Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
Posted on 11/20/2008 8:39:13 PM PST by Delacon
We've seen a lot of social conservatives upset over today's intemperate attack by Kathleen Parker (Note: she was unnecessarily contemptuous, but her point that "the Republican Party -- and conservatism with it -- eventually will die out unless religion is returned to the privacy of one's heart where it belongs" is worth serious consideration).
Well, I am a libertarian, so let's talk about the Kathleen Parker of the social conservative crowd: Mike Huckabee.
This week, Huckabee called libertarians the "real threat" to the Republican Party...
In a chapter titled "Faux-Cons: Worse than Liberalism," Huckabee identifies what he calls the "real threat" to the Republican Party: "libertarianism masked as conservatism." ... "I don't take issue with what they believe, but the smugness with which they believe it," writes Huckabee, who raised some taxes as governor and cut deals with his state's Democratic legislature. "Faux-Cons aren't interested in spirited or thoughtful debate, because such an endeavor requires accountability for the logical conclusion of their argument."
We've come quite some way since 1975, when Reagan said "I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism."
Oh, and it happens that Huckabee does, in fact, take issue with what we believe. In May of 2008, Huckabee called blamed election losses on Republicans being too "libertarian" (this is obviously some strange usage of the word "libertarian" that I was previously unaware of), accused us of being un-American (my response to that is unprintable, but I would be glad to say it to his face if he wanted to repeat his comment to my face) and then proceeded to make the standard, cartoonish Democratic argument against libertarianism.
The greatest threat to classic Republicanism is not liberalism; it's this new brand of libertarianism, which is social liberalism and economic conservatism, but it's a heartless, callous, soulless type of economic conservatism because it says "look, we want to cut taxes and eliminate government. If it means that elderly people don't get their Medicare drugs, so be it. If it means little kids go without education and healthcare, so be it." Well, that might be a quote pure economic conservative message, but it's not an American message. ...
If you have a breakdown in the social structure of a community, it's going to result in a more costly government ... police on the streets, prison beds, court costs, alcohol abuse centers, domestic violence shelters, all are very expensive. What's the answer to that? Cut them out? Well, the libertarians say "yes, we shouldn't be funding that stuff."
Excepting the anarcho-capitalists (who basically aren't a part of the electoral equation, anyway), I don't know a single libertarian who says we shouldn't fund police, prisons or courts. Most libertarians who are aligned with the Right or the Republican Party are less concerned about the few billion that Huckabee describes here than they are about the few trillion other dollars the government is spending, or the uncountable additional costs of unnecessary regulation and legislation. (This is a perfect illustration of my problem #3 with Mike Huckabee, noted below)
So, let me boil down my problems with Mike Huckabee.
This is easily as contemptuous, as offensive as anything Kathleen Parker has written about social conservatives. So, yeah, a columnist express disdain for social conservatives. Cry me a river. We libertarians had a social conservative Governor and Presidential candidate call us the "real threat" and "smug", and brazenly misrepresent our views before calling our message un-American.
Social conservatives have to realize that they need the fiscally conservative, socially moderate/tolerant voters if they want to be a part of a winning coalition. The limited government message won revolutionary victories for Republicans in 1980 and 1994; it is the only viable organizing principle for the current Republican coalition.
Huckabee may believe libertarians are the "real threat", but his God, Guns and Butter agenda would destroy the Right far more effectively than the libertarian cartoons that exist in Huckabee's head.
Not being a bible thumper, let me say that was just about the best explaination why every conservative should not like Huckabee. Gotta add that I didn’t say bible thumpers are hayseeds. I was trying to make the opposite point that thumpers have to make their case. I know they can. Locke is good. Read The Theory on Moral Sentiments if you want to get a bead on morality and capitalism.
http://books.google.com/books?id=dGOfM6b_vJEC&dq=Adam+Smith&pg=PP1&ots=8tqIS5HJVQ&source=an&sig=rPtPzBb3zIoQNsGDJQGn1zNWUTw&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result#PPP1,M1
“Conservatives without God - Nazi’s.”
Nonsense. The Nazi’s were totalitarians, fascists and big government socialists all rolled into one.
“Liberals without God - Communists.”
True, but so are the few liberal Christians.
“When Reagan left in 1988 the U.S. national debt was $2.6 Trillion dollars. And that $2.6 Trillion dollar debt to you is a “revolutionary” victory that shows a great “Small government/fiscal conservative” accomplishment?”
Keep in mind though that Reagan had a Democrat Congress and they’re the ones who vote on how we’ll spend our money.
I don’t know what I’d call myself, but I believe that any program that the government undertakes to deprive one group of its earnings in order to give to a group that refuses to work a better life is stealing. Our welfare system is a mess of a system, although slightly better than it was before the mid-nineties. I do believe we need to take care of the elderly, the orphans and those who are handicapped and need care. However, the behemoth that we have created, where many are on the dole, even though they have no real need is the problem. You only have to look at some of the programs...some senators and high-paid people who own farms get government subsidies for not farming...when the original bill was to help poor farmers keep their farms. Our prescription bill lets anybody over a certain age get help whether there is a need or not. It would be one thing if we had honest people that said, “I don’t really need the help and can easily afford to pay for this myself.”, but then you have their children who don’t want a penny of their inheritance lost, so they demand that they have the government pay for the prescriptions they can easily afford. We have all kinds of programs that have overstepped the bounds of their intent. Not to mention the pork projects that fly in under the radar...and we only hear about them after they are approved.
I’d prefer that government had more oversight into the the agencies that dole out these funds and make sure that the monies are spent appropriately. These agencies also operate under the system of use or lose...meaning that at the end of the fiscal year they need to use up the leftover funds or they go back to treasury and the budget risks being cut. So they use these funds in the last week for things that normally fall outside of budgeted expenses. There is a lot of abuse in the system.
I’d love to see what Sarah Palin would do to cut things back, on a federal scale, like she did in Alaska. I hope she gets the chance to do so. Unfortunately, the media is in overdrive to make sure she is slammed in every way possible so that in 4 years she won’t have a chance of running. I hope America learns to turn off the TV and shut the media out. Unfortunately, most have become so enslaved to the TV that their whole worldview is framed on everything they hear and see from that monster tube. We get what we deserve.
Ive always thought of Libertarians as the brain of the conservative movement and the Social conservatives as the soul. Neither one is going to do politically very well on their own..
All this venting from all sides is pointless why did we lose? bad press, and extremely unpopular president, a media darling of an opponent, a couple well promoted gaffs. What needs to change for 2010? Well we don’t need to be more socially, legally, or fictionally liberal. Maybe we could be a *touch* less picky about our candidates in the North East.
Truth is on merits any of the GOP contenders could/should have beaten Obama were the media not ‘given chills’ by Obamamania.
“God doesn’t bless a society based on their economic policies - he blesses them on their social policies.”
I have a nit to pick: societies are blessed for Gods glory, not their own behavior.
“The problem is economic conservatism before social conservatism is putting the cart before the horse.”
That’s a personal opinion (one I happen to share) for individuals. While Christians are far more likely going to be ok with ‘rendering to Caesar’ its hard to see a big bloated government leaving us alone to worship as we please.
To be honest while I tend towards small government if the GOP decided to kick the pro-life piller out of the tent I would leave so fast you’re eyes would spin.
I could care less if my income taxes are 33 or 36% but I realize that to get I have to give so Ill fight for the wallet conservatives so long as they keep fighting for me.
I’ll agree with you on one thing and that is that I am not comfortable with giant deficits and massive government debt. Cutting taxes is good, but there must be a corresponding reduction in government spending. If we don’t cut government spending along with taxes we just dig ourselves into a hole and it becomes harder and harder to did our way out.
did = dig
Who said George Bush was fiscally conservative? Republicans on the whole really haven’t been fiscally responsible in recent years. That may very well be the biggest reason the GOP is in such trouble now. We have to focus on cutting government spending and paying down the national debt while at the same time improving the economy. Democrats will spend like crazy and get us further in debt. We have a very liberal administration coming that sees big government as the answer to most problems. The changes they make will be expensive and their tax increases on the “rich†will not be enough to pay for them. Voters aren’t going to be all that happy with Democrats as the years go on and we just get further and further in debt. Hopefully in 2010 and 2012 the GOP will be able to convince voters that Republicans can deliver a more fiscally responsible government. If not, there will be no big Republican comeback. It’s not going to be easy though. The Republican Party has lost a lot of credibility.
“rich†= “rich”
I’m too tired and I can’t think straight and I’m getting wierd glitches on this site when I run the spell checker tonight. I give up. I’m going to bed.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” - CS Lewis
Huckabee.
Thanks!
Thanks, bamahead!
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.