Posted on 08/01/2013 9:28:50 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd
Way back in 1975, a Republican agitator named Ronald Reagan had this to say about an esoteric young movement that was roiling politics: “If you analyze it, I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.”
Neither the GOP old guard nor the rowdy libertarians ever quite bought that argument.
They both lay claim to the same conservative economic philosophy. But libertarians are more isolationist and antiwar than Republican orthodoxy allows on foreign policy and more permissive on social issues.
Still, in the nearly four decades since Reagan made those comments, the two have managed — at least most of the time — to maintain an uneasy marriage of expedience.
Libertarianism once again appears to be on the rise, particularly among the young. But its alliance with the Republican establishment is fraying, as demonstrated by the increasingly personal war of words between two leading potential 2016 presidential contenders.
The sparring began last week, when New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) posited: “As a former prosecutor who was appointed by President George W. Bush on Sept. 10, 2001, I just want us to be really cautious, because this strain of libertarianism that’s going through both parties right now and making big headlines, I think, is a very dangerous thought.”
After Christie made it clear that he was referring to Rand Paul, the Senate’s leading critic of the National Security Agency and its surveillance programs, the Kentucky Republican fired back on his Twitter account: “Christie worries about the dangers of freedom. I worry about the danger of losing that freedom. Spying without warrants is unconstitutional.”
Their feud — which is being watched closely as a possible warmup round for 2016 — has continued, expanded and spilled over into other issues.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Libertarians today are NOTHING like the ideal Reagan had in mind. Liberals corrupted the libertarian agenda.
With that in mind - does Rand Paul have a chance at redefining the libertarian agenda that has been bastardized by his own father?
Its a good article folks. Worth a clickie.
Oh. I forgot. Tagline does not show up until after reply 1.
Also... I’ll post those comments Reagan made that clarified his position on liberaltarianism.
“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,” Reagan said in that same 1975 interview with the libertarian magazine Reason.
The word “libertarian” is being used derogatorily across the media. We’ll be seeing a lot of it going forward as they attempt to associate libertarianism with kookery as they have conservatism.
You have to understand that this was an “early” Reagan quote (though he was a two term governor of CA by then), and he said this to a (L)libertarian audience (so, I guess he was lying), and he went on to disagree with the Libertarian Party over what he called “gray areas”, and this was isolated (meaning Reagan was lying or something), and other stuff. I’ll need a lobotomy to finish explaining how Reagan was adamantly opposed to all that can be called “libertarian”. Reagan hated Friedman, Hayek, Von Mises, Rothbard, et al. Right?
IMO they are going to become the official opposition the way things are going.
Not necessarily a good thing if like me you’re pro-life and don’t think drug legalization would be a positive.
So someone who hates Libertarians is defining for us what a Libertarians really should be and what he thought Reagan really meant?
Wait, I’m out of popcorn. I’ll be back.
I will support candidates who are fiscally Conservative and socially Conservative. And whether I am consistent on that or not -- no matter what I do -- I do not think electoral politics matters in the foreseeable future. Nothing will change until after the war and, yeah, that's coming.
Yeah, this one will be entertaining. As one of the site’s token libertarians (please note the lower case “l”, haters) I’ll throw out the next bit of red meat and tell the conservatives here that if you want to overcome the demographics challenge in front of you, you’re at least going to need the libertarians to negotiate with the anarchists for you.
The media and democrats will use the split, and it appears
GOP candidates are only too happy to assist them.
Reagan was a great force, and his party unified under his leadership.
Reagan understood the balance between principle and pragmatism, to win and govern.
So someone who hates Libertarians is defining for us what a Libertarians really should be and what he thought Reagan really meant?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yep. I’m good that way. I can explain anything.
(lol)
The number of small l libertarians is larger than most believe.
Sarah Palin warned against dissing us. Can the republicrats win an election without us? Time will tell....
Libertarianism needs to go away and go away NOW. Start a 3rd Party, join the Dims, I don’t care. I’m as likely to vote for ODumbo as I am a Libertarian.
1) I can take a pragmatic approach and form a political coalition. I can make deals with Libertarians, business owners, certain minority groups, and certain social activists. I can cobble together enough votes to win a political election and achieve power.
I can do that by being pragmatic -- but will my hands be too tied to govern effectively? What kind of deals did I really have to make?
2) I can make political decisions and exert political authority in pragmatic ways to help the nation. I cut cut spendign where it needs to be cut. I can eliminate stupid regulations. I can avoid $1T deficits. I can keep us out of expensive foreign nation-building adventures. I can do the things that are necessary.
I can do that by being pragmatic -- but could someone like that get elected? Too many stakeholders would turn up their nose: "What's in it for me?" And then the votes aren't there.
I think electoral politics is dead because the people who can govern in a pragmatic way cannot get elected, and the people who can get elected cannot govern in a pragmatic way. We end up with 2 choices: George W Bush or Barack Obama. They got elected, and they made choices that have hurt the country. The men are different in many ways, but each in his own way lacked the ability to make the hard choices. All they could really manage to do was win the election.
And that's why we're screwed.
They may have to have their asses handed to them at the polls a couple more times for it to sink in. Maybe an 8 year run of hillary in the white house will get their attention. It’s not like we get treated any worse by the dems than the GOP.
Thanks for reinforcing my point one post after mine. I have done exactly as you wish. I switched from republicrat to libertarian when Romney was nominated, and voted for my new party. How did 2012 work out for y’all? Remember, you just demanded we leave.
Can the republicrats win an election without us?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No, the question is... Can the republicrats win an election by appeasing us? (libertarians)
And the answer is No.
A quote about economic commonality from a 1975 interview from the conservative candidate speaking to a small libertarian magazine, purely for a libertarian audience, and minutes before he switches to telling the libertarians how much he disagrees with them on social issues and national defense?
The only difference between a libertarian and a conservative is Libertarians are very strict about the separation of church and state and want pot legalized. Otherwise they are the same thing. That is what needs to be discussed within the party. I know it's hard for some conservatives to want to detach religion from government ,but that is the only compromise that needs to to be made in order to grow the base. When it comes to gay marriage most educated Libertarians believe the government should have no involvement in marriage and should be determined by just the religious institutions. Over the past 5 years I feel conservatives and libertarians have come so close that they could almost outnumber the GOP supporters in the general population. Conservatives finally agree our youth shouldn't be thrown in jail with rapists, murders, cocaine dealers, meth heads, gangsters, and other monsters for smoking some pot.
All these ideas that Libertarians are whack jobs is strictly something cooked up by the GOP,Liberals, and of course the mainstream media in the United States alone.
The way Libertarians are viewed outside the US is pretty much the way Libertarians view themselves:
Americans are gradually switching to international news sources to get the news as most American News have lost their credibility over the lies spread over the past year. I feel a streak of Libertarianism is what the world needs.
Reagan was no libertarian, see post 17, Reagan is no mystery to many of his here, and a single throwaway line to a libertarian audience during a campaign does not rewrite history and facts, nor the rest of that isolated, lonely interview itself.
Especially in light of his strong anti-RKBA stance.
Liberals corrupted the libertarian agenda.
Agreed. Which is why I am in no way affiliated with the National Party. Nor will I be until the Truther/anti-war/Doper hippy wanna-be, liberTINES are ousted.
IOW... I'd rather the TEA Party form up as an actual political Party to do to the wayward GOPe what the GOP did to the Whigs.
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.