GOP in desperate need of libertarian infusion

The Nashua Telegraph, Nashua, NH ^ | 2009-04-30 | Ed Lopez

[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.

[ansel12]

“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.”

---

Libertarian Party Platform:

Throw open the borders completely; only a rare individual (terrorist, disease carrier etc.) can be kept from freedom of movement through “political borders”.

Homosexuals; total freedom in the military, gay marriage, adoption, child custody and everything else.

Abortion; zero restrictions or impediments.

Pornography; no restraint, no restrictions.

Drugs; Meth, Heroin, Crack, anything new that science can come up with, zero restrictions.

Advertising drugs, prostitution, pornography; zero restrictions.

Military Strength; minimal capabilities.

[dirtboy]

Don’t forget the Libertarian platform in 2004 also called for a withdrawal from Iraq. And they nominated Mr. ACLU Bob Barr.

[org.whodat]

Didn't NH just vote to allow queer marriage?

Hint, libertarians support queer marriages!!!

[Constitutionalist Conservative]

By November 2008, the GOP had embraced a nominee

Hardly. He got a plurality of the primary votes, not a majority. The conservative vote was diluted among several other candidates.

I certainly didn't "embrace him". Like someone else observed, I didn't vote for him, I voted for Sarah.

[PreciousLiberty]

“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.”

She won’t be “ready to run”, since the press will have had three more years to turn her into a “divisive” figure. I think any Republican would have to admit that going into the ‘12 election with Sarah as the Presidential candidate would not lead to a secure feeling.

We need a new, “rock star” Republican to emerge that can compete with the 0bama dazzle. It shouldn’t be that way, but that’s what we get in today’s “American Idol” America. Sarah can hang in at VP until she gains a little more ‘gravitas’ and experience. Then, a ways down the road, she should provide two excellent terms as President herself.

[dirtboy]

I might add that just because libertarians favored “deregulation” doesn’t mean that in this instance, “deregulation” was a libertarian philosophy.

I disagree. Greenspan's and Gramm's views regarding regulation of financial markets aligned closely with Libertarian viewpoints regarding little or no regulation.

[djsherin]

***...but AIG was not required to keep adequare reserves against them...***

That’s my point. That isn’t a free market principle as far as I can tell.

Fractional Reserve Banking has pretty much been around for all of America’s existence, even when we were on “gold standards” (arguably they’re not really gold standards if paper money can inflate beyond the gold that backs it up).

But bubbles can form without fractional reserve banking, because fractional reserve banking isn’t the only way to massively increase the money supply and thus fuel rapid speculation. Tulipmania saw a 60% increase in the money supply, and the Bank of Amsterdam didn’t practice fractional reserve banking.

[redbloodredstate]

The libertarian platform is pro-gay marriage (hey, individual rights!), pro-abortion (hey, individual rights!) and pro-drug use (hey, individual rights!). Sounds a lot like, oh I don’t know... a RAT?

We need CONSERVATISM. Not Democrat-Party-Lite and not Godlessness.

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

"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." 43 posted on Thursday, April 30, 2009 11:15:31 AM by WOSG

He had a commitment to conservative principles but was funny with a good sense of humor and people sense. There was a populist side but he won over some Democrats and won blue states. He spoke to the core of American values. He won people over with his jovial sense of humor, wit, and wise-cracking one-liners. Disarming opponents, getting the best of Jimmy Carter and Sam Donaldson with his "there you go again" zingers.

McCain was too wishy-washy. Bending over backwards not to offend liberals. He seemed more alarmed by Obama's critics than by Obama and Obammunism. To paraphrase a famous hillbilly, "He done taken a wrong turn."

There are two main dangers. If they go soft, center-left moderate to appease Dems, they lose the conservative base. If they go too fiscal, running like only corporate CEOs vote, they lose touch with most voters. They have to get back to the center-right fusionist coalition Reagan pulled together - conservatives and libertarians, Reagan Democrats and the middle class. If they don't, they lose again and the Orwellian socialist Big Government Leviathan rolls on. Propped up by the MSM and MSNBC.

[Still Thinking]

I loved how Sphincter in his treason-defense speech blamed the republicans for moving "far to the right" since the days of Reagan. If he can say that with a straight face, the rest of the speech isn't worth listening to, it's all just lies and illogic.

[KoRn]

"Limit the federal governments power in EVERY way possible... no federal mandates on abortion one way or the other, no federal mandates on gayness one way or the other, no federal mandates on drugs one way or the other..."

Amen!! !

[dirtboy]

That’s my point. That isn’t a free market principle as far as I can tell.

I disagree. No one forced AIG and Goldman Sachs to enter into contractual agreements regarding Credit Default Swaps, which are basically a form of insurance. Had Gramm not exempted credit default swaps from regulation, AIG would have been required to have adquate reserves to cover those swaps, the same way State Farm and Allstate and AIG's core insurance business have to carry adequate reserves. That is a principle that pre-dates the creation of the Fed - J.P. Morgan, during financial meltdowns in the early 1900s, would evaluate the books of banks to see which ones could survive and which ones were going down. In this economy, it is too big a matter for one man to evaluate.

[djsherin]

My point was that just because libertarians favor something, that doesn’t make it a libertarian principle. Pyramiding on top of debt is not a libertarian philosophy even if “deregulation” (which is generally libertarian) leads to that. It’s a complicated issue so when most libertarians here “deregulation” they assume it’s good. But like I said, “deregulation” of murder is easy to see and it clearly violates libertarian and free market principles, so even if libertarians favored this “deregulation”, it wouldn’t be a libertarian philosophy.

[djsherin]

No one forces banks to practice fractional reserve banking. That doesn’t make it any less of a free market principle. The government doesn’t have to do it for it to be against the philosophy of a free market. Murder, fraud, and embezzlement aren’t generally practiced by the government but just because people in the private sector do these things doesn’t make it a free market or laissez faire principle.

[Poison Pill]

Conservatism is a three-legged stool — free markets, national defense and traditional values. Abandoning any of the three spells doom for the Republican party.

Abandoning all three leaves you with a wooden disk on the ground. That's where we are now.

[djsherin]

There was also fractional reserve banking prior to that. The country was never on a true gold standard. Artificial money creation was harder when the dollar was tied to gold, but it still happened.

[dirtboy]

Pyramiding on top of debt is not a libertarian philosophy even if “deregulation” (which is generally libertarian) leads to that.

Once again, it all goes back to reserve levels. Even if we had a gold standard, actions such as allowing investment banks to go from 20-1 to 40-1 leveraging against reserves inflated the credit bubble. And allowing banks to purchase credit default swaps in exchange for reserves, without regulations ensuring that the issuer of the credit default swap had adequate reserves itself inflated the bubble as well.

This regulation of the financial sector was being abdicated by the fedgov. And there were absolutely no regulations that I could see regarding ratings agencies, who would stamp AAA on steaming piles of junk bonds. There needed to be periodic audits where the ratings agencies justified their ratings on randomly-selected issues. It wasn't done because of the libertarian/free market notion that businesses would regulate themselves.

[gargoyle]

...30 years in the libertarian party, 11 years on FR, been in conservative purgatory. HELL NO!!!

[dirtboy]

No one forces banks to practice fractional reserve banking.

The point is, it needs to be regulated to ensure adequate reserves. Fractional reserve banking is a natural evolution of the financial sector, and can be quite beneficial if properly maintained and regulated.

[djsherin]

***It wasn’t done because of the libertarian/free market notion that businesses would regulate themselves.***

And I’m saying that isn’t necessarily a free market position. If business were left totally to regulate itself, there would be nothing preventing it from fraud, crime, embezzlement, stealing, violating contracts, repudiating debt, etc. It is free market TO “regulate” all those things, even though that requires government regulation of business.

Laissez faire does not mean that business can do whatever it wants. If the vast majority of libertarians don’t get that because the issue here is complicated, that doesn’t all the sudden change the definition of a free market. Libertarians are so because of their adherence to free market principles, the free market is not so because it adheres to whatever libertarians believe.

***Even if we had a gold standard, actions such as allowing investment banks to go from 20-1 to 40-1 leveraging against reserves inflated the credit bubble.***

On a free market, why would they be leveraged at all?