Skip to comments.Here come the 'liberaltarians'?
Posted on 12/25/2006 7:07:01 PM PST by Sunsong
The libertarian vote is up for grabs in a way it may have never been before. A compelling case is being made for the economically conservative yet socially liberal libertarians to switch their political allegiances from Republican to Democrat, a trend that has already begun.
Brink Lindsey, a scholar with the libertarian nonprofit Cato Institute, lays out the reasoning in "Liberaltarians," a provocative essay in The New Republic. He explains that the defining ideology of the American right for the last 50 years has been conservative fusionism, which recognized the common interest in both social and economic conservatives to protect traditional values from the intrusion of big government.
But when social conservatives came to power and started to use big government to impose their cultural vision on others, the libertarian disaffection began.
Libertarian voters were repulsed by the religious right's impulses to deny gays the right to marry and to interfere with Michael Schiavo's decisions about his wife Terri's end of life. Then, when an entirely Republican federal government abandoned any pretense of small government by spending uncontrollably, nation-building in Iraq and replacing science with theology, the trickle became a stream.
(Excerpt) Read more at pittsburghlive.com ...
No we weren't.
The Schiavo thing, though, bunch of 'em defected to the idea of letting husbands just kill their wives.
Not sure that's Libertarianism, but I somewhat suspect they have more than their fair share of divorces.
There are enough libertarians at FR, so I will let them comment. I consider myself a conservative, but turn up libertarian centrist on the little political test. There is no darned way I will ever vote for a Democrat or not vote and allow the vote to go that way. Ever.
Brink Lindsey? Never heard of him/her but if he/she actually believes this horse manure then I will be delighted to forget I ever saw the name.
That's the main issue here. ....not the war on drugs, not nation-building in Iraq, not "replacing science with theology" (a ridiculous/fictional assertion), and certainly not gay marriage and Terri Shiavo.
It's about big gov't spending. .....an issue that all Republicans and Libertarians can agree on. If the GOP goes back to its fiscal conservative roots it wouldn't have to worry much about losing voters to third parties.
Just stay out of our wallets, our gun collections, and our property in general. ....and if you fight wars, fight all-out without concern for "hearts and minds."
...and stop throwing U.S. taxpayer dollars around in the Third World like its Monopoly money.
The thing that stuck in a lot of our craws was the "issues-over-principles" leap a lot of "conservatives" hereabouts took over the Schaivo case. Leaping to use Federal power to influence the outcome of a local matter because you don't like the local outcome isn't a conservative position, IMO.
I've read the arguments on both sides, so save your typing.
George Washington asserted that people naturally migrate to either of two camps - Those who trust governement and those who do not. According to him, you could call them any names you pleased, but when you boiled it down to the root, that's what you had. This is where the "two party system" idea originated. The way he saw it, those were the only two political differences between people and that as long as you had those two parties at war with each other in congress, very little could be accomplished - Which was the idea.
Fast forward to today and we see that the Republicans and Democrats, while to quick to assert the contrary, all belong to the first party. They both believe that government is the answer, what they disagree on is the question, or questions as it were.
There's an awful lot of us out here who belong to the second party - the party of Washington who once said that government was not reason or eloquence, but force - We are those who believe that government is never the answer. It is merely a necessary evil to be boxed up tight - To paraphrase Jefferson: Governments exist to protect the rights of the individual - They have no other function.
It cannot continue in this manner forever.
Yes we were!
So much for principles, those that can switch good and evil at the drop of a poll. How does one triangulate between good and evil, Clinton(spit) like?
Nice smear attack. Do you have evidence of your claim?
Pournelle has an interesting take on that question: http://www.baen.com/chapters/axes.htm. Its a long read, but worth it.
Rather than one axis, he uses two: "Attitude toward the State," and "Attitude toward planned social progress."
I need neither the Right's 'cultural vision' nor the Left's version of the 'vision'. What I need is: a 'constitutional' vision. If neither party will deliver, we're in trouble.
'08 will see Hillary's red flag raised (with hammer and sickle), what shall the Right raise? A white flag? Something with red, white, and blue would be nice for a change.
Note to Liberaltarians (formally known as Libertarians). You have been officially pigeonholed (Soccer Mom'ed) and renamed by the wackos in the Liberal MSM. CONGRATUALTIONS!!!!!
I take it from the discussion, that you are among the camp that believes, "Government is the solution, not the problem!"