Posted on 03/19/2010 12:25:37 PM PDT by presidio9
"Freedom" has long been a right-wing rallying cry for self-identified patriots ranging from John Birchers to tea party protesters to increasingly extreme members of the Republican establishment. They're particularly passionate about the freedom to own and openly carry guns and freedom from federal taxation (but not necessarily federal benefits). Otherwise, their most consistent attachments to freedom tend to be rhetorical, unless freedom means restricting reproductive choice, same-sex relationships, medical marijuana, or sexually explicit speech and permitting discrimination against people who do not acknowledge Jesus as their savior. For some prominent conservatives -- like John McCain, Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, and Dick Cheney -- freedom also entails the establishment of a national security state empowered to arrest and imprison summarily people suspected of terrorism and to spy on people suspected of nothing in particular, thanks to a ubiquitous but largely invisible surveillance system.
There are, of course, exceptions to this statism. The CATO Institute, generally associated with the right because of its commitment to free markets, is equally, if less notoriously, committed to civil liberty. CATO is unusual in its consistent libertarianism, which means, however, that (like Reason magazine), it is a creature of neither the right nor the left. A recent CATO report estimates that some 14 percent of Americans also qualify as libertarian, meaning that they're fiscally conservative and socially liberal (although it's unclear if fiscal conservatives who believe "the less government the better" are willing to surrender their own government benefits, from Pell grants to Medicare).
Libertarians are labile voters,
(Excerpt) Read more at theatlantic.com ...
“Acid, amnesty and abortion”—the battle cry of the McGovernites—would make for an appropriate Libertarian slogan.
I don’t wish to debate the merits of an isolationist mentality or what fruits or lack thereof were born of past policys. Personally I strongly reject isolationism. I’m convinced to enough degree standing in the way of baddies even if half successful has strong merits.
What I point out is that libertarians are going up hill and up stream on that matter with the electorate. That isn’t going to change. Just political reality. I don’t see anywhere for them to gain traction frankly.
“The greatest failing of libertarians is in selling what effectively is isolationism.”
BINGO. And too many are simply hedonists or libertines.
I just don’t want to spend my money trying to control morons.
Looks like I picked the wrong decade to innocently sign up on a Conservative website 4 years ago as (small ‘L’) libertarian27.
Note to anyone signing up for a new site - think long and hard what your nickname will be because years later it may come back and bite you.
And people will yell at you thinking you are a dope smoking baby killer anarchist...Aargh
‘C’onservative - ‘l’ibertarian - ‘r’epublican
Maybe I’ll re-sign CLR: (calcium,lime,rust)lol
They only admit it and react to it when their negligence costs them elections. Precisely what many are doing now.
Only by the demagougues and flat out liars here, buddy.
Wear that tag proudly, because you know what it really means!
Small (l)ibertarians are a substantial percentage of the GOP base.
Without them, the GOP: cannot win.
“Will the Right Find Libertarianism?”
Good grief. Let’s hope not. You think the liberal Democrats and socialists are oppressive and antagonistic toward Christians, Jews and others of western faiths. I’ve seen the Liberterian bigotry and antagonism against them—us—right here on Free Republic. Christian and Jewish faith compassion completely contradicts the selfish, self-centered ideology of many or most Libertarians. If forced to choose between the Throw-’em-out-if-they-can’t-pay-their-own-way mentality or the mentality of the Good Samaritan, I choose the Good Samaritan.
“First thing I and most Conservative Christians vote is pro-life....so no...no libertarianism for this Christian.”
I am unaware of a conflict.
The small l libertarian position is generally to revoke Roe v. Wade and return the issue to the states.
Big L libertarians are pro-abortion.
The Roosevelt and Truman administrations who conducted WWII were not conservative. As to Korea, Truman shares most of the blame for the unfinished war, as he halted our advance northward in 1951, when we had the Commies on the run.
JFK, who abandoned the Cubans, was not a conservative, and neither was the Democratic congress that cut off funding for South Vietnam and Laos. The Salvadorean government backed by President Reagan, defeated the Communist rebels. However, you may be right about George Bush's mishandling of the Kurdish uprising in Iraq.
They are the same. Stop trying to polish a turd. That what liberals do when they decide to call themselves "progressive."
I have no idea what the drug culture is like in Isreal. Did you ever live in NYC?
I well know they weren’t. After WWII the conservatives were critical partners with interventionist Democrats. So, they were a team. For win or loss. So, how did it turn out?
Not too well.
Unfortunately, political idealogues of every stripe tend to focus on the motes in the eyes of others.
Ronald Reagan was an exception: "The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally - not a 20 percent traitor."
He also said that, "I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism." That statement places libertarians among Reagan's friends and allies. The party that rejects libertarians is a party that rejects the politics of Ronald Reagan.
You have no idea what you are talking about and continue to spout ignorance.
I have lived in Brooklyn and I have lived in Berkeley while my wife was in college before medical school.
Tel Aviv is not much different; perhaps less because there is drug testing in the military and the draft get essentially all at 18.
I strongly oppose drug use.
I am well aware of what harder drugs do to people and families.
But certain people (regardless of country) are morons and there is little we can do (as a government) to stop them.
Pretty much have to treat it like alcohol: regulate it, tax it, have laws related to dangerious behavior (e.g., driving), but banning just does not work -— it just creates a black market, a scary police force, and costs a bunch of money.
And mind you, I despise druggies (which is a distinction from many libertarians, who are really libertines).
I think drug users are weak and selfish people who are a drag on society and a danger to others.
I am just practical, and think the best solution to the drug abuse is a regulation model more like booze.
When you accuse people of lying, you have to specifically document that lie. Otherwise, you're making a false accusation. I seems to be a favorite tatic of yours: You call people liars without eing able to substantiate. This is called "libel" in our court system. I could sue you for it (and win) if I didn't think you were a complete jackass, and beneath my consideration.
And I’ve proven that pretty concisely in post 30. Care to rebut?
The quote you provided does say what you seem to think it does. It has been thoroughly rebutted directly to you be myself and other FReepers on other threads. Ronald Reagan's presidency adhered to many fiscally conservative principals. Reagan directly opposed the libertarian position on virtually all social issues. It also opposed conservatism on most other issues. The quote you provided is from a 1975 interview published in the leading libertarian magazine. At the time, Reagan was challenging a Republican incubant, and looking for all the votes he could get. He tries as hard as he can to say something nice about libertarianism. In the end, he concedes that there are differnces between Conservatism and Libertarianism, and the he is not a Libertarian.
Now, you know all of this, because we have been over it before. And you have been over it with other FReepers. The fact that you contine to hold out hope for this quote at the salvation on libertarianism, suggests to me that you are at best a bit delusional. Only an idiot could look at Reagan's record and conclude that the man had anything but distain for libertarianism.
I consider myslef to be a smal “l” libertarian, but am completely fed up with people defining libertarianism as fiscally conservative but socially liberal. The notion is that liberals are strong on civil liberty and conservatives are strong on fiscal liberty. I find this simplistic definition to be completley off target. The left are every bit as much of a threat to civil liberty as they are to economic liberty. Much of the P.C. Multicultural agenda is related more to civil issues that fiscal issues. The gun rights issue, speech codes, hate crimes, etc., are all related more to civil liberty than economic liberty. Finally, if one takes the evidence seriously that an unborn child is an independent life, then opposition to abortion is more consistent with the libertarian edict against the use of force and agression than support for abortion is. There is a group called “Libertarians for Life” that makes this argument explicity from a non-religious perspective.
Something Nanny Stater's in both Parties really don't want to let go of...
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.