Libertarians Seeking 'True Conservatives'

GOPUSA ^

[Happy2BMe]

Libertarians Seeking 'True Conservatives'

By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Morning Editor
February 24, 2005

(CNSNews.com) -- The Libertarian Party says its representatives were "very well received" by conservatives at a recent conference in Washington.

"We met a lot of people who are either supportive of our ideas or who simply support having an alternative to the big-government ideal put forward by the Republicans and Democrats," said Sam New, who organized the Libertarian Party's activities at the Conservative Political Action Committee Conference in Washington.

The Libertarian Party was a first-time cosponsor of the Feb. 17-19 CPAC Conference, and its involvement was a "big step forward" for the Party, said Executive Director Joe Seehusen in a report on the group's website.

"Our profile has been low for some time, and we were able to showcase our party in a positive light to many people and groups, including a large number of students and small business owners."

Seehusen, who considers President George W. Bush a socialist, said the Libertarians' support for limited government and appreciation for individual rights strikes a cord with many people who call themselves Republicans or conservatives.

"Many of them stopped by our booth to learn more," which is exactly why the Libertarians decided to take part in CPAC this year, he said.

The Libertarians believe they can appeal to "true conservatives" (as opposed to "big-government neo-conservatives") on a number of issues.

"By taking part in this CPAC conference, we hope to show that Libertarians are the true fiscal conservatives -- much more so than the Republicans are," Seehusen said on the Libertarian website.

He said the party is studying how successful groups market themselves, so the Libertarian Party "can more effectively reach out to conservatives" in the future.

[California Patriot]

Slim, your points are valid in principle, but my concern is that in practice, the capital-L Libertarians, that is the members of the LP, seem more interested in trashing both parties equally. I would prefer that their message to the public, and to the GOP, be that the GOP is better than the Dems, but its feet must be held to the fire. This would be the constructive and more effective approach.

[secretagent]

A "silver-tongued orator", indeed.

[jackbob]

You and I, do not agree. But I respect your opinion. For me, individual rights are what is primary. I do not believe we are ever going to live in a perfect world. But I do believe that the right of an individual to control their own thoughts and body must be maintained to the degree we now have it, and can be further achieved where we do not as yet have it.

In this regard, I agree to certain exceptions where it can be remotely demonstrated that unnecessary pain may be being inflicted, then such procedures should not be allowed. Beyond that, I say government must always put a higher weight on the wishes of an individual that are meaningfully expressed, over an assumption about a non-individual dependent that is not meaningfully expressed. At least until a separation occurs, thereby creating a new individual.

[jackbob]

I would prefer that their message to the public, and to the GOP, be that the GOP is better than the Dems, but its feet must be held to the fire. This would be the constructive and more effective approach.

You got it right. That is if you want the LP primarily competing with the GOP for new voters and potential activists. On the otherhand, if you want the LP primarily competing with the Democrats, then the opposite would be true. As a Libertarian, I want us competing with both. But as a realist, I say we have spent far to much competing with the Republicans, and its now time now we start competing with the Democrats again, at least enough to balance things out.

[California Patriot]

You seem to take the view that both parties are equally bad. I think that's nonsense. You should be doing what you can to help the Republicans and hurt the Democrats. I can't stand it when the LP tells the public and conservatives that it rejects both parties equally. It's destructive and unserious in regard to politics, smacking of bloated ego.

[ajr276]

Thank you for the well thought response and please know that I also respect your opinion.

I have a couple responses to your previous post. First, I don't quite see the connection between separation and individuality. Newborns are in almost every way just as dependent on the sustenance of another human being as a fetus that is only minutes from delivery. What should keep us from the conclusion that the unborn fetus is simply in a stage of individuality? Doesn't use of the term "individual" become somewhat subjective?

In the context of the original topic, it seems that the mother is not an individual that happens to be carrying a sort of appendage, but is instead entrusted with the care of another physically undeveloped individual. In this example I believe it is wise to restrict the right of liberty for one individual (the mother) in deference to the right for existence in the other individual (the fetus).

In addition, I think we have to qualify what is and is not considered a meaningfully expressed wish. Not to be over the top in my illustration of abortion, but when a baby cringes or thrashes about in the womb as a result of the procedure being performed, it would seem wise to assign the reactions of fear and pain as being representative of meaningfully expressed wishes; the wish of course being the absence of whatever stimuli is causing the reaction in question.

In closing, I'm beginning to think that most things political really do come down to abortion. Try as I may, I can't think of another example that supersedes the liberty principle. Perhaps I'm just not trying hard enough..?? Thanks again for your previous response. I have enjoyed the dialog. :-)

[jackbob]

As a Libertarian, I'm one of those who views both parties as equally bad. Situationally speaking however, I agree with you that we, at this time, need to focus our attack on Democrats and not Republicans. But what I mean by that might be quite different than what you might expect.

An effective attack on Democrats would focus on how hypocritical they are in their claims of being liberal and progressive. With out changing the Libertarian philosophy in the slightest, with a good dictionary, with a slight modification of rhetoric, the Libertarians could present themselves as the only party that that is truly liberal and progressive in America today. Out lefting the left, and attacking the Democrats on their own turf, would more than adequately take care of the problems you envision, while continuing the attack on Republicans.

[jackbob]

Newborns are in almost every way just as dependent on the sustenance of another human being as a fetus that is only minutes from delivery.

Obviously you are quite correct here. As a Libertarian, I recognize the moral responsibility this places on those who are in the immediate vicinity for its care. But what I cannot support is a legal responsibility. To do so would deny self ownership, which is a fundamental aspect of individual rights. Slavery of any kind, for any reason, will never be acceptable to a true Libertarian. The same goes for an unwanted fetus.

Should the Democrats realize the advantage to changing their position on abortion, we are going to be in for government controls way beyond anything considered or discussed at this time. Even if they don't make the change, their ability to manipulate Republican into accepting their controls is beyond dispute.

Take the traditional family issue of putting fathers back into the home that Republicans fought so long and so hard for. Once it was popularized, the Democrats jumped on board calling for immediate action on those parts of it that "we all can agree with." The end results was not an increase of fathers in the home. What we got was an astronomical increase in the amount of money obligated, basing it on a guessimation of earning potential, rather than actual earnings. Collection methods were empowered way beyond anything imagined just a couple decades ago. The result has impoverished many fathers, and families. And did not increase the presence of fathers in the home in the slightest. Republicans really got conned on that one.

One more example, Republicans have been at the forfront in calling for law and order. Once their call became popularized, the Democrats came on board, with the call for disarming families where one of the parents pled or was found guilty of any domestic violence misdemeanor, often for nothing more than slapping a spouse. Republicans were manipulated into supporting a law that disarmed families for nothing more than a misdemeanor. So much for the Second Amendment.

Now imagine what the Democrats could do with abortion. Special police investigators using fad or phony science, invading homes, to examine both mother and remains, so as to determine the if a spontaneous miscarriage, of a three week pregnancy, was criminal or not. Setting a three day limit on which every expecting mother must register a pregnancy once the time has past that she should have reasoned that she might be pregnant. Incarcerating in special detention homes any expecting mother who is found or has been found wanting in properly registering in timely manner, or who has displayed a resistance either verbally or physically, to follow the accepted establishments standards of good health during such pregnancy.

Such intrusions on individual rights will never be acceptable to Libertarians. Self ownership (free will) is what Libertarianism is all about.

[California Patriot]

Well, I guess you and I really have nothing in common, then. I have contempt for Libertarians who try to curry favor with stupid voters by presenting themselves as true liberals. But if you really see it that way, God help you.

[jackbob]

I also have total contempt for Libertarians who may "try to curry favor with stupid voters by presenting themselves as true liberals." Such dishonesty would be anti-libertarian. But you might do well in doing a little dictionary work on exactly what a liberal is.

[California Patriot]

You sound like a reasonable guy. What bothers me is that so many Libertarians see no difference between the parties, and infect others with this belief.

[jackbob]

There are a variety of sound reasons that many Libertarians do not see a significant difference between Republican and Democrats. Among the many reasons is that many Libertarians are neither conservative, nor liberal in their broad general outlook on politics. While all hold both liberal and conservative points of view, Libertarians do not have a common outlook on which points they are conservative and which they are liberal on. Nor do they have a common set of priorities on which to set their values with regard to either. For these reasons, Libertarians are all over the spectrum.

Here at Free Republic, most Libertarians are conservative, that is that they have prioritized those issues on which they identify with as conservative as a having a higher value, than those they identify with as liberal. To further complicate this matter, Libertarians out in the world away from Free Republic have differing opinions as to defining which particular position on an issue is best described as liberal or conservative. Of course their are majority points of view, but those can and have changed from time to time.

Then their is motivating causes behind holding a particular view on a particular issue. In that regard, one can even find many conservative Republicans coming at their particular conservative stand on an issue, from a very liberal view of the issue. There are those for example who place very high priority on caring for the poor (liberal view), and say that the best way to do it is to have a laissez-fair economic policy. An agreeing conservative view on this would be that such a system would motivate the lazy into pull up their sleeves and get to work. A Liberal view on this, is that it would replace the current employer market with an employee market and would additionally allow for spontaneity in business, which is always advantageous to those lacking skills who have not found their nitch.

The Libertarians that you seem to have the most trouble with are those who identify primarily with conservative views. These Libertarians are in their own eyes out conservativing the conservatives. Currently within the LP, this is also the dominate accepted strategy. The idea to do this was advanced with in the LP between 1983-87, and has been the main strategy ever since. I say the best strategy is a conscious beyond left and right balancing strategy, which would carfully avoid any favoritism toward democrats or republicans. And now today, because we have had this out conservativing the conservatives strategy for so long, the LP needs to take a serious look at out liberaling the liberals so as to bring some balance back to the party.

The reason Libertarians moved to this destructive strategy, was that they correctly reasoned that they would face less resistance with it, and would gain a quick increase in membership. I say the route of least resistance, in this case, was not the route of greatest advantage.

The biggest mistake of this strategy, is that it replaced education as a primary goal in the LP, with winning elections. The funny thing here is that those of us who opposed this strategy were smeared as being dreamers. Oh well.