Libertarians flex their muscle in the GOP

Wash. Post ^ | 07/31/2013 | By Karen Tumulty

[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.

[OneWingedShark]

thus what do we as Christians do given this apparent inevitablity. what action would God want us to take now that we are here at the end of the line. that’s the question i now struggle with.

I think he wants us to show his love to an unjust society, and to each other… I think it would be very hard to go astray following Jesus's example.
I'm very much a fan of the book of James, and think that it holds the keys to reviving the Church in America (see ch 2 & 5, especially)… of course it's hard to go wrong embracing evangelism (which is doing what Jesus said to do).

[ansel12]

I don’t have a great answer for you, but can give some general impressions, while in some situations it was very difficult to formalize a marriage, it was very important to to so and every effort was made to do that, improper procedure could result in huge fines, and even marriages being forced to end, not to mention social issues.

Virginia for instance passed a law in 1748 requiring a license, but they had used formal proclamations before that.

Licenses or banns had been around for many centuries.

Marriage was serious business to the incredibly socially conservative, religious peoples who founded this nation, they were unimaginably conservative to the people of today.

[dadfly]

yes. i’m reminded of the old saw: “the road to ...

you know. the leaders we had throughout the founding era from Bradford, Winthrop, on and on to Madison and Washington. i think we need some of those to coalesce around. we need representation. but how to morally get it? well, good night. we can’t stop. for sure God won’t let us do that as OneWingedShark puts so well.

[dadfly]

yes. we must act to somehow get back the favor of our Lord. the Truth, the Way and the Light is the place to look.

well, good night and, if it is His will, may God save America.

[ez]

Bzzzt. Wrong again. I think a persons sexuality should be kept to himself and his partners so theoretically a homo could be in the military, except no one would ever know. As far as marriage, I also think that the Fedgov should bug out, but since they don’t, marriage is between one biological male and one biological female.

You make a lot of incorrect assumptions. You should re-examine your methods of supposition.

[ez]

No offense. Just exploring ideas. It’s useful to bounce things off others and learn from the exchange.

I may have generalized your generalization and taken it to broadly. :) Such is the nature of Internet conversation, I suppose. Best regards.

[i_robot73]

I’m not sure where you get your info., but on the (L) site itself (http://www.lp.org/platform). And that sure isn’t ‘radical’ to me:

3.4 Free Trade and Migration

We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property.

I never said their platform was 100% *me*, but it sure is 90+%

[i_robot73]

Please define ‘hard left liber social platform’. Taking your verbiage as is, yes, I DO support personal Liberty/Freedom and the consequences thereof.

That might not be Conservative (however that term may be applied, and whatever it shall mean), if anything that makes me a Constitutionalist and more in line of the (L) party than the GOP.

[i_robot73]

No offense, but that’s some funny right there. Religion stopping oppression. If history is any teacher it is that any/all (non)religions have their zealots:

Crusades
Inquisition
Salem Witch Trials

Even as an agnostic, I have problems with religious laws:

Blue Laws
Dry counties
‘Sin’ taxes

[i_robot73]

Welcome to the gang, but be prepared for some sparring. You just left the GOP plantation, and the cracka’s don’t like that much. ;)

[i_robot73]

I don’t believe any (L) would argue that States SHOULD have those laws, but that they COULD (and many are finally opposing the Fed gov’t leviathan we have today...aka ‘medical’ weed, Const. carry, etc.). The rest of your screed is your own opinion/straw-man.

Of all places, the States ARE the testing grounds and people will (dis)approve with their feet and/or $$.

But, in the end, only the Individual has Rights.

[i_robot73]

You forget the rainbow sash they would need to wear to distinguish from the ‘others’.

Word of warning for those with lisps, gay or not, the Conservatives are coming! /s

[OneWingedShark]

Welcome to the gang, but be prepared for some sparring.

Thank you.

You just left the GOP plantation, and the cracka’s don’t like that much. ;)

I've been off of it for a while now. In 2008, to my shame, I pulled the lever for McCain… but when I did so I promised myself that I would never again vote against somebody. In the first Term of Obama I became more and more aware of the Republican-party's duplicitous nature, to the point where it seemed like every platform-plank/talking-point for the Republican-party was mere-talk (the [non-]effort in investigating/punishing Fast & Furious was a big factor). In 2012 we were given the choice to vote for Romney, which was all the proof I needed that the Republican party was just spouting things that sounded good [to its voters] with no intention of following through; this was reinforced by certain events:

1. the retroactive rule-changes to grant Romney wins in the primaries [a notable one stripping delegates for Ron Paul and replacing them with ones for Romney],
2. the bus-incident [where the bus wouldn't drop an influential anti-Romney Delegation, VA IIRC, at the RNC but kept circling it],
3. the RNC/teleprompter-incident [where the result was on the teleprompter before the voice-vote was finished], and
4. the contents of the above-mentioned rules themselves, radically altering and limiting delegate's authority/power/independence.

[i_robot73]

I’m sorry, but I will have to disagree with one part of your post. That being not running as a (L) because they differ on a few planks. If that were the case, there would be NO (R)!

I understand the split of some in the (L) party, and concede that there ARE things that need to be worked upon; and for good reason. Philosophy and science alone should settle the abortion ‘debate’ in favor of the child (I have posted my thoughts and break-out prior) and there is some noodling to be done re: civil-unions.

NO one subject is cut-dry and limited to that one step; there are always repercussions, angles, etc. but as a (L), IMHO, most of those are CAUSED by gov’t intervention.

[Nowhere Man]

Under our current system, splitting a party is paramount to suicide. Continuing petty strawman politics is the same. Do you really think that the worst “big L” libertarian would have come close to approaching the disaster that has been foisted upon this country? The last 20+ years was not the fault of libertarians of any stripe...

I get into a lot of trouble but here goes. I am not a big or little L libertarian; I am just tired of people with logs in their eyes stumbling around looking for motes. Yeah the war is coming, and when it’s here, you can tell your children how you were so worried about drug legalization. In the end, those very drugs may come in handy when you are performing surgery in your kitchen…

I tend to be "small l" libertarian, I'm more on the fiscal wing of the Tea Party than social. In a nutshell, I have a mind of my own and I'd rather use rational thought and make up my own mind on things. Call me a Barry Goldwater type perhaps. Myself, personally, I am socially conservative on many things but even so, I just think it is not the role of government to enforce morality. I get into really hot water on this, but on the drug legalization ans same sex marriage issues, they are no big deal to me. Leave it to the States and people to decide. Some States will say "yes," others "no" and even others might just be silent and leave it to the people, which I do favor. I am very pro-life though, without life there is no liberty. I think a lot of this is a ruse to split us really.

I often joke where if the North Koreans and/or the Iranians hit us with a nuke, what's the point of debating same sex marriage and drugs if we are atomic ashes in the stratosphere floating to Europe.

I just don't like lock step, Borglike logic, from the left or the right. I think if we keep on the current course, no one will care if the hand reaching out to help them (or pulling the trigger in battle) is gay or straight, Black or White and so on and so on as long as they live to see another day and it is a fight for liberty, free thought and freedom to live as you like as long as it does not hurt others.

I doubt libertarians would have let things get as bad as they are now. I think where the "Big L's" are out to lunch on is on foreign policy and immigration. There are times you have to fight other nations, as a last resort and/or for defense although they do have a point at times when we stick our noses where they don't belong. As to immigration, borders, language and culture. Letting in unrestricted immigrants, no questions asked is an invitation to disaster.

[i_robot73]

Ah, so then we start the debate of who’s God is greater, which theology is the ‘true’ Word of God? The self-righteous indignation of all others as too lowly to comprehend or know what’s best?

I’m sorry, but the Founders were as fearful of a Theocracy as they were of a Monarchy; hence the 1st Amendment, 9th and 10th.

[ansel12]

Please define ‘hard left liber social platform’

What a joke, some liberal troll pretending that he isn't aware that partial birth abortion, the homosexual agenda and open borders and more, is a hard left social platform, I don't how you get by here at FR.

[ansel12]

You are looking at the shortened version of your immigration platform there, post 116 gives the same, but more fleshed out version that they used to use, 116 is from 2004.

If you read them, you see that nothing was changed.

[ansel12]

It is you who is confused, and confusing.

You want everyone to so hide their sexuality that no one knows what they are? How does that work in the military for instance? Where do you hide your wife and kids, what happens on when the ship hits port?

So far you haven’t said anything, merely expressed some childish avoidance.

[i_robot73]

I completely concur. I do think there are some areas to improve in the (L) platform, but not much.

IMHO, the (L) can be summed up “Being intelligent enough to know I’m not smart enough to have all the answers to coerce another person one way or another”, and I think that scares the BEJEEZUS out of the Left and the self-righteous ‘Conservatives’.

RE: Foreign policy - yes, there ARE times with the need to fight, but we are not the World Police. It seems anymore, there is NOTHING done on the planet that does NOT threaten our National Security. It seems, per the NSA, just being a Citizen threatens N.S. We should but out, or fight to win, no in-between. Our military is NOT cannon fodder for the ‘cause of the week’ that is NOT in our best interests.

RE: Borders - I think the (L) position has been blown WIDELY out of proportion to their stated goals. Though, w/out the goliath of the Fed. gov’t, there would be little want of immigration, except those that wish to be FREE (no bennies, no ‘safety net’, no XYZ)