Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The GOPís Redheaded Stepchildren
redstate.com ^ | November 29th, 2012 | Brookhaven

Posted on 12/03/2012 7:31:09 AM PST by Brookhaven

Every party has its wings–different sub-groups that are part of the larger organization. The Republican party has three wings that the Republican leadership believes is so dangerous to the future of the party, that they tried to suppress their influence in the last election, and pointed fingers at them as the reason for the GOP’s poor showing in the 2012 election cycle.

The Tea Party

It originally sprung up in opposition to out of control government spending. It has become a grass-roots movement centered around government fiscal responsibility. It has a tendancy to work outside the Republican party machinery, which has engendered the wrath of the GOP establishment.

It’s not unusual for a primary candidate to be scorned by the GOP establishment, simply because the candidate is considered a tea partier. Tea partiers felt like they were locked out of the 2012 convention. The GOP is highly critical of any tea party slip ups and magnifies them into major failures. Conversely, the GOP establishment seems to conveniently fail to give the tea party credit for its successes (Marco Rubio for example). It seems as if the GOP establishment now wishes the tea party would just go away.

Social Conservatives

They are concerned about government using its influence to push the country socially to the left. While they get pigeon-holed as the pro-life/pro-traditional-marriage group, in the larger sense they are concerned about government policies that undermine family integrity (such as the welfare state) and an activist judiciary that (1) creates new rights out of thin air that push the country socially to the left, and (2) thwarts any attempt to reign in government social activism.

And, the GOP establishment hates them. They want their votes, but they don’t want them to speak. The aftermath of the 2012 election produced another flood GOP consultants blaming the loss on social conservatives.

Libertarians

You sometimes forget there is a libertarian wing of the Republican party (because it is so loosely tied to the party), but it’s there. When a libertarian leaning candidate emerges (as Paul did in the last primary), you realize how sizeable (and vocal) this group really is. Unfortunately, this group tends to pack up its toys and go home when it doesn’t get its way. Which, is exactly what the GOP establishment wants. If a group can’t be controlled, they would rather it not be part of the GOP. Libertarians (because they are so focused on individual liberty) are the least controllable of all. This is why they (like tea party activists) were shut out of the 2012 convention.

The core philosophy of libertarians is (1) the government should be limited to its constitutional functions, and (2) individual rights trump government and group “rights.” Not that far out there at all, really. Unfortunately, it’s easy to confuse the libertarian messenge with the libertarian messager. Both Ron Paul and the actual Libertarian party are much farther out onto the edge on a host of issues than the typical libertarian leaning Republican, giving many people the impression that libertarian is a code word for wacko. It’s not. It is though, the only wing of the GOP that attracts large numbers of college students and young voters (something conservatives of all stripes should be very aware of; if you can’t pull in young people, your movement will grow old and die).

The GOP establishment sees all three groups as more trouble than they are worth. Hence its constant maneuvering to silence, shut-out, and shut-down all three. But, without these groups, what would the Republican party be left with? Without tea partiers (fiscal conservatives), without social conservatives (family values and judicial restraint), and without libertarians (individual liberty and adherence to the Constitution) what would be left; what would the Republican party become?

The party of business and defense.

Is that enough? Can the GOP survive (much less flourish) emphasizing business and defense, while deemphasizing everything else? Obviously not, but that would seem to be the path the GOP establishment is taking the party down, as it continues to attempt to suppress the influence of the tea party movement, social conservatives, and libertarians.

Maybe it’s time the red-headed stepchildren focus on working with each other, instead or working with the GOP establishment. I’m not sure if this would take the form of another party, or a redheaded coalition within the GOP, but whatever form, it would certainly be more effective than the current situation.

Don’t think the three groups can work together? Social conservatives tend to be fiscal conservatives, which lines up the the tea party. Tea partiers want government to stay within its constitutional bounds, and so do libertarians. Libertarians are concerned about judges who legislate from the bench, as are social conservatives. When you lay it out, the three groups’ goals, they mesh nicely. Not perfectly, but there is a lot of overlap. Enough, certainly, to form a coalition.

Perhaps it’s time the redheaded stepchildren get together and quit being children.

PS

And, for those that think libertarians are inherently pro-abortion, consider that Ron Paul (the libertarian wing’s poster boy from 2012) is pro-life, Bob Barr (the 2008 Libertarian party nominee) is pro-life, and Michal Bardnarik (the 2004 Libertarian party nominee) is pro-life. Support for abortion does not seem to be a litmus test for libertarian thought. Most libertarians believe that Roe v. Wade should be overturned and the matter returned to the state level. A position a significant number of social conservatives also agree with.


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-117 next last

1 posted on 12/03/2012 7:31:15 AM PST by Brookhaven
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Brookhaven

Right off the Libs. They’re just a brain-fart away from voting democrat anyway.

Focus on the Tea Partiers and the SoCons. Find candidates who relate to our majority views. Win Elections.

Its. That. Simple.


2 posted on 12/03/2012 7:34:40 AM PST by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

“The party of business and defense.” WRONG! GOP-e would become JUST the “The party of business(crony Capitalism)” GOP-e has ALWAYS been WEAK on Defense.


3 posted on 12/03/2012 7:38:22 AM PST by US Navy Vet (Go Packers! Go Rockies! Go Boston Bruins! See, I'm "Diverse"!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Brookhaven
Social conservatives tend to be fiscal conservatives

Again, based on the incomprehensible popularity of Huckabee, this assumption should not be taken too far. I think there's a component of moderate/low income rural social conservatives very keen on Big Government farm subsidies, and "Sticking it to the Rich" on taxation.

4 posted on 12/03/2012 7:42:28 AM PST by Strategerist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brookhaven
The GOP establishment sees all three groups as more trouble than they are worth. Hence its constant maneuvering to silence, shut-out, and shut-down all three.

Hence, we know where the transmission cooler lines run under the bus--we've spent that much time under it.

But, without these groups, what would the Republican party be left with? Without tea partiers (fiscal conservatives), without social conservatives (family values and judicial restraint), and without libertarians (individual liberty and adherence to the Constitution) what would be left; what would the Republican party become?

A two-time loser.

If the GOP spent as much time catering to it's base as it does catering to the Left, it might win more often.

5 posted on 12/03/2012 7:46:30 AM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brookhaven
 

And, for those that think libertarians are inherently pro-abortion, consider that Ron Paul (the libertarian wing’s poster boy from 2012) is pro-life, Bob Barr (the 2008 Libertarian party nominee) is pro-life, and Michal Bardnarik (the 2004 Libertarian party nominee) is pro-life. Support for abortion does not seem to be a litmus test for libertarian thought. Most libertarians believe that Roe v. Wade should be overturned and the matter returned to the state level. A position a significant number of social conservatives also agree with.


 

Incorrect. Libs are pro-life maybe on the state level. As far as the federal government? They OPPOSE a Constitutional Amendment endorsing the right to life for unborn Americans. Support for abortion does not seem to be a litmus test for libertarian thought. Heh. That may be true. But support for dangerougs drugs being legalized? Now THAT is a fundamental requirement.

No, as I say... The sooner we dump social liberals from the GOP, the sooner we recover.

6 posted on 12/03/2012 7:50:00 AM PST by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

That sounds like a great idea.
“Right” off the Libertarians. then everyone else you disagree with, then a political party for you. Works every time.


7 posted on 12/03/2012 7:58:25 AM PST by Tupelo (Hunkered down & loading up)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
Focus on the Tea Partiers and the SoCons. Find candidates who relate to our majority views. Win Elections.

There's no evidence there are any more minable votes there - they all pretty much turned out, and Romney still lost. And even if there are more to turn out, the vast majority are in states Republicans win easily anyway.

Still waiting for the final certified election numbers but, relative to 2008 and 2004, the area Romney did best was the Bible Belt South.

8 posted on 12/03/2012 7:59:05 AM PST by Strategerist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tupelo

I don’t think he meant libertarians when he said “libs”.

I think he meant the “moderates” who are halfast socialists anyway.


9 posted on 12/03/2012 8:00:19 AM PST by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

I love how so many of you guys “write off” (check your spelling) Libertarians right away because we don’t walk in lockstep with the religious side of the Conservative movement.

Libertarians weigh each issue with the simple question, does this infringe on personal freedoms?

What that means is, does this law/action infringe on the rights or freedoms of another, does it place a burden on another member of society other than the burden of non-interference (meaning your only burden is to ignore it).

When the answer is yes, we’re against such laws, such as gay marriage laws (I’m going to catch hell just for using that term on here as an example), it’s not that we support it, we just look at it from the individual freedom standpoint, it doesn’t infringe on our rights or freedoms and doesn’t place a burden on society other than having to ignore it, so it’s something that Social/Religious Conservatives and Libertarians aren’t going to agree on.

Now, in other areas Libertarians and Conservatives are in agreement, we want smaller limited government, we don’t believe in federal regulation of areas that it doesn’t have the Constitutional authority to interfere in, those matters should always be left to the states.

We also believe in a strong military, the Federal Government has that responsibility, we just don’t believe in a wasteful military, we don’t need as many bases around to world as we have, in those areas we should have agreements in place with various countries to use their facilities when need be, we really don’t need so many bases in Europe as an example.

Also, believe it or not, many Libertarians are Pro-Life, since we believe all people’s rights should be protected, even the unborn.

Our fundamental belief if individual freedom, people should be free to do as they choose as long as their actions are peaceful and don’t infringe on the rights and freedoms of another, we just don’t support anyone, be it Conservatives or Liberals, using the force of government to push their own personal beliefs.


10 posted on 12/03/2012 8:00:31 AM PST by gjones77
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tupelo

The libertarian vote was pretty significant in 2012 (much larger than in 2008), they’ll help more in swing states than the other groups, and again unlike the other groups they aren’t already voting Republican.


11 posted on 12/03/2012 8:02:25 AM PST by Strategerist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Brookhaven

I think the Tea Partiers and Libertarians have the most in common. The Libertarians include the property rights folks, as do the TPs. The social cons are more in the left wing camp. I have found that many support big government social programs. They also tend to want to legislate their brand of morality and social norms on everyone else. This is incompatible with the right of the individual from regulation, which is what the Libertarians espouse.


12 posted on 12/03/2012 8:08:37 AM PST by marsh2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brookhaven

13 posted on 12/03/2012 8:11:30 AM PST by Jeff Chandler (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpAOwJvTOio)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brookhaven

The GOP has stumbled into the elephant graveyard. The problem is that it doesn’t know - or believe - that it is dead. Memo to Boehner, et. al.: Give it up, you are irrelevant.

With all the people the GOP-e doesn’t want in the party, what’s left would be smaller than a Joe Biteme crowd of pro-life people.


14 posted on 12/03/2012 8:12:43 AM PST by NTHockey (Rules of engagement #1: Take no prisoners)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brookhaven

“The Republican party has three wings that the Republican leadership believes is so dangerous to the future of the party...”

The No. 1 enemy to the GOP is RINOs. It’s time to throw them out.


15 posted on 12/03/2012 8:17:00 AM PST by sergeantdave (The FBI has declared war on the Marine Corps)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brookhaven

The Geriatric Old Plotters are to conservatism and liberty what Vidkun Quisling was to Norwegian national defense.


16 posted on 12/03/2012 8:21:48 AM PST by Psalm 144 (Not so "commanding", not so "inevitable".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

Libertarians have put some hard line liberal democrats in office to the detriment of their own cause.


17 posted on 12/03/2012 8:25:09 AM PST by Baynative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: sergeantdave

“The No. 1 enemy to the GOP is RINOs. It’s time to throw them out.”

What you call a RINO is the default setting for Republican leadership. Northern, progressive, elitist and now transnationals. The old Rockefeller Republicans, now seen in the Bush family and Romney.

Remember the rules changes during the convention? They ARE the GOP. They are not going to be displaced. They need to be simply abandoned.


18 posted on 12/03/2012 8:26:58 AM PST by Psalm 144 (Not so "commanding", not so "inevitable".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Tupelo

Thanks. I kept looking at that word “Right”. I knew “write” away there was something wrong with it

I obviously mis-spelled the word. I should have said “Rite off the Libs....”


19 posted on 12/03/2012 8:35:19 AM PST by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: All
Well, Given that Conservatives and (small L) libertarians are the real RINOs now that the Republican Party has moved so far left, I propose a new acronym for the liberals and squishes that run the Party now…

Democrats In All But Label Only.

Or DIABLOs for short.

20 posted on 12/03/2012 8:36:22 AM PST by LegendHasIt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrB

No, I DEFINITELY meant Libertarians. See tagline.

I can stand moderates. Just can’t stand libertarians.


21 posted on 12/03/2012 8:37:12 AM PST by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: marsh2

Actually the social conservatives are the most right wing of all voters without question, just as social liberals are the most left wing, without question, the libertarians, as few as they are, can be democrat or republican, but the party that uses libertarianism for it’s platform, is hard left on everything but money issues.

The tea party is made up mostly of social conservatives, not social liberals.


22 posted on 12/03/2012 8:38:01 AM PST by ansel12 (The only Senate seat GOP pick up was the Palin endorsed Deb Fischer's successful run in Nebraska)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Brookhaven

Absolutely! I just sent this to Saxby Chambliss. I have written numerous letters to get a form letter response. I told him that I was sick of these letters that usually have LITTLE, if any true response to the issue of concern. I’ve already told him that I would work to defeat him in the primary if he voted for tax hikes, as he has indicated he was willing to do.


23 posted on 12/03/2012 8:43:33 AM PST by Shery (in APO Land)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: US Navy Vet

“The party of business and defense.”

Actually the GOP has lost big business and the crony multinational capitalists. The Fortune 500 executive suite occupants and the Wall Street bankers are voting for Democrats and supporting Democrats with their wallets and their votes. The GOP business support comes from small to medium size businesses. Unfortunately for the GOP those small business owners are also social conservatives and libertarians. They know the Democrats will act against business interests so they support the Republican Party because it pretends to represent the interests. This support is given only because they have no alternative, not because they are particularly pleased with the party’s representation of their interests.

Democrats will over time capture the small businessmen with political perks and favors, or outright coercion, to make them dependent just as they have captured the support of the multinational corporations through tax loopholes and regulatory coercion. Look at what happened during the auto bailout. Auto dealerships owned by Republicans had their franchises arbitrarily taken away by the federal government. This was a warning to other small businesses. Toe the line or we will use the power of the government to destroy your business. The IRS, OSHA, EPA, EEOC, and other agencies will apply pressure to businesses owned by Republicans over the next four years. The unstated message will be, support the Democrat Party or pay the price. This is Chicago politics. No individual small business will have the resources to oppose the power of the federal government. They will fall in line and pay their tribute or go out of business. It is only a matter of time.

Who then will fund the coffers of the Republican Party?


24 posted on 12/03/2012 8:44:32 AM PST by Soul of the South
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Brookhaven

It’s dead Jim.


25 posted on 12/03/2012 8:48:10 AM PST by x_plus_one
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
No, I DEFINITELY meant Libertarians. See tagline.

I can stand moderates. Just can’t stand libertarians.

Because the country would collapse if people could buy a drink on Sunday, smoke in a bar, own more than one liquor store or distill their own whiskey.

The moderates are *far* better, since they just want to spend more than the government brings in, take away your right to your personal property, require you to send your children to state run education camps (public schools), increase taxes and increase the size of government.

I'm so glad that there are people like you who can really see which issues are critical for the survival of our republic.

26 posted on 12/03/2012 8:52:01 AM PST by cizinec ("Brother, your best friend ain't your Momma, it's the Field Artillery.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Brookhaven

The biggest obstacle in the Kulturkampf with the socialist left is NOT the Demcorat Party. Its the elites in the GOP.

Its time to cut ties with these people.


27 posted on 12/03/2012 8:54:00 AM PST by ZULU (See video: http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-first-siege-of-vienna.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brookhaven

The GOPe’s opposition to the tea party is purely ideological. The GOPe are mostly big government fachists. Their philosopy is antithetical to Tea Party beliefs.

The GOPe actually has more in commeon with the democrats.


28 posted on 12/03/2012 9:01:15 AM PST by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gjones77
I love how so many of you guys “write off” (check your spelling) Libertarians right away because we don’t walk in lockstep with the religious side of the Conservative movement.

Libertarians weigh each issue with the simple question, does this infringe on personal freedoms?

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

Because you are at odds with Christian conservatives, we find your fiscal, economic, military policies and values are suspect also. Case in point? Your liberal pro-dope agenda. That is a deal-breaker for SoCons.

Sorry to infringe on your personal freedom to destroy yourself. But I will not apologize or back down from my approval of the WOD.

29 posted on 12/03/2012 9:01:34 AM PST by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

Fascist.


30 posted on 12/03/2012 9:03:44 AM PST by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist

I think it’s fairer to call it a populist bent rather than a liberal one, but (as a practical matter) it does lead to more support for big government programs than they typical tea partier would be comfortable with. But, to be fair, the typical conservative today would be considered a flaming left wing liberal by most of the founding fathers.

Also, all three groups wear some blinders when it comes to their own candidates. Far too many people (in all three groups) live in their own political bubble. Often supporting candidates that have an aspect that makes them unacceptable to other factions (Santorum’s big spending and open antipathy towards the tea party, Paul’s foreign policy, Cain’s lack of experience).

There’s a difference between compromising your principles and finding common points of emphasis. Libertarians aren’t going to support a constitutional amendment to ban abortion, but the removal of activist judges is an issue both libertarians and social conservatives can agree on.


31 posted on 12/03/2012 9:06:15 AM PST by Brookhaven (theconservativehand.com - alt2p.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: gjones77

Libertarians are ok with a liquor store opening up next to a high school and a legal brothel across the street.


32 posted on 12/03/2012 9:09:39 AM PST by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: cizinec
The moderates are *far* better, since they just want to spend more than the government brings in, take away your right to your personal property, require you to send your children to state run education camps (public schools), increase taxes and increase the size of government.

 

I don't like this standard. Not at all. But it is the only option we have. Now. Do you want politicians who believe this and are radical leftists trying to Fluke America with abortions, gays in the military, and a Socialist state?

Or do you want a SoCon with values and beliefs that you can trust who will work against the status quo we now have politically?

33 posted on 12/03/2012 9:12:43 AM PST by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: DManA

lolol

Is that the best you do do? Go ahead. Call me more names. You have my permission.

After all. I’m a while male Christian conservative. I’m used to it.

Even on a supposedly conservative site like Free Republic.


34 posted on 12/03/2012 9:15:55 AM PST by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: gjones77
When the answer is yes, we’re against such laws, such as gay marriage laws (I’m going to catch hell just for using that term on here as an example), it’s not that we support it, we just look at it from the individual freedom standpoint, it doesn’t infringe on our rights or freedoms and doesn’t place a burden on society other than having to ignore it, so it’s something that Social/Religious Conservatives and Libertarians aren’t going to agree on.

Here you're wrong. Gay 'marriage' does infringe on others' rights, and marriage has a lot of legal and financial implications that obligate other people. Health insurance, for instance.

I don't care what gays call it; I don't care what private arrangements they want to make among themselves as to hospital visitation, inheritance, etc. I am opposed to being forced to recognize it as a valid marriage, and I am opposed to gay adoption because it does harm others, namely the children

But they are perfectly free to spit in the face of God, if that is their choice. If He allows, who are we to forbid it? Just don't call it marriage.

35 posted on 12/03/2012 9:17:03 AM PST by chesley (Vast deserts of political ignorance makes liberalism possible - James Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

while = white


36 posted on 12/03/2012 9:17:09 AM PST by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

Mister we could use a man like Mussolini again

C’MON! EVERYONE!!


37 posted on 12/03/2012 9:20:26 AM PST by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: central_va

“Libertarians are ok with a liquor store opening up next to a high school and a legal brothel across the street.”

Capital-L (meaning Libertarian party members) are. Small-l (libertarian leaning Republicans) are not.

What I keep seeing in this thread are examples of conservatives (be it tea partiers, social cons, or libertarians) that live in their own bubble, and consequently only see the other groups through stereotypes.


38 posted on 12/03/2012 9:22:16 AM PST by Brookhaven (theconservativehand.com - alt2p.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Brookhaven

Libertarianism would work if everyone was born 30 years old with a fully formed brain and was a functioning adult. Unfortunately, to raise a child in a libertarian society is is hell on earth.


39 posted on 12/03/2012 9:33:20 AM PST by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Brookhaven

“What I keep seeing in this thread are examples of conservatives (be it tea partiers, social cons, or libertarians) that live in their own bubble, and consequently only see the other groups through stereotypes.”

It happens every single time.


40 posted on 12/03/2012 9:39:06 AM PST by Psalm 144 (Not so "commanding", not so "inevitable".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: gjones77

I used to be an active Republican back in the days when Republicans said stuff like, “libertarianism is the heart and soul of conservatism” and “I’m a small ‘l’ libertarian and a capital ‘R’ Republican”.

I used to contribute to campaigns and get out the vote for Republicans. But no more. I’ll vote for Republicans sometimes, but they’ll never get more than that from me.

Libertarians - even libertarians who are conservative in their own personal life but do not want to use big government to oppress other lifestyles — are not welcome in today’s GOP.

Today’s GOP favors big government just as much as the Democrats. Medicare Part D, NCLB, DHS, TSA, TARP, and hellhole nation-building are a few examples. The two major parties differ in priorities, but agree that big government is the way to accomplish their ends.


41 posted on 12/03/2012 9:39:56 AM PST by Skepolitic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: central_va

As long as state laws allow it then so be it.

It’s not that we think they should or not, state laws already restrict such actions and we’re actually fine with that since it doesn’t infringe on their rights, there are various zoning regulations to prevent that and Libertarians are fine with that.

That’s always the defense your type brings up, take something to the illogical extreme and throw up a straw man argument.

You really have no understanding of the Libertarian movement if you really think that way.


42 posted on 12/03/2012 10:08:29 AM PST by gjones77
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

And as Libertarians we find your stated belief in freedom and limited government suspect since you’re so willing to use the force of government to make others act as you think they should.

See, we can both play this game...


43 posted on 12/03/2012 10:10:22 AM PST by gjones77
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: chesley

Tell me the right that gay marriage infringes on?

As for the other stated issues you have with it, that’s strictly a financial in the sense that married couples get tax breaks.

So no, it doesn’t infringe on your rights, you may think so because y9ou’re against it, that’s fine, you’re entitled to your opinion, just not your own facts.


44 posted on 12/03/2012 10:13:45 AM PST by gjones77
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: gjones77

I made a case in point against libertarians with your liberal pro-dope agenda.

Now. You give me an example of how SoCons have been successful in using the “force of government to make others act as you think they should.”

Here. I’ll make it easy for you: We support a public display on public property of the Nativity Scene.

(You may commence freaking out now.)


45 posted on 12/03/2012 10:19:39 AM PST by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd; marsh2

“Focus on the Tea Partiers and the SoCons...” - Responsibility2nd

“I think the Tea Partiers and Libertarians have the most in common.” - marsh2

It’s ironic how different people see things so differently. But, it’s just another example of living inside your own bubble.

I was a hard-core capital-L libertarian in my youth. As I grew older (and experienced) I became a Reagan style fiscal conservative and a social conservative. And, I was one of the early “members” of the tea party. I feel like I’ve got a foot in all three camps. Which is why I think there is a lot of common ground between all three (including between social conservatives and libertarians).

But, there is a lot of uncommon ground as well.

Responsibility2nd, any proposal that expands the authority of the FEDERAL government is going to be a non-starter with at least 1/2 of all tea partiers. If support of a constitutional amendment to ban abortion is a limit test to work with you, then be prepared to be living with the status-quo for a long, long time (as in forever). There is no conservative majority (or even plurality) that revolves around any idea that expands the reach of the federal government.

marsh2, the other side of this coin is that a significant percentage of tea partiers (perhaps even a majority) are social conservatives. They may not want to expand the federal role on social issues, but they also don’t want to ignore social issues. An alliance that only libertarians and non-social-issue tea pariters would be about as effective as the Libertarian party (and honestly, not a whole lot bigger).

I’m probably one of the few people who believe libertarians and social conservatives actually have a lot in common politically.

The Defense of Marriage Act (no state can be forced to recognize another state’s definition of marriage).

Parental rights (parents have the right to raise their children as they wish, including the right to determine if their child has an abortion).

School choice (the government should not have a monopoly on education; vouchers, home-schooling, etc...)

Activist judges (judges should not be making laws from the bench; much of the “liberalizing” of the law when it comes to social issues has come from the bench, not via elected officials; also it has been activist judges that have blocked state bans on things like partial-birth abortion and gay marriage)

Roe v Wade (should be overturned and the issue returned to the states; a significant percentage of social conservatives see returning this issue to the states as the most practical route to eliminating abortion).

Now libertarians and social conservatives would support these issues for very different reasons. But, the fact is, they would both support them.

There is a lot of commonality between the groups, if they focus on the common areas.


46 posted on 12/03/2012 10:35:22 AM PST by Brookhaven (theconservativehand.com - alt2p.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

“Here. I’ll make it easy for you: We support a public display on public property of the Nativity Scene.”

The libertarian position on this is: that just fine, as long as other religions can also set up a display during one of their religious holidays.

I think you may have an inaccurate idea of what really constitutes libertarian thought.


47 posted on 12/03/2012 10:43:12 AM PST by Brookhaven (theconservativehand.com - alt2p.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: central_va
Libertarianism would work if everyone was born 30 years old with a fully formed brain and was a functioning adult. Unfortunately, to raise a child in a libertarian society is is hell on earth.

You do realize that if any of the founding fathers came back today, they would probably be considered small-l libertarians. Not as far out there are the official Libertarian party, buy way, way, way (way) to the right of today's typical conservative.

The Federalist Papers (and anti-federalist papers, written by people like Patrick Henry who opposed ratifying the Constitution) really sheds a lot of light on how the founders thought. If you think raising a child in a "libertarian society" would be "hell," then you think raising a child in the society envisioned by our founders would be "hell" as well. Because, the society envisioned by the founding fathers (when it comes to the role of government) is a libertarian society.

48 posted on 12/03/2012 10:53:50 AM PST by Brookhaven (theconservativehand.com - alt2p.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: gjones77
Well, then. Let’s say that I’m a small business owner. I buy insurance for my employees and their families. Now, I am forced to buy for gay couples, against my religious views.

You too are entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts.

But the real problem is that it is part of a broader agenda, to normalize homosexuality. I give you Canada and their suppression of free speech for an example. do some research.

And as part of an agenda, any specific idea, by itself, might not be so bad. But taken together unopposed, they will steamroller not just social conservatives, but libertarians, too.

But live in your dream world.

49 posted on 12/03/2012 10:54:52 AM PST by chesley (Vast deserts of political ignorance makes liberalism possible - James Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Brookhaven

Responsibility2nd, any proposal that expands the authority of the FEDERAL government is going to be a non-starter with at least 1/2 of all tea partiers. If support of a constitutional amendment to ban abortion is a limit test to work with you, then be prepared to be living with the status-quo for a long, long time (as in forever). There is no conservative majority (or even plurality) that revolves around any idea that expands the reach of the federal government.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Socons aren’t interested in expanding the “authority of the FEDERAL government”, inasmuch as we want to RESTORE it.

You may or not be right with the Tea Partiers bing 50/50 on our proposal to Constutionally ban abortion. But then... the Tea Party is obsolete.

You seem to place a lot of emphasis on the Tea Party’s place in the GOP. Sorry, but that was never true, and this election confimred that.

(I say this even though I enthusiastically voted for Ted Cruz - who is a stand-out favorite among Tea Partiers - and I am on board with many Tea Party platforms, but their overall effectiveness is gone.)


50 posted on 12/03/2012 10:56:08 AM PST by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-117 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson