limited government, not necessarily being about social issues. Others think the opposite, like Huckabee, who has a record of pretty much being a social conservative but a big government liberal. Is Huckabee a "conservative?" Depends upon your perspective, but in my book NO he's not, and neither is 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.