Free Republic
Browse · Search
RLC Liberty Caucus
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Return of the Conservative-Libertarian Coalition?
The Volokh Conspiracy ^ | November 6, 2008 | Ilya Somin

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.


TOPICS: General Discussion
KEYWORDS: barackobama; bush; conservatism; conservatives; gop; libertarianism; lp; obama; republicanparty
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-111 next last
To: jriacn23; Delacon
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.

These days, many social conservatives are in bed with the socialists, too, unfortunately...but I believe that's more of a question of breaking their indoctrination. While Huckabee would like us to believe that only a big government can save us, many social conservatives have come around to realize that getting the government out of our lives is the best path to protecting values.

61 posted on 11/09/2008 7:03:38 PM PST by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ovrtaxt

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yuzMYIXhTE


62 posted on 11/09/2008 7:04:42 PM PST by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: JSDude1
that’s funny since I am both a social conservative, libertarian, fiscal conservative, lean isolationist (though not totally), and a constitutionalist.

Hear, hear! +1

63 posted on 11/09/2008 7:07:23 PM PST by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: ex-snook
Maybe coalition if either - Neocons leave the GOP or they kiss Ron Paul’s arse in Macy’s window next Election Day.

I fear for America if the neocons don't slink away quietly after what they've done to us.

64 posted on 11/09/2008 7:09:10 PM PST by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Jibaholic
  1. Why are most libertarians pro-choice? No liberty for the unborn.
  2. Why do most libertarians favor same-sex marriage? No liberty for children (see also: my point about evolution and biological children).
  3. Heck, Murray Rothbard think that parents have the right to stop feeding their children and let them starve to death!

Answered in order:

  1. Libertarians are as equally divided on abortion as Republicans. Four of the last five Libertarian Presidential candidates were pro-life. By the same standard, you indict the Republican Party.
  2. Libertarians believe that the governement has no business presuming to dictate the realtionships between consenting adults. You may have heard of the marriage license? It was originally created to prevent interracial marriage. There is no indication that this particular point restricts anyone's rights.
  3. Just where is Rothbard's idea, if the statement is true, in the Libertarian Party Platform?

65 posted on 11/09/2008 8:04:09 PM PST by Calvinist_Dark_Lord ((I have come here to kick @$$ and chew bubblegum...and I'm all outta bubblegum! ~Roddy Piper))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: slnk_rules; jan in Colorado
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.

BINGO!

What's amazing to me is that many Social Conservatives claim to be Christian, yet Christ's teachings were very clearly not to use government power to enforce behavior.

Christ clearly (e.g., Matthew 10:13,14) teaches that Christians should preach and move on if people don't agree with their message, not slam the sinners by calling the Romans in or calling upon God or His gifts to paralyze them, for example.

Huckabee's message of "steal from others to give to the poor," for example, is quite unChristlike.

66 posted on 11/09/2008 11:50:27 PM PST by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Jibaholic

“Liberatarian is a deeply immoral philosophy. Liberty for me, but not for thee.”

These sentences make no sense to gether. The second is a perfect description of today’s liberals, especially the religious liberal wing of the GOP.


67 posted on 11/10/2008 4:33:00 AM PST by fnord (If gun owners, pot smokers, and poker players start a political party, they'd never lose an election)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: fnord
These sentences make no sense to gether. The second is a perfect description of today’s liberals, especially the religious liberal wing of the GOP.

A right to life for me, but not for unborn babies. Liberty for me, but not for thee.

68 posted on 11/10/2008 6:42:16 AM PST by Jibaholic ("Those people who are not ruled by God will be ruled by tyrants." --William Penn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Jibaholic

non-sequitir, non-sequitir ...


69 posted on 11/10/2008 8:22:11 AM PST by fnord (If gun owners, pot smokers, and poker players start a political party, they'd never lose an election)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: fnord

How so? Please explain.


70 posted on 11/10/2008 8:27:46 AM PST by Jibaholic ("Those people who are not ruled by God will be ruled by tyrants." --William Penn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Jibaholic

non-sequitir, from the Latin meaning (loosely) “it does not follow”.

as in taking my statement supporting liberty and arriving at the conclusion that I want liberty only for myself and not others, and that I must be a baby killer as well.

it would be easy to get emotional and trade insults with you, but I find it is better for my health to just laugh, ergo the LiS reference.


71 posted on 11/10/2008 8:37:09 AM PST by fnord (If gun owners, pot smokers, and poker players start a political party, they'd never lose an election)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: fnord
as in taking my statement supporting liberty and arriving at the conclusion that I want liberty only for myself and not others, and that I must be a baby killer as well.

I hate to break it to you, but most libertarians are pro-choice. When the Libertarian Part Platform is pro-life you can disagree with my characterization. Libertarians don't recognize the right to life of unborn human beings. Liberty for me, but not for thee.

72 posted on 11/10/2008 8:42:02 AM PST by Jibaholic ("Those people who are not ruled by God will be ruled by tyrants." --William Penn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Jibaholic
I hate to break it to you, but most libertarians are pro-choice.

Wrong. Most libertarians are opposed to the Federal government having a say in abortion at all and think that it should be decided by the several states, just like the definition of murder, theft and rape are decided by the several states.

The Libertarian Party goes further and says that government should just stay out of it all together.

Be advised that there is a difference between someone with a libertarian philosophy and the Libertarian Party.

While there is some disagreement amongst libertarians about abortion (just as there is in the Republican party) the common denominator is that the Federal government needs to get out of the decision.

73 posted on 11/10/2008 11:16:04 AM PST by Knitebane (Happily Microsoft free since 1999.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Knitebane
Wrong. Most libertarians are opposed to the Federal government having a say in abortion at all and think that it should be decided by the several states, just like the definition of murder, theft and rape are decided by the several states.

Most libertarians are personally pro-choice and would want their state to choose pro-choice laws. Besides, do you want to leave the issue of slavery up to the states?

74 posted on 11/10/2008 11:44:22 AM PST by Jibaholic ("Those people who are not ruled by God will be ruled by tyrants." --William Penn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Jibaholic

Q: How many legs does a horse have if you call its tail a leg?

A: Four; calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it so.

I want more freedom for you than you want for yourself, which is both saddening and maddening.


75 posted on 11/10/2008 12:18:56 PM PST by fnord (If gun owners, pot smokers, and poker players start a political party, they'd never lose an election)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: fnord

My rights end where another person’s rights begin. My right to wave a knife ends at your body. It also ends at the bodies of people who have not been born. I realize that libertarians are fighting hard to give everyone the “freedom” to stick knives into the bodies of other people, but that is a reduction of liberty, not an expansion. Liberty for me, but not for thee.


76 posted on 11/10/2008 12:29:55 PM PST by Jibaholic ("Those people who are not ruled by God will be ruled by tyrants." --William Penn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Delacon
The GOP is not conservative . There is no evidence the majority of Republicans believe in capitalism .
77 posted on 11/10/2008 12:57:02 PM PST by kbennkc (For those who have fought for it freedom has a flavor the protected will never know F/8 Cav)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jibaholic; Knitebane
Most libertarians are personally pro-choice and would want their state to choose pro-choice laws. Besides, do you want to leave the issue of slavery up to the states?

Just how would you know that, did you take a poll? i doubt it.

Look it is apparent that you don't want to be educated in facts of this matter, so why don't you just take your beating and call it a day? You can of course do what you wish, but if you continue, you're going to come off as a fool who is ignorant of what he or she speaks.

Makes no difference to us Libertarians one way or another. A person has the right to be a fool too.

78 posted on 11/10/2008 2:19:45 PM PST by Calvinist_Dark_Lord ((I have come here to kick @$$ and chew bubblegum...and I'm all outta bubblegum! ~Roddy Piper))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Jibaholic
Liberatarian is a deeply immoral philosophy.

On the contrary, any philosophy other than libertarianism is a deeply immoral philosophy.

79 posted on 11/10/2008 5:16:51 PM PST by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Calvinist_Dark_Lord

What facts would you like to educate me in? I’m receptive. Is the case for the morality of the libertarian party based on widespread consensus that the fetus has a right to life?


80 posted on 11/10/2008 8:55:06 PM PST by Jibaholic ("Those people who are not ruled by God will be ruled by tyrants." --William Penn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-111 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
RLC Liberty Caucus
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson