Conservative-Libertarian Split: Liberals Get It, Conservatives Don’t

IntellectualConservative.com ^ | October 15, 2003 | W. James Antle III

[Always Right]

Does it really matter how this 0.5% of the vote is split?

[Support Free Republic]

---

GOD BLESS OUR MILITARY THANK A VET! MAKE A DONATION TODAY
	Keep Our Republic Free Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER and say THANKS to Jim Robinson! IT'S IN THE BREAKING NEWS SIDEBAR Thanks

[ClearCase_guy]

I guess I'm one of the ones that don't get it.

many who think of themselves as libertarian do not identify with conservatives at all and growing numbers of them are finding much to identify with on the left.

So, the scenario is: I want limited government spending, and less government intrustion. Therefore, I will support Terry McAuliffe, Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean and Tom Daschle.

Libertarians are spoilers. Conservatism may be changing, and the Republican Party is not as Conservative as I wish it to be. But Libertarians harm the Conservative cause because they pull the party to the left -- yet do not have enough support to win any elections. I see it as Lose-Lose.

I used to consider myself a Libertarian. But now I think they are a negative influence on 21st century American politics.

[coloradan]

Considering the rancor with which some Republicans fault the libertarians for "electing Democrats," yes. I'll make a simple proposition for you: field candidates who support limited government, who support civil rights such as gun rights, who cut government spending, who reduce taxes and simplify the tax "code" - and I'll vote for that candidate. Such as Marilyn Musgrave.

[tdadams]

The candidate who looks most attractive to [libertarians] is not President George W. Bush – it’s none other than the former Vermont governor who has energized the most antiwar and anti-Bush elements of the left and invited comparisons to George McGovern, Howard Dean.

This conclusion seems a bit disingenuous and self-serving to me. I'll concede there are probably a lot of libertarian-conservatives who dislike Bush for spending too much and promoting a more invasive government.

But to conclude that libertarians would find Howard Dean, a pro-regulation, tax-the-rich, civil-rights-fascist Democrat a better alternative, is truly laughable.

To most libertarians, Dean would be just as much, if not more, objectionable than Bush.

[Arkie2]

This vote, which isn't part of that .5%, will not be voting Republican in the future. The Libertarian party is looking pretty good to me compared to the Republican big spenders right now.

[CWOJackson]

"Considering the rancor with which some Republicans fault the libertarians for "electing Democrats," yes."

You don't think the libertarian celebrating after defeating Sen. Slade Gorton (R - Washington) because he wouldn't endorse their ideals, and which had the side affect of electing Sen. Maria Cantwell (D - Washington), had something to do with this?

[jimkress]

BUMP!

This falls in the sad but true category. We've gone beyond RINOs (Republican in name only) to CINOs (Conservative in name only).

The Left (with their willing accomplices in the media) has always been adept at perverting the language and assigning to themselves the most popular mantle of the moment. They have now taken the label 'Conservative', perverted it's meaning, and now proclaim "them is us".

Reminds me of the deliberate perversion of the language by Lenin et al as they foisted Marxist-Leninism on the world. They were quite clear about their redefinition of words to obscure what they wanted to actually accomplish behind a facade of words that people thought meant something else.

[farmfriend]

Jim Rob would do well to read this article twice.

I think the growing schism between the conservatives and the libertarians is part of the current problem with FR and the recent spat of bannings. Old time posters who lean libertarian and are dissatisfied with Bush and his unconstitutional antics are being banned for expressing such opinions. While complaints from me and others are dismissed more than than the liberal press dismisses complaints about bias.

Voices like me who don't take part in the flame wars and stay off the bashing threads should be the ones listened to as a third party, uninvolved opinion.

[pabianice]

The truth is out of the bag: U.S. conservatives have conceded defeat in the battle for limited government and constitutionalism and have decided to change the subject

Um... no. The truth is out of the bag: US Liberals have conceeded defeat in the battle for votes and have decided to change the subject.

[tbpiper]

I think the chief difference between an Anarchist and Libertarian is personal hygene.

[CWOJackson]

"...Bush and his unconstitutional antics...Voices like me who don't take part in the flame wars and stay off the bashing threads should be the ones listened to as a third party, uninvolved opinion."

I'd say your opinion about "unconstitutional antics makes you a little more involved then you think.

[farmfriend]

Univolved does not mean unopinionated. Try hearing what I am saying.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Voices like me who don't take part in the flame wars and stay off the bashing threads should be the ones listened to as a third party, uninvolved opinion.

For that to work, you have to make sense.

[gaspar]

One would need a bong to read this article twice. (I don't have one, so, as you can guess, I m not a Libertarian.)

[Celtjew Libertarian]

Personally, I've been thinking about dropping the "Libertarian" from my FReepName since Harry Browne starting blasting the U.S. for acting against the Taliban and, then, Saddam.

I'm a social libertarian -- end the drug war, let gay marriages be recognized, etc. However, I also recognize that to have that freedom -- to have any freedom -- this nation has to be defended. I may disagree on a few details with the Bush administration, but they have taken defending the nation seriously. The Libertarian party has punted on that. The only Dem who seems to take defending the nation seriously is Joe Lieberman -- and I have more problems from a socially libertarian viewpoint with him than I do with most Republicans.

I guess that means I'm not a good Libertarian. Maybe it makes me a Schwarzenegger Republican (except I'm against gun control). Maybe some think that makes me a RINO, but the GOP is the only party taking defending this nation and, by extension, our freedoms seriously.

[farmfriend]

(I don't have one, so, as you can guess, I m not a Libertarian.)

I'm not Libertarian either. I do, however, have libertarian leanings. I am a registered Republican who has voted for very few Libertarians running for office. But thanks for assuming, always helpful.

[CWOJackson]

I'm hearing it very well.

[cinFLA]

Libertarians will vote for anyone that is 'drug-friendly'.