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

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

[CWOJackson]

"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."

Not really. At times being given a time out or banned has been a badge or honor within some groups. There have been threads where people made it very obvious that their whole intention was to get banned and shouldn't have been surprised when they succeeded.

[pawdoggie]

If true Conservatives have a problem with our Libertarian friends it is that we have allowed the mass media to maliciously redefine who we are. For example, few (if any) Republican politicians are actually Conservatives. Republican politicians are, above all, politicians. Some politicians occasionally espouse Conservative beliefs (even Dick Gephardt and Howard Dean claim to be "fiscal Conservatives"), but their dedication to limited government is clearly suspect. The "religious right" with all of their actual and perceived intolerance, are called "Christian Conservatives". Falwell, Robertson, Dobson, et al, may or may not share a Conservative's belief in lower taxes and fewer government social welfare programs, but they're all for Big Brother when it comes to defining,criminalizing and zealously prosecuting "immoral" behavior. And anyone who believes that a large and ever-expanding Federal Government which provides "services" that "the people want" is not necessarily a bad thing may be "Neo", but they're not Conservatives.

[Iris7]

Good job, mark. Applause!!

[Liberal Classic]

My experience is that Libertarians have been pulling out of Conservative politics fairly steadily for some time.

In my opinion Republicans have been pulling away from conservatism for some time.

[Maelstrom]

Perhaps a Republican senator who had just a little less in common with the Democrat senator might have helped him get elected.

Of course, this is following the general rule of thumb that opposing Democratic policies is, today, more of a Libertarian position than Republican.

[pawdoggie]

If true Conservatives have a problem with our Libertarian friends it is that we have allowed the mass media to maliciously redefine who we are. For example, few (if any) Republican politicians are actually Conservatives. Republican politicians are, above all, politicians. Some politicians occasionally espouse Conservative beliefs (even Dick Gephardt and Howard Dean claim to be "fiscal Conservatives"), but their dedication to limited government is clearly suspect. The "religious right" with all of their actual and perceived intolerance, are called "Christian Conservatives". Falwell, Robertson, Dobson, et al, may or may not share a Conservative's belief in lower taxes and fewer government social welfare programs, but they're all for Big Brother when it comes to defining,criminalizing and zealously prosecuting "immoral" behavior. And anyone who believes that a large and ever-expanding Federal Government which provides "services" that "the people want" is not necessarily a bad thing may be "Neo", but they're not Conservatives.

[Dead Corpse]

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

For the same reason we set up boothes at gun shows. Looking for those people who respect our Constitution and value freedom.

[Jokelahoma]

You know, I just don't get the tone of the article. I can't figure whether this author is a closeted leftist who is trying to enlarge a perceived schism, or if the article is just a little snit by a spoiled "wish I were taken seriously" pundit who is throwing down a rather lame "play by MY rules or I'll take my ball and go home" challenge. A Libertarian threat to vote for the leftists is like a mouse saying "I don't think the other mice are paying me enough attention, so I'll go sleep with the cat". Ridiculous. May as well hold his breath until he turns blue, while he's at it.

[Maelstrom]

I have to disagree about the "gun-grabber" comment.

Enforcing existing gun laws *is* gun-grabbing. This is because of the intentions with which those laws were written and passed.

[freeeee]

I don't think any libertarian would realistically cast vote for Dean.

I agree. I wouldn't vote for him for the same reasons I won't vote for most Republicans - they aren't for limited government.

That said, I'd vote for Ron Paul (R). And anyone else who'll shrink government. They could call themselves Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians or just call themselves by the name their momma gave 'em and I'd vote for them.

Conversely, it'll be a cold day in hell when I vote for anyone who makes government bigger, no matter what party they call their own. That goes for Libertarians too.

[carenot]

He keep saying he is uninvolved, and then he whips out some obnoxious little comment that could well precipitate a flame war right here.

BRANG IT ON!!

[Liberal Classic]

I stand corrected. I should have said Dean is not a gun grabber relative to other Democrats. However, by that definition the NRA is gun grabbing too, because they advocate 'enforce existing law.'

[Maelstrom]

I would agree, the NRA is gun-grabbing.

[massadvj]

They are not just deserting conservative Republicans for the Libertarian Party. Some libertarians in good standing are actually thinking of voting Democratic.

I wouldn't go this far, but I can't deny that had Al Gore been elected with a Republican Congress, he would not have succeeded in implementing an agenda nearly as progressive as the one GWB has imposed upon us.

Bush's strategy for 2004 is identical to Nixon's strategy for 1972. Flood the economy with cash by every means available to assure that the economy is humming for the re-election. By 1974 we were in the worst recession of my lifetime, which culminated in double-digit inflation, gas lines and the "misery index". I'd like to say I'm confident that Bush can avoid the same thing from happening again, but then he'd have to reverse the laws of economics.

As it turns out, the NeoCons are the most fiscally-irresponsible of the political ideologies.

[CWOJackson]

Not at all. The LP ran the whole time against Sen. Gorton, then celebrated when they succeeded in electing Sen. Cantwell by a slim margin. The LP's whole purpose wasn't to win an election, it was to teach the Republicans a lesson.

They did. In Washington state it will be a long time before the LP has any credit again.

By the way, one of the side benefits to their self proclaimed victory ended up splitting the Senate in half...and ultimately turning the Senator over to the Democrats.

Like I said, it will be a long time before the LP is listened to in this state again.

[Iris7]

Hey, doggie, there is much that is not "good", as you put it, that I don't like in the world around me. This is true for everyone. You are not seeing something never seen before.

The world is as it is. There are two choices, accepting this or rejecting this. Rejection leads to simplification through violence in politics. Name your killing political regime, they are all part of the "simplification through violence" crowd.

[Maelstrom]

So, if you're not listening, then you won't encourage Republicans to choose more conservative policies or candidates.

Thereby justifying the Libertarians who did this to you: There isn't a dime's difference between your policies and those Democrat policies.

Both expand government, the only difference is the rate of expansion.

[carenot]

I would agree, the NRA is gun-grabbing.

I agree.

[Iris7]

You obviously have decided that the word "conservative" means whatever you say it means. Remember the Red Queen in _Alice_ who said "a word means whatever I say it means, nothing more, and nothing less"? That was just before she started executing everybody in sight.

[CyberCowboy777]

Any libertarian actually thinking of voting Democratic is confused.