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.
I doubt the social conservatives would ever let the LIBERTARIANS be in their Party. That is why the GOP lost.
Maybe coalition if either - Neocons leave the GOP or they kiss Ron Paul’s arse in Macy’s window next Election Day.
Man you got a closet full of straw men to attack dont you. “most libertarians think...” and “Rothard ‘most important libertarian thinker’” Are you for limited government under the federalist republic design of the constitution? If so, YOU may be a libertarian!
You better check your history pal. Lincoln via the emmancipation proclimation only put an end to slavery in the states which were in rebellion. Not the slave states who remained in the union. (Mo, KT, Md.)
Your arguement re segregation seems to leave ground for the Federal government to over run states rights in a way not limited to constitutional powers.
.
Libertarians that suppport socialists are socialists, not libertarians. This is pretty simple stuff. Even the legal scholars in America should be able to get a handle on that.
Seems to me that anyone who voted AGAINST Obama should team up in these uncertain times, regardless of minor differences.
Cowbird?
All right!!!!!
sure any Libertarians that aren’t stoned....let’s meet at a booth in Denny’s
And I think they will after a short time of Obama 'caring for' them.
That is the problem. Social conservatives really could care less what is in the constitution, they just want Government to do "good" things vs the evil who want it to do "bad" things.
Until social conservatives wake up to the fact that we are first and foremost a nation of LAWS and not MEN, and that the constitution spells out the balance of power between states and the fed, they will continue the Quixotic attempt to find "godly men" who will implement the right FEDERAL laws. In the meantime, they will give away huge blocs of power to government ( case in point: the Patriot act, and the abominable HR1255 ) which will then be used against them the first time a person is elected who is not a social conservative.
The really sad thing is that most social conservatives are .... sorry, don't know how else to say it.... too stupid to see that they stand a FAR better chance of getting their programs enacted by following the constitutional route of attempting to devolve the issues back to the states, where they belong. Homosexual marriage is now illegal in EVERY SINGLE STATE which has had a referendum on it, and is in danger of losing out in Mass due to citizen pressure. Prop 8 was crushingly enacted in California, arguably the most pro-homosexual state in the union. It is a colossal waste of time and very unwise to try and amend the constitution on issues like these. The best thing a social conservative can do is support federalism with the dope smokers and weirdos who are Libertarians. He may actually find friends outside his church and amazing enough, find that he likes them. I find them delightful and have had wonderful conversations about the gospel. However, if something like that does not happen, the republican party is going to become the equivalent of a really hateful bunch of fundamentalist exclusionists, damning almost every other group to hell for lack of doctrinal purity. By the way, I will match my credentials as a social conservative and biblical activist against ANYONE on this site.
"Most" libertarians are NOT pro choice. Many are, and many are not. The Randians are not the end-all of libertarians. There are many many evangelical libertarians.
2. Why do most libertarians favor same-sex marriage? No liberty for children (see also: my point about evolution and biological children).
"Most" libertarians do not. The thing that unites libertarians on this issue is the fact that we believe the issue rightly belongs to the states, not to the federal government.
3. Heck, Murray Rothbard think that parents have the right to stop feeding their children and let them starve to death!
Please cite where you find evidence for this.
I completely agree, take as much power away from the fed as possible and distribute it back to the states or “Share the Power” to paraphrase “The One”. We need to unite behind all that we agree on and agree to relegate the remainder to the states.
I think at the federal level we can agree on:
- Much smaller government
- A strong defense
- Free trade (real free trade)
- A representative/fair tax structure (aka Fair Tax or Flat Tax)
- Privatization of schools
- Privatization of SS and Medicare or delegate responsibility to the states.
- Repeal the 17th amendment and 16th (if Fair Tax)
- Strong immigration controls and border defense but expanded legal immigration opportunities.
Things that we agree should be relegated to the states:
- Drug enforcement (end federal WOD)
- Traditional marriage laws
- Abortion rights (I am very pro-life)
- Gun laws (I am very pro 2nd)
I guess this is just a sampling but I suspect someone with more time and devotion could produce a more comprehensive platform/contract we could unite behind. Conservatives need to concede that federal power is not the place to concentrate power (for social or fiscal issues) or we will be crushed by progressivism like we are about to experience. Dismantle the federal machine and make our country a Republic again!
I think marriage rightly belongs to churches, I think the government should stay out of it both state and federal level.
that’s funny since I am both a social conservative, libertarian, fiscal conservative, lean isolationist (though not totally), and a constitutionalist.
I respectfully submit that you do not understand libertarianism, and perhaps are thinking more of a cartoon image you were given, or the term “libertine,” or are speaking of the Libertarian Party of America, or something else.
sounds good to me!
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.