Skip to comments.The Case for Conservatism (vs. Libertarianism)
Posted on 02/21/2011 5:40:39 AM PST by grumpa
Anyone who attended the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) last weekend knows that, although Republicans won big in November, the conservative movement is still facing an identity crisis.
There are many facets to this, but one way of looking at it is to say that libertarian ideas are encroaching on conservatism.
(Excerpt) Read more at politicsdaily.com ...
I resist the substitution of Liberal Statism with Conservative Statism. If that makes me a Libertarian then so be it....
Dadblastit, I was just going to post this article too.
This is a good thing. Libertarianism, by which I mean the Objectivist, Randian kind, has basically floated along on the coattails of real conservatism for far too long, and it’s assumptions need to be challenged.
One mistake people make is to assume that Ayn Rand and the Objectivists are “classical liberals.” They are not.
While libertarian and conservative philosophies have a lot of overlap, there are also multiple points of divergence. In this case, I think it’s a healthy dialogue. A few toes may get stepped on, but I think it the long run this will only serve to solidify, if not expand the political right.
recent conversation on same subject...
I would guess that there are very strong threads of
small l libertarianism on this site
and this is what Reagan would have been speaking to.
Utopian Libertarianism is just as bad as Utopian Statism. Neither speak well to the realities of Human Nature.
But I despise Federal Governance
It magnifies the consequences of
Megalomania an Narcissism
And if I had to choose between a Liberal Libertarian
And a Conservative Statist, it would be a tough call
Healthy dialogue, fine, but let’s cut the straw dog slander.
Libertarians have a tendency to keep such people and their supporters honest.
I disagree. Libertarians just find different loopholes.
There’s no identity crisis -
Conservatives know what they are and what they stand for...
Libertarians wish they could be conservatives without making the tough choices...
Libertarians = wimpy, waffley....
Conservatism faced an identity crisis in 2001 when Lyndon Baines Bush started Great Society II and the “Republican” Congress spent the next six years going along with it. That completely undermined the conservative coalition. Now spending restraint has necessarily taken center stage and social conservatives are crying about how they aren’t the center of attention anymore. Big government is the Whore of Babylon that social conservatives ignore at their peril. It is evil, pure and simple. Unless we cut the size of government, there will be no more social conservatism. Conversely, if government is small, it won’t be pushing things like gay marriage and abortion on demand. It won’t be able to. The bottom line is that way too many social “conservatives” are Huckabee type Christian Socialists who want a big government as long as it does their bidding on social issues.
Which traditional conservatives counterbalance with moral consistency. I see it as a healthy symbiotic relationship, and a means to building a generally solid politic bloc that would otherwise deteriorate into an array of splinter factions (which, btw, I see as the eventual fate of the left).
“Big government is the Whore of Babylon that social conservatives ignore at their peril. It is evil, pure and simple. Unless we cut the size of government, there will be no more social conservatism. Conversely, if government is small, it wont be pushing things like gay marriage and abortion on demand. It wont be able to. The bottom line is that way too many social conservatives are Huckabee type Christian Socialists who want a big government as long as it does their bidding on social issues...”
Libertarians are not so innocent. They support liberalism’s humanist or atheist State religion but scream like stuck pigs if they hear a Christian assert moral behaviors and choices in life.
You can not have constitutional freedom with a culture of Marxism as is the ideal of Rand. The former is capable of self rule and independence from the government; the later guarentees a police state made for undiscerning, amoral, immediate gratification peasants who are a danger to themselves and the society as a whole. An amoral, material culture promises more dishonest bankster type abuse.
Libertarians aren’t so innocent.
With all kinds of assent for what Joe 6-pack wrote, I posit the thought that where Huckabee and Company go wrong is in making moral matters a Federal matter ALWAYS. Somewhere in the debate the division of powers between the federal, state and local governments has been forgotten in the libertarian-conservative debate.
I believe, for example, that life issues are federal because of the guarantee of LIFE, liberty and property of the Declaration of Independence, BUT that marriage is under the jurisdiction of the states where marriage can and must be held to a contract between a man and a woman. Some might accuse me of a lack of consistency but then the functioning of a republic, including the terms of debate, need not embrace any more than the intent of the founders and is by definition, designed for debate and a certain messiness, something “moderns” have a hard time abiding, their being wedded to a phony ideal of perfect consistency.
When states are restored as per the 10th Amendment then the conservative mission can be given full run.
And Joe 6-pack, again, loved your comments. Angry jumps to conclusions and related polemics without arguments are pointless.
With all this new-fangled interweb stuff, I thought we wouldn’t need libertarians anymore. Nobody goes to the libertary anymore except those old perverts looking up porn and they don’t need a libertarian to help them find that stuff in the libertary.
Libertarians - liberals who actually looked at their pay stub.
You do realize that means the end of the drug war ?
You know the negative stereotypes: Conservatives who embrace both fiscal and social conservatism are either prudes who want to tell you how to live -- "bigots" and hate-mongers -- or people who derive their policy positions solely from the Christian Bible (which, depending on your views, may seem either admirable or dangerous).
Which is the stereotype of the pure social conservative. I'd hazard that most realize that if you are both, then you cannot support the funding necessary to have a state large enough to 'tell you how to live'.