Skip to comments.GOP in desperate need of libertarian infusion
Posted on 04/30/2009 7:33:36 AM PDT by rabscuttle385
Over a year ago, Mitt Romney was losing primaries to John McCain, and conservative pundits from Ann Coulter to Rush Limbaugh predicted the end of the GOP Coulter went as far as promising she would campaign for Hillary Rodham Clinton if McCain became the party's nominee.
By November 2008, the GOP had embraced a nominee who had considered switching parties twice, had opposed tax cuts, and had failed to advance an aggressive shift in a foreign policy that left the GOP discredited in an area it had always trumped in.
It's not that McCain's willingness to reach across the aisle was condemnable. On the contrary, had McCain been able to do that as a conservative, he would've had more than tepid support from voters.
It also has less to do with the reasons conservatives disagreed with him when they should have found common ground. For example, McCain angered many conservatives when he opposed the federal ban on same-sex marriage.
Here in New Hampshire, congressional candidate Grant Bosse was among the few Republicans who understood the importance of leaving some decisions for adults to make with God and their state, not judges and the federal government.
It's precisely the reasons many couldn't support McCain even conservatives who stuck by their guns and refused to send him to the White House that merit serious reflection.
So far it's difficult to sense the fundamental message shift required for the GOP to make inroads in 2010 and 2012, but it seems no state is better poised to nurture these than the state of New Hampshire.
They key to doing this successfully? Allowing New Hampshire's libertarian spirit to infuse the GOP grassroots and allowing that to spread nationally.
(Excerpt) Read more at nashuatelegraph.com ...
I prefer that the GOP infuses with the Constitution Party!
Agree completely. Be the real party of small government in all its forms. Unfortunately the GOP's proven track record of being the party of big government, huge deficits and welfare state expansion will be hard to escape.
The GOP needs a CONSERVATIVE infusion. Conservatism is a three-legged stool — free markets, national defense and traditional values. Abandoning any of the three spells doom for the Republican party.
The GOP generally offers libertarians nothing but scorn.
But they can't win without libertarians, either.
Embraced? Hardly. If it weren't for Palin, McCain would have had EC numbers in the Mondale zone.
I agree with that. Libertarians have a bunch of stuff that I dislike, and in my experience have no interest in compromising. Of course, I’m hard to please — I’m upset with the Republicans because they compromise too easily with the Democrats, and I’m upset with the Libertarians because they refuse to compromise with Republicans. I’m a curmudgeon.
Some libertarians earn that scorn.
The hell it is!
“Yes” to the title of this article.
Me too. But I just wish the constitution party would get some better economic understanding.
So do I...but whether it is the Constitution or Libertarian Parties that the GOP tries to join forces w/ would be a major improvement to what it is these days.
I agree the GOP needs a “small l” libertarian injection.
The biggest issue is fiscal conservatism and small government.
A true fiscal conservative -— cheap son of a bitch, is almost (almost) always pro-life, etc.
The only thing the GOP needs to do is to run out all the RINOs and faux conservatives. Then the party will regain all the moral authority and principles it once had!
I agree with the general theme of this article. The answer isn’t to move to the “center”, in other words left. The answer is to define real core principles in line with what the 70% of sane people in this country agree with. Glen Beck took a shot at it with his “core principles and beliefs”.
In conjunction with that, the Republican Party has to come back to terms with science. Science is not the enemy, true science tells us about the reality around us. That isn’t to say science is misused _by both sides_ for political purposes, but that is what should stop. In particular, Republicans should ally with reputable scientists to debunk catastrophic anthropogenic global warming as an ongoing process.
Having a robust intellectual basis would do a lot to help the Republican Party at this point. We also need a vigorous, impeccable, and intelligent candidate who isn’t Mitt Romney. ;-)
I’d like to see Sarah go in the VP slot again, with four more years of experience (and hopefully education) under her belt.
Sorry, that should read “isn’t misused”.
The traditional value of America is FREEDOM.
They need to get back to the fusionist coalition of the Reagan era that brought conservatives and libertarians together to roll back federal spending and statist expansionism. But they will need charismatic candidates who can speak coherently and connect with the people. If they replay the disasters of the Bush-Cheney and McCain type, business as usual, statist expansion and adventurism, Obammunism just rolls on.
They will also need to figure out how to pick up some of those Reagan Democrats in a few blue states if they want to win the presidency.
You're forgetting whines and recriminations, especially after they lose a close race by less thant he LP vote total.
Republicans need not support open borders, a weak National Defense, homosexual marriage, lax drug laws, a lack of public decency standards, or any of the other bad ideas that the libertarian party represents.
Let the libertarian party members decide for themselves if they want to infuse the republican party in order to achieve more limited government (which is what conservative republicans want to achieve already) but I am not compromising my conservative principles to attract libertarians.
McCain is a thousand times worse in retrospect.
I admire what you have said here, but the problem is that those who consider traditional values to be one of the legs of the GOP have ignored the fact that our nation has a federal system of government, & instead of leaving the traditional values part to the States (& getting the federal government out of the way) as the 10th Amendment requires, they have turned them into national issues that have increased the size & power of the federal government over the States.
They ended up turning the GOP into a big-government party whose only difference w/ the Dims are the issues that an all-powerful national government should control.
I don't think Republicans need to take advice from NH Liberalterrians.
I disagree to an extent. It was libertarian laisse-faire economic views that played a considerable role in the financial meltdown. What we need is to scale back government where it is a waste but have government where it is needed, such as adequate regulation of derivatives and banking.
Exactly!!!! That needs to be the blueprint.
But a vote for Palin was a vote FOR McCain. HIS name was the 1st name on the ticket, not hers. “Conservatives” who had any principle should have done what I did, & either vote for Pastor Chuck Baldwin (Constitution Party( or Bob Barr (Libertarian Party)....I voted for Baldwin.
The Republican party needs some more time in the wilderness in order to return to its roots and act like a viable entity once again. Unfortunately, a wilderness is all we will have left if they don’t get their stuff together and start presenting a decent alternative to the madness that has been foisted upon this nation!
It's not laisse-faire economic views if the lenders know the Gubbmint is going to bail out bad sub-prime loans
***It was libertarian laisse-faire economic views that played a considerable role in the financial meltdown.***
“The GOP needs a CONSERVATIVE infusion. Conservatism is a three-legged stool free markets, national defense and traditional values. Abandoning any of the three spells doom for the Republican party”
FWIW, there IS a libertarian infusion of the GOP grassroots going on. I was at a meeting of precinct chairs in our county exec meeting, and many new and young precinct chairs were sworn in, several of them are Ron Paul supporting Republicans. The ‘campaign for liberty’ is highly organized here.
It’s a good thing overall. My only concern is that we dont neglect or lose the other aspects/wings of the conservative movement.
As the patriots said in the revolution: UNITE OR DIE.
But that is the argument for anti-trust laws, because once a company gets to be "too big to fail", in essence, it becomes a public trust, even though it is private in name.
- - - - -
I like both of your comments, but how about this:
LIFE...LIBERTY...& THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS
There needs to be basic regulations in place for the financial and insurance sectors to ensure adequate reserves to cover obligations, and to prevent speculators from manipulating commodities markets.
“I agree with that. Libertarians have a bunch of stuff that I dislike, and in my experience have no interest in compromising. Of course, Im hard to please Im upset with the Republicans because they compromise too easily with the Democrats, and Im upset with the Libertarians because they refuse to compromise with Republicans. Im a curmudgeon.”
How do you get independent-minded curmudgeons to work as a team?
How do you herd cats?
Maybe the answer is found in this question:
Why is Obama trying to bankrupt America with $16 trillion in spending over the next 4 years?
If adequate regulations regarding reserves had been maintained and enforced, we wouldn't be looking at bailouts now.
Sarah as VP again? She definitely will be ready to run for ‘12 POTUS, if she really wants it and if the dominating leftists even allow there to be elections in ‘12. Why do you think that many leftists, including the MSM and entertainment world, are still attacking her today? Because they already know that she may possibly be the GOP front runner in ‘12. Sarah continues to take on everything negative associated with Sarah Palin as best as she can, and, so far, she’s doing just fine. I just hope that she also doesn’t eventually become “politically burned out” by the time that the ‘12 election cycle starts up (if, I repeat, if the leftists even allow the ‘12 elections to occur). Leftists, including the MSM and entertainment world, are trying to make Sarah have “political burn out” asap.
It was libertarian laisse-faire economic views that played a considerable role in the financial meltdown.
I strongly disagree:
1) Community Reinvestment Act
2) Ethanol Mandates
3) FED and their 1% interest
.....Just to name a few ways the government stuck it nose into the free market!!!
That is spot on.
All good points. We need to add that Reagan was not a rigid ideologue. He was an ideologue in the best sense - his ideas and principles were his keel, his spine, and he was rock-solid on his core ideals. But he was willing to work with people who didnt agree 100% to get what he wanted and make a positive difference.
We in the grassroots have been too abused by 'sellouts' and as a consequence we risk erring in the other direction, throwing out pragmatic conservatives with the RINO bathwater. In all cases, communicating and articulating the conservative vision and WINNING hearts and minds should be the key.
The author makes the common mistake that allowing gay marriage is the small government thing to do. If we lived in a libertarian society where the government was not involved in rewarding or punishing you based on marital status (taxes, student aid, federal benefits, etc) and was not in the role of forcing businesses to treat people differently based on marital status or sexual behavior than government shouldn’t get involved in a personal or religious decision. But that is not the world we live. Allowing gay marriage is an expansion of this governments power. That is the reason behind the gay rights movement, not to obtain some right to bond with one another but to use the government to force others to reward that bond legally and financially, and to force the government to indoctrinate children with their beliefs through the government school system. They don’t seek a libertarian government that leaves them alone, they seek an activist government that punishes those who do not share their beliefs.
I didn't say that laisse-faire policies were the only culprit. This is not an either/or situation. Like all things this messed up, the feds did way too much of what they shouldn't be doing (Fannie/Freddie/CRA, and creating a credit bubble), and way too little of what they should be doing (ensuring financial institutions have adquate reserves, preventing rampant speculation in commodities markets by those who neither produce nor consume commodities).
Until those on the right grasp that this is not just a Dem-created crisis, we will have little credibility with the voting public.
The trouble between traditional conservatives and libertarians comes from this second set of issues, which are increasingly prominent for libertarians and liberals.
GOP capitulation to lifestyle libertarianism would push traditional conservatives out of the party. That kind of political subtraction is self-defeating -- which is precisely why the claims of lifestyle libertarians against the GOP get such traction in the media.
Here's a better idea: let time and events resolve the problem. When the Obama economic program falters through high taxes, out of control deficits, high unemployment, and the lack of a strong recovery, newly energized economic libertarians and traditional conservatives will ally and make a revitalized GOP majority -- just as they did in 1980.