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

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

[CWOJackson]

"But the bannings have been the result of a certain faction on FR stiffling dissent."

And here I thought it was all the result of Moderators and people who cross a certain line.

[WackyKat]

Furthermore, might it actually be a requirement that we reenstate true aristrocracy of the knightly variety, where a martial underpinning and manly courage drive our strategy, and a reestablishment of the protective strata of classical Northwest European society results? Might this latter element be a requirement for the ultimate survival of not only the USA but Western Civilization as a whole?

You've been reading too many fantasy novels.

[Doctor Stochastic]

...U.S. conservatives have conceded defeat in the battle for limited government...

Most libertarians seem to think that the conservatives were never interested in limited government in the first place.

[Sandy]

Considering that our so-called "conservative" U.S. Supreme Court just basically legalized medical marijuana,

Don't know where you got that idea, but it's not the least bit true. The Feds are still as free as ever to go after medical marijuana users.

[farmfriend]

Are you sure that you stay off the flame war threads?

Yes. I'm sure that one could be dug out of the archives. The last one I was on, I was directing comments to JR on the banning problem. I may have made comments on two or three of the McClintock v. Arnold threads out of how many? I think the statement is basically true.

[tomakaze]

FR's own frank poretto's essay "The Conservative-Libertarian Schism" is a clearer look at this subject (and a better read). ( at his site here)

[farmfriend]

And here I thought it was all the result of Moderators and people who cross a certain line.

One would hope that would be the case but when the banning seems to be one sided not universal, one has to doubt the motivations.

[WackyKat]

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.

You're right. Anyone who expresses social libertarian opinions such as opposition to the drug war, support of sexual freedom, separation of religion and state, and opposition to an imperialist foreign policy is seriously at risk.

[cinFLA]

Then why does the LP consider a NORML conference in gay San Francisco to be a ripe recruiting ground.

[k2blader]

I think there is currently a struggle between conservative, libertarian, *and* "religious" ideology within the right wing.

[freeeee]

Most libertarians seem to think that the conservatives were never interested in limited government in the first place.

I wouldn't say they were never interested in limited government. A significant portion of them were at one point, but the last one was Barry Goldwater, and I'll give an honerable mention to Reagan.

[mrsmith]

Hey, "We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists" now!

Kudos to your admirably succinct summary of the philosophies at our Founding!

[cinFLA]

Anyone who expresses social libertarian opinions such as opposition to the drug war, support of sexual freedom, separation of religion and state, and opposition to an imperialist foreign policy is seriously at risk. a leftist liberal.

[Jack Black]

Don't kid yourself. The libertarian vote is a lot bigger than the LP vote. I am not primarily a "cultural conservative". I don't care about granite blocks with the 10 commandments being put in our courts, one way or another. Gay marraige seems pointless, but again it's not an animating issue for me. TAXES and GOVERNMENT SPENDING are. I have voted Republican in every election since I could vote, but if the party no longer stands for smaller government I will have no reason to support them. Bush is getting a pass from me because I strongly approve of the War on Terror as he has fought it in Iraq and Afghanistan. Were he to run only on his domestic accomplishments it would be much harder. Oh yeah, the Bill or Rights is really important to me too, and I don't see too many Republicans standing up for it. Bob Barr was good, but he's gone now. In short if the R's are simply the Socialism Light party I don't think I will continue to vote for them. When faced with obvious RINOs I have either voted independent or abstained on the race.

Small Government has been the GLUE that held all the different factions together in the R party. If the Bush family is uneasy with that and wants to lead us with Fear of Terror as the unifying theme I don't think they will be successful in the long run.

Under no circumstance will I vote for Jeb, ever. Not because I don't like him but because I don't want a dynasty in the USA. We were established to do away with such things.

[Iris7]

My experience is that Libertarians have been pulling out of Conservative politics fairly steadily for some time. Here in the Midwest the peak of Libertarian interest in Conservative politics was about 1990 in my experience.

The post said, "It ("big government", "compassionate" Conservatism) promises to achieve meaningful conservative reforms without getting bogged down in politically disastrous attempts to cut popular government programs, but it ultimately cannot deliver." Well, Duh. It is sad to lose the Constitution, and I miss the Republic, but that whole era is over, "Gone with the Wind." As far as "it ultimately cannot deliver," well, obviously. Any trend extrapolated into infinity becomes absurd. Politics are no different. Of course in politics promises are made that won't be kept. As P.T. Barnum pointed out, "There is a sucker born every minute." That is part of the human condition, as is to be angry about the situation!!!

Libertarianism has more than it's share of absurdities. Need I point out L. Neil Smith? In _Pallas_ Smith blatantly wrote in a happy ending for his fable, a magical "kum bah yah" requiring a fabulously wealthy, altruistic man to assume the costs incurred by his ungrateful neighbors, and at the same time ignoring the costs of building and maintaining the terraforming "infrastructure" of the asteroid Pallas- an obviously huge investment. In _Forge of the Elders_, to make his apparently near anarchic paradise (the usual Libertarian Dream) he had to build in a class of magistrates with the power of life and death over everyone and a race of beneficent, wise, and superhumanly intelligent angelic aliens to run everything in order to maintain this "paradise." This is the old dream of good government by a sufficiently "good, noble, and disinterested" Aristocracy, related to Plato's Republic, and in modern times Thomas Moore's _Utopia_ (satirical and funny, as is Plato) and the path followed by Russian Communism, the Nazis, and the American Left, who all took this baloney seriously.

[carenot]

Are you sure that you stay off the flame war threads?

You didn't ask me, but I like the flame wars!

[ClearCase_guy]

I guess it went over farmfriend's head head, but my comment was a gentle way of saying that his posts #14, 18 and 27 contained snide comments that would be at home in a flame war thread. He keep saying he is uninvolved, and then he whips out some obnoxious little comment that could well precipitate a flame war right here.

[jpl]

Don't know where you got that idea, but it's not the least bit true. The Feds are still as free as ever to go after medical marijuana users.

Please, don't engage in sophistry with me. You know as well as I do what the long-term ramifications are for the Supreme Court's decision not to hear the case.

[Iris7]

Ah, yes, the "if wishes were fishes," time to "bell the cat" solution. The old "I don't wanna I don't hafta" argument.

sigh.

[Liberal Classic]

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

If a race is split 50-50, then it would matter a great deal.

As usual, the Libertarian Party's worst enemy is itself, when it runs candidates like Browne and Hornburger. Take this article for instance. What libertarians are voting for Howard Dean? Dean has said there's a Bush coverup of 911 and Iraq, supports socialized medicine, would prevent businesses from opposing unionization, and so forth. His redeeming quality is that he has expressed that we don't need more gun control, existing laws should be enforced, and that the states should decide the rest. I'll give credit for him not being a gun grabber and applaud any Democrat balks the safety nazis, but I don't think any libertarian would realistically cast vote for Dean.