Skip to comments.A Return to Triangulation (libertarion vs social right)
Posted on 10/25/2006 11:10:46 AM PDT by Blackirish
As the Republican base fragments and Christian conservatives consider a fast from politics, the polling data point to a mid-term Republican thumping. Less than two weeks from now, Republicans will begin their post-mortem soul searching. And as the corpses of their House and Senate majorities grow cold, so should Karl Roves 2006 campaign strategy.
(Excerpt) Read more at article.nationalreview.com ...
Leave nanny statism to the dims.
Amen, brother. Amen....
You wouldn't know that from Free Republic where the fundies have purged so many conservative-libertarians in their attempts to "purify" the party.
I'm a 'social liberal, political conservative'.
I've argued with many a social conservative here on FR, but I've never felt 'purged' from FR.
It doesn't have to be an 'us v. them' kind of thing.
Maybe because the "conservative-libertarians" go elsewhere by themselves to whine and bitch about a nonexistent theocracy. You can't blame social conservatives for big government conservatism.
"You wouldn't know that from Free Republic where the fundies have purged so many conservative-libertarians in their attempts to "purify" the party.
Aren't you a little new here to be making broad statements like that one?
I didn't say "felt." I meant actually physically banned from posting. Of course you don't hear about bannies complaining -- because they can't. Not here at least.
This article is stupid on many levels. Just one example-why is a libertarian complaining about the refusal to give a government subsidy for research on embryonic stem cells?
Spell check is your friend.
If "libertarian" means it's a-okay to tear babies limb from limb by abortion, and that man marrying man equals many marrying woman, please count me out!
I have a feeling we will be if you come back to FR in about 5 years, but maybe that's just pessimism.
I am a libertarian conservative, and have never been purged or felt unwelcome in any way at FR. But then, I regard other FReepers as worthy of respect despite the differences we may have on the issues. Gentle persuasion, not conflict, is my approach.
And judicial branch of the government ordered moral indifference and unborn child murder is hardly less government. Personal responsiblity has long been dead. No one has to fund their own retirement, educate their own children, pay for the research on or drugs for their sexually-promiscuously acquired venereal diseases, and on and on. Hostility to religion and any kind of moral social structure -- like a nature based, reality based, traditionally based definition of marriage -- has left no one but the government responsible for the disasters people make of their lives. The more responsible you are, the more baggage you have to pick up and carry for the irresponsible.
America gave up on freedom a long time ago.
Most libertarians use natural law as the basis for their political philosophy. Many would oppose abortion for the same reason they oppose the death penalty. They do not believe that the state should ever have the power to take human life. And most libertarians would say that marriage is not a matter for the government to "license" one way or the other. So libertarians are not so different from many religious fundamentalists on these two issues.
Why do I never get these memos?
Both parties are involved in pushing America into hell, both financially and socially. It's only a matter of how fast. Repubs just go a little slower than Dems.
One World Goverment is the goal and America must be destroyed to achieve that end.
It's a conspiracy I tells ya!
"One World Goverment is the goal and America must be destroyed to achieve that end."
I think you will see another 'civil war' before that happens.
One wonders what Dracian's name was the last time he was booted.
There's no reason we can't co-exist. If Union thugs and enviroweenies can co-exist in the Democrap Party then the religious right can co-exist with the "small l" libertarians.
Oops. Forgot to ping you in the message above. Sorry.
Just for disagreeing? Or did they get out of hand?
I hold some positions pretty heretical to Social Conservatives, and have debated them here on FR.
I've never been banned. But I always try my best to be careful not to get personal.
I confess: I am a libertarian-conservative. Do your worst. :-)
I agree completely!
Also important to saving the Pubbies is the spouting of ID/Creationist nonsense, Intelligently Designed to destroy and discredit the Conservative Movement.
Of course all libertarians aren't united in their views, but going with the basic philosophy, abortion is wrong because it is violence against another human being. Gay marriage is solved because the government shouldn't be in the marriage business anyway. Sure, let people do civil unions for tax (although that mostly goes away with a Fair Tax) and other legal purposes, but true marriages (heart and soul under the deity of your choice) are up to the churches, mosques, covens, etc.
The first one's been taken care of. Legal drugs are a consequence of less power to the government and more to the people (with personal responsibility). High taxes, gun banning, restrictions on property rights and expanded federal government are all anathema to libertarians.
Chicken Little, is that you?
That's because it's likely an incorrect number.
It's a bit bogus to say that libertarian principles forbid the death penalty. The government can't execute someone. Okay, but why can the government lock a guy in prison for 50 years and control his private life? If the latter is extreme though okay, the first has to be, too.
Yeah, right. Prove it.
Before I go and read the whole article, I have to know if the definition of triangulation as being between libertarian and the social right is yours or theirs. I always thought that triangulation was Clinton term for threading the needle between the left and the middle, a sort of domestic form of the "Third Way".
"I am a libertarian conservative..."
That means something to you, apparently. But to others, it means little.
For or against illegal immigration?
For or against abortion?
For or against war in Iraq?
For or against Patriot Act?
For or against legalization of drugs?
I think you view is the exact opposite of the reality. I have been here long enough to know the difference.
Many just for disagreeing, and others for "getting out of hand" to a far less degree than the people they were debating (who remain unbanned, and in fact have just gotten worse and more emboldened). On certain topics, there's a very distinct and grossly uneven double-standard, or at least there has been in the past year or so. Prior to that, the mods were a lot more even-handed.
Other biased and unethical stuff has been going on as well, such as repeated removals of someone's Freeper homepage for expressing an opinion contrary to the "party line" (without explanation or notification, even after repeated questions to the management about it), a moderator removing multiple messages that debunked falsehoods written by a good friend of the moderator (on a thread where the moderator was also participating in the discussion as an advocate for the same side under a non-mod screen name), upwards of a dozen people have been banned for no obvious reason at all or explanation, "coincidentally" all from one particiular side of certain issues, an old-time Freeper with thousands of posts under his belt was suddenly banned with the one-word so-called explanation of "Troll", publicly known and announced "sneakbacks" (people who were previously banned but returning under a new screen name) are allowed to remain here as long as they are on the "proper" side of the "party line", etc. etc.
Before about a year ago, all of the moderator decisions made sense to me -- even the times I thought they jumped the gun a bit or took a bit too long to take action, I agreed that things were near that point where action needed to be taken. But within the last year or so, dozens of their actions have prompted a, "what the hell??" reaction from me, as well as from a great number of other longtime Freepers I've discussed it with. Something has very much changed. Either Jim has altered his management style, and he says that he hasn't, or one or more intolerant moderators (who perhaps took on the job a year or so ago) have been pursuing their own personal agenda whenever they think they can get away with it against Freepers with whom they disagree.
Something has gotten way out of whack recently, and it's not good for FreeRepublic, and it's not right.
A significant segment of the Religious Right has not been supporting Republicans for the proper reason - because Republicans will fight for freedom of worship against Democratic legislation that tries to curtail it. Rather, they have stayed on board in the hope that their beliefs would some day be written into law. Thus, there is anger at Bush for not doing enough to advance the social conservative agenda - they want laws passed, not speeches.
The grand coalition is fragmenting a bit.
Apparently, you retread libertrollians have absolutely no regard for private property rights. Zot!
It doesn't mean that.
But you can blame them for confusing small L libertarians from big L Libertarian party members.
Their platform has core values, and everything flows from that. The end results do tend to match the opposite sides on the surface.
For example, drug legalization. Libertarians want it because of the concepts of limited government size and power, freedom of the individual, and individual responsibility ("I was high" becomes an aggravating factor in a crime, not a way to evade responsibility). The concept exists even if a person, like me, is against the use of most recreational drugs (you're not taking my caffeine!).
The leftists just want to get high and be excused from responsibility for anything stupid they may do when high.
It's a big policy difference when you look closer, but most people don't.
The place is marginalizing itself to hell in a bucket. Every science thread now is a snake pit, and it's the people who try to answer the freak show who seem to be on thin ice with the management.
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.