Posted on 03/17/2013 11:13:56 AM PDT by Rufus2007
On this Sunday’s broadcast of ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos,” Washington Post columnist George Will criticized a New York Times article by Jim Rutenberg and Richard Stevenson that suggested the Conservative Political Action Conference revealed deep divisions in the conservative movement.
“First, here’s The New York Times headline on the CPAC conference: ‘GOP divisions fester at conservative retreat,’” Will said. “Festering an infected wound — it’s awful. I guarantee you, if there were a liberal conclave comparable to this, and there were vigorous debates going on there, The New York Times headline would be ‘Healthy diversity flourishes at the liberal conclave.’”
“Republicans have been arguing — social conservatives and libertarian free-market conservatives — since the 1950s, when the National Review was founded on the idea of the fusion of the two,” he continued. “It has worked before with Ronald Reagan. It can work again. What I did see at CPAC was the rise of the libertarian strand of Republicanism, which has an affected foreign policy that is a pullback from nation-building
...more (w/video)...
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
Next time don’t insult me as being stupid?
But in those days, while homosexuality was known and abortion was done and drunkeness a disease, it was understood that all this was wrong...
Today, not so much.....
What do you think was among the historical duties of "cabin boy" in the old sail navies? Also see prostitution in colonial America. Was it celebrated? No. Did most large cities make a large effort to stamp it out? Doesn't look like it.
If America isn't a God fearing country of social conservatism, and traditional American ideals, then it is nothing, just another place on the planet.
You are 100% correct.
Today those are chic.
LOL, homosexuals in the military, gay marriage, polygamy, abortion, prostitution were not legal in the early United States.
Shouldn’t you be worshipping Satan or Obama, or the Kennedys somewhere?
Can we at least agree here on the Free Republic that there is a very fine line in a democratic republic that is governed by the rule of law, established by the people between what is necessary for a civilized society to operate and the ability for individuals to live freely?
We will always have this argument as long as we are self-determining...
Who is doing the rearing - family or government? Libertarianism seeks to root out the influence of the state into family life. Educators should stick to knowledge, not indoctrination. The more we can pull back the tentacles of the state, the better chance Christians have of rearing Godly offspring.
Given this, we're much better off with a legislator who is excellent and consistent with affairs enumerated in the constitution so we can live a prosperous life of liberty - then we are with someone who purports to be "conservative" but imposes their ideas of society outside of constitutional restrictions. Wasn't GWB great? Born again, "social conservative" - gave us Medicare Rx, no child left behind, Homeland Security, Patriot Act, 2 expensive wars, market meltdown, nuclear armed kooks, massive debt/deficit, then his crowning achievement - Obama (there were a few good things, but erased by major bad stuff).
Yep. Just look at all the pathetic FReepers willing to abandon principles and endorse social degeneracy and libertarianism in order to 'win', like it's a football game or something with no ultimate purpose beyond feeding animalistic desires. Truly pathetic.
Great answer sir, as always.
For me, as with you, the view of the Founders needs no discussion, or very little, but I thought it would provoke some interesting discussion here if I posed the question.
I wish there were over 60 Senators like Ted Cruz. Maybe we could get this country turned around to its roots again
You are like a communist, you want to live in and talk from your fantasy world of illusions, fantasies, and unrealistic theory, an ivory tower with no reality in it.
More liberalism and societal decay creates more clamor for big government and welfare, not less.
The last 50 years of your agenda is destroying us, and erasing Christianity from America.
For the record, you can be against abortion and homosexuality "and such" as much as you want. Won't bother me in the slightest. More power to you.
A “libertarian” is not someone who is fiscally conservative and socially liberal. That is a “Rockefeller Republican”, not a “libertarian.”
That said, there is social libertarianism, and fiscal libertarianism. Just like there is social conservatism, and fiscal conservatism, and there is social liberalism, and fiscal liberalism.
I would add, there is also the concept of social libertinism, which is not the same thing as social libertarianism.
Social libertarianism is not the same thing as social liberalism.
Social liberalism is based on the culture of victimhood. Social libertarianism is based on the culture of the individual.
Affirmative action, quotas, welfare, etc., these are the tools of the social liberals. Social libertarians believe in meritocracy.
The social libertarian says is “live and let live”, and you must be responsible, and you have to deal with the consequences of your actions.
The social liberal does not believe in “live and let live”. Just witness the gun rights issue. The social liberal wants to pick and choose which issues and behaviors are acceptable. The social liberal does not believe in individual responsibility, and wants the government to minimize the consequences of one’s actions (assuming they are acceptable actions).
The social libertarian says I don’t care what your sexual practices are.
The social liberal says the government must subsidize your sexual practices.
The late, great Milton Friedman described both Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan as libertarians, not conservatives. Ronald Reagan’s Republican coalition was southern social conservatives, western state libertarians (Barry Goldwater, Alan Simpson, and Dick Cheney are examples), and northeastern fiscal conservatives (Bush, Pete Dupont, etc.). The Republicans have lost most of the old northeast fiscal conservative banker class to the Democrats. The western state libertarians seem to be a crowded out to unrestricted immigration. The southern conservatives are still around, but alone are not enough to change the nation.
The Democrats are exceeding their mandate because the communists have taken over the leadership of the party and its affiliated propaganda organ, the MSM. There are businesswomen who voted their “lady parts” and will have their businesses destroyed by ObamaCare. There are young people who at some point will realize ObamaCare and the welfare state are taking away their opportunity.
Embracing libertarianism is a means to regain an electoral majority. It solves the belief in the electorate the Republicans are not a party of fiscal constraint (squandered by GWB), and it weakens the Democrat/communist argument the Republicans will invade America’s bedrooms. It also puts the libertine fake libertarians to the curb. It changes the debate.
I don’t support gay marriage. But Rand’s “get marriage out of the tax code” is an excellent parry. If we passed the Fair Tax, gay “marriage” would provide little beyond “civil unions”. It takes the air out of the message.
We need to think long term. Any battle we could change, and arguably “retreat” from, but in a way that left the victor with greater requirements for personal responsibility is ultimately good.
I still think the constitution gives plenty of tools to remedy problems:
"Amendment 10The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
If we can't bring the focus back to liberty versus this giant, unsustainable nanny state regulating every aspect of life and death, this great experiment is done - stick a fork in it. $150 trillion in debt and unfunded liabilities is 3 times the global GDP.
If you aren't against them, then you are on the wrong forum.
It most certainly is except when they are fiscally liberal.
Conservatism is not fighting off libertarians because of economic issues but because of abortion and marriage and social issues and the border.
If libertarians were socially conservative, and economically conservative, then they could just call themselves conservatives.
I have no eartly idea what the heck you're talking about ascribing to me communism and the promotion of "liberalism". Quote one instance. Just 1. Here are 12 years of posts. Have at it...
A lot of people rinos/libertarians, only care about money, America means nothing to them except for it’s value to them economically.
That is why libertarians want to end border control, fire the INS and the Border Patrol, and open America up completely to unlimited use and immigration by the world, because they hope that it will make them money.
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.