Posted on 08/01/2013 9:28:50 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd
Way back in 1975, a Republican agitator named Ronald Reagan had this to say about an esoteric young movement that was roiling politics: “If you analyze it, I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.”
Neither the GOP old guard nor the rowdy libertarians ever quite bought that argument.
They both lay claim to the same conservative economic philosophy. But libertarians are more isolationist and antiwar than Republican orthodoxy allows on foreign policy and more permissive on social issues.
Still, in the nearly four decades since Reagan made those comments, the two have managed — at least most of the time — to maintain an uneasy marriage of expedience.
Libertarianism once again appears to be on the rise, particularly among the young. But its alliance with the Republican establishment is fraying, as demonstrated by the increasingly personal war of words between two leading potential 2016 presidential contenders.
The sparring began last week, when New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) posited: “As a former prosecutor who was appointed by President George W. Bush on Sept. 10, 2001, I just want us to be really cautious, because this strain of libertarianism that’s going through both parties right now and making big headlines, I think, is a very dangerous thought.”
After Christie made it clear that he was referring to Rand Paul, the Senate’s leading critic of the National Security Agency and its surveillance programs, the Kentucky Republican fired back on his Twitter account: “Christie worries about the dangers of freedom. I worry about the danger of losing that freedom. Spying without warrants is unconstitutional.”
Their feud — which is being watched closely as a possible warmup round for 2016 — has continued, expanded and spilled over into other issues.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Libertarians today are NOTHING like the ideal Reagan had in mind. Liberals corrupted the libertarian agenda.
With that in mind - does Rand Paul have a chance at redefining the libertarian agenda that has been bastardized by his own father?
Its a good article folks. Worth a clickie.
Oh. I forgot. Tagline does not show up until after reply 1.
Also... I’ll post those comments Reagan made that clarified his position on liberaltarianism.
“I think that, like in any political movement, there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy,” Reagan said in that same 1975 interview with the libertarian magazine Reason.
The word “libertarian” is being used derogatorily across the media. We’ll be seeing a lot of it going forward as they attempt to associate libertarianism with kookery as they have conservatism.
You have to understand that this was an “early” Reagan quote (though he was a two term governor of CA by then), and he said this to a (L)libertarian audience (so, I guess he was lying), and he went on to disagree with the Libertarian Party over what he called “gray areas”, and this was isolated (meaning Reagan was lying or something), and other stuff. I’ll need a lobotomy to finish explaining how Reagan was adamantly opposed to all that can be called “libertarian”. Reagan hated Friedman, Hayek, Von Mises, Rothbard, et al. Right?
IMO they are going to become the official opposition the way things are going.
Not necessarily a good thing if like me you’re pro-life and don’t think drug legalization would be a positive.
So someone who hates Libertarians is defining for us what a Libertarians really should be and what he thought Reagan really meant?
Wait, I’m out of popcorn. I’ll be back.
I will support candidates who are fiscally Conservative and socially Conservative. And whether I am consistent on that or not -- no matter what I do -- I do not think electoral politics matters in the foreseeable future. Nothing will change until after the war and, yeah, that's coming.
Yeah, this one will be entertaining. As one of the site’s token libertarians (please note the lower case “l”, haters) I’ll throw out the next bit of red meat and tell the conservatives here that if you want to overcome the demographics challenge in front of you, you’re at least going to need the libertarians to negotiate with the anarchists for you.
The media and democrats will use the split, and it appears
GOP candidates are only too happy to assist them.
Reagan was a great force, and his party unified under his leadership.
Reagan understood the balance between principle and pragmatism, to win and govern.
So someone who hates Libertarians is defining for us what a Libertarians really should be and what he thought Reagan really meant?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yep. I’m good that way. I can explain anything.
(lol)
The number of small l libertarians is larger than most believe.
Sarah Palin warned against dissing us. Can the republicrats win an election without us? Time will tell....
Libertarianism needs to go away and go away NOW. Start a 3rd Party, join the Dims, I don’t care. I’m as likely to vote for ODumbo as I am a Libertarian.
1) I can take a pragmatic approach and form a political coalition. I can make deals with Libertarians, business owners, certain minority groups, and certain social activists. I can cobble together enough votes to win a political election and achieve power.
I can do that by being pragmatic -- but will my hands be too tied to govern effectively? What kind of deals did I really have to make?
2) I can make political decisions and exert political authority in pragmatic ways to help the nation. I cut cut spendign where it needs to be cut. I can eliminate stupid regulations. I can avoid $1T deficits. I can keep us out of expensive foreign nation-building adventures. I can do the things that are necessary.
I can do that by being pragmatic -- but could someone like that get elected? Too many stakeholders would turn up their nose: "What's in it for me?" And then the votes aren't there.
I think electoral politics is dead because the people who can govern in a pragmatic way cannot get elected, and the people who can get elected cannot govern in a pragmatic way. We end up with 2 choices: George W Bush or Barack Obama. They got elected, and they made choices that have hurt the country. The men are different in many ways, but each in his own way lacked the ability to make the hard choices. All they could really manage to do was win the election.
And that's why we're screwed.
They may have to have their asses handed to them at the polls a couple more times for it to sink in. Maybe an 8 year run of hillary in the white house will get their attention. It’s not like we get treated any worse by the dems than the GOP.
Thanks for reinforcing my point one post after mine. I have done exactly as you wish. I switched from republicrat to libertarian when Romney was nominated, and voted for my new party. How did 2012 work out for y’all? Remember, you just demanded we leave.
Can the republicrats win an election without us?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No, the question is... Can the republicrats win an election by appeasing us? (libertarians)
And the answer is No.
A quote about economic commonality from a 1975 interview from the conservative candidate speaking to a small libertarian magazine, purely for a libertarian audience, and minutes before he switches to telling the libertarians how much he disagrees with them on social issues and national defense?
The only difference between a libertarian and a conservative is Libertarians are very strict about the separation of church and state and want pot legalized. Otherwise they are the same thing. That is what needs to be discussed within the party. I know it's hard for some conservatives to want to detach religion from government ,but that is the only compromise that needs to to be made in order to grow the base. When it comes to gay marriage most educated Libertarians believe the government should have no involvement in marriage and should be determined by just the religious institutions. Over the past 5 years I feel conservatives and libertarians have come so close that they could almost outnumber the GOP supporters in the general population. Conservatives finally agree our youth shouldn't be thrown in jail with rapists, murders, cocaine dealers, meth heads, gangsters, and other monsters for smoking some pot.
All these ideas that Libertarians are whack jobs is strictly something cooked up by the GOP,Liberals, and of course the mainstream media in the United States alone.
The way Libertarians are viewed outside the US is pretty much the way Libertarians view themselves:
Americans are gradually switching to international news sources to get the news as most American News have lost their credibility over the lies spread over the past year. I feel a streak of Libertarianism is what the world needs.
Reagan was no libertarian, see post 17, Reagan is no mystery to many of his here, and a single throwaway line to a libertarian audience during a campaign does not rewrite history and facts, nor the rest of that isolated, lonely interview itself.
Especially in light of his strong anti-RKBA stance.
Liberals corrupted the libertarian agenda.
Agreed. Which is why I am in no way affiliated with the National Party. Nor will I be until the Truther/anti-war/Doper hippy wanna-be, liberTINES are ousted.
IOW... I'd rather the TEA Party form up as an actual political Party to do to the wayward GOPe what the GOP did to the Whigs.
full disclosure: this is my own novel political analysis and theory of libertarianism (however, for me it has so far predicted their actions with precision):
libertarians are usefully described as leftists who despise the big-government control so loved by their leftist compatriots. their frustrated failure to convince their fellow leftists of the obviousness of their position, drives them away from the left and into limbo.
they don’t like the limbo the find themselves in so they make common cause with “conservative” republicans in order to find outlets for their leftist desires for political power and control. their problem in the republican party, however, is the existence of conservatism. they are equally repelled by that conservatism and it’s belief and American exceptionalism and the rule of law based for governing the civil society based on the Bible.
thus they must root out conservatism in the republican party inorder to take it over for libertarian purposes.
so this leads to the following conclusions:
libertarians are at the heart of the so called know-it-all “moderates,” that the conservative media finds so hard to understand.
that in a nutshell is why you see libertarians slowly replacing conservatives in the republican party, which is slowly absorbing the libertarian agenda, replacing the conservative platform of the traditional republican party, and it is also why you see the actions of so called “rinos” winning the day in that party.
Ron Paul or Christie on the nomination ballot. Who do you choose?
Does socially conservative mean keeping the Feds out of the social arena or continuing the usurpation of the 10th Amendment—with “conservatives” in the driver’s seat?
Under our current system, splitting a party is paramount to suicide. Continuing petty strawman politics is the same. Do you really think that the worst “big L” libertarian would have come close to approaching the disaster that has been foisted upon this country? The last 20+ years was not the fault of libertarians of any stripe...
I am not a big or little L libertarian; I am just tired of people with logs in their eyes stumbling around looking for motes. Yeah the war is coming, and when it’s here, you can tell your children how you were so worried about drug legalization. In the end, those very drugs may come in handy when you are performing surgery in your kitchen…
I do not recall asking to be "appeased". I have no wish to be catered to. What I insist upon is common courtesy. Open hatred of allies who agree with 80% of the issues being debated is not real smart.
Unless we stop the growth of government nothing else matters. Libertarians and Republicans used to agree on fiscal issues. I believe we can form a cordial coalition to reduce the size and scope of government.
Can republicans play along, or is losing elections while feeling better more important?
Yes, because you guys have so many other options to get more votes.
L4L.org.
As for drugs, end the welfare state and re-enforce RKBA and the problems associated with our current drug culture go away.
You are welcome...
No one changed the party.
Care to list those changes or reversals, in the platform?
We sure do. And his name is Ted Cruz.
(You can keep Rand/Ron Paul)
Free markets, real private property Rights, RKBA, free speech, freedom OF religion, low/no taxes, no welfare State, Constitutionally limited FedGov...
sarc Yeah... We HATE all that... /sarc
Why do you think the Republican party* wants amnesty?
It's precisely because they are Statists, believing even as the Democrats do that the Government should be above all. (Look at how non-statists like Cruz are treated within the 'club'.)
* As a party, national-level.
Yeah... No. McCain is a moderate and is in no way a libertarian.
Ask a libertarian if they think it'd be ok to buy a full auto machine gun from Walmart without having to fill out one scrap of government paperwork.
Those that are ok with the idea are the real libertarians. The rest are just liberals that want to get high.
Please, don’t try. The GOP plantation has their own field workers, as much as the DEMS. Being more of a Libertarian myself, you’d think I was the anti-Christ himself.
It’s those of us with a (L) bent (lower/upper makes no difference here) that realize we’re smart enough to know we DON’T have all the answers, and thus allow the rest to live their life as they see fit. Rarely will you see anything from the GOP side of things that champion Freedom or Liberty, let alone find its basis in the Constitution.
But, it’s the (L) whom have ruined, RUINED I say, the Conservative/Republican brand.
Boggles my mind.
You and I have said all we are going to to each other.
Troll elsewhere.
After that is achieved (and I won't expect 100% achievement) then legalizing drugs is probably OK. Drug abuse will take care of itself -- if you can take drugs and function just fine, why is that a problem for me?? It's not my business. If you take drugs, cannot support yourself, and end up committing crimes, then perhaps an armed population would mitigate that.
I want a polite, responsible society that can support itself. I have no firm expectation that drugs cannot be part of that. But one of my issues with Libertarians is that -- at least some of them -- think that legalizing the drugs is step one of the process, and that is irresponsible.
I could not disagree with you more. Libertarians are not moderates masquerading as Republicans.
I believe in freedom and individual rights. Charts call me a conservative/libertarian. I believe in small tiny government and open borders. I believe the Bill Of Rights is the single greatest vehicle to freedom ever conceived. I believe the goal of America should be to spread the Bill Of Rights to every corner of the planet
I believe in the rights of individuals to take things into their bodies and go ahead and kill themselves if they are too weak. This is true freedom.
I believe democrats and republicans are two heads of the same snake, one preaching free sex and wanting to control your wealth, one preaching free enterprise and wanting to control your behavior.
I am a free American making the choices that God gave me and I am good with Him and his plan and His Judgement of me and how I live my life.
Am I a Libertarian? So be it.
Good luck with that.
This is your very first post ever at freerepublic-213Cesspool Since Jun 18, 2013
The whole quote shows a somewhat different context;
“If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.”
“Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path.”
Context is everything: http://reason.com/archives/1975/07/01/inside-ronald-reagan
IMHO, I think there are GREAT chasms of separation of the two.
A lot, most, of the Conservatives I know wouldn’t even THINK of getting rid of SS/Medicare/Dept of Educ/NSA/etc., let alone minding our own business in the World and securing our own borders.
Some see the WoD as ‘no big thing’, championed the ‘Patriot’ Act vs. Terrorism and have no problems w/ ‘common sense gun control’.
To me, the ONLY difference I have with the (L) party platform is abortion. In all the years there have been a (R) in power, I have YET to see ANY reduction in the size/scope of gov’t and its interference in our lives/livelihood.
Agreed. They have a “cart before the horse” mentality on the whole issue.
People need to be held responsible for their actions. Stop making the rest of us pay through the nose because you wanted to be an irresponsible jackass.
24 kids from 5 different baby momma’s? Better put in for a sh*tload of over time pal.
Screw up your life because you like driving your Camaro after downing a fifth of vodka? Kill someone while drunk driving and we execute you for murder.
Drug usage rates have held approximately steady over the last Century. After spending something on the order of over a trillion dollars and expanding WAY beyond just illicit narcotics and hallucinogens to things like pseudofed and androgenic precursors.
Kill the welfare/entitlement mentality first. It will help reign in government over reach and make other repeals easier.
You could just respond to the post and list those changes to the platform that you claim chased you away from what you had been supporting.
No one changed the platform that you had been supporting.
Care to list those changes or reversals, in the platform that you are claiming, they should be easy to share with us since they are what turned you away from your party.
They need us more than they know...if we’re not there who else are they going to blame for the abject failure of their party? I loved how they told us to leave and not let the door hit us in the ass last year before the election and somehow we were the bad guys for doing as they said on election day.
So you support them on immigration and homosexual issues?
That is an impressive example of the main liberal tactic. Isolate a target, freeze it, destroy it.
Personal attacks when losing the argument is pure Saul Alinski. Care to debate the intelligence of demanding a group of 80% allies not vote for your party, not donate to your candidates and cease to help get out the vote?
That is what I did when as a libertarian, I decided to vote republican as the best way to advance my agenda. Nominating Romney chased me away. Silly nanny staters spewing venom on message boards bothers me not at all.
Baloney. Most libertarians are godless atheists. Had they been at the last Democratic Convention they would have joined with the majority voting God out. They are for the most part Godless hippies of the right. I can never make common cause with such types.
Thank you. And may I wish you good luck with Ron Paul redux (Rand).
Ron Paul, hands down.
A lot of people here would reject him out of hand because of kooky
foreign-policy, but [IMO] they're idiots* because that's exactly why Congress has a hand in the president's cabinet: to moderate bad kooky/extreme views held by the president.
* Ironically, I think most of them would be nodding in agreement with the majority of points Ron Paul put in his farewell speech.
I approve of people having faith. I myself am not a Christian, but I do have a religious faith.
I’m not the only one either. A lot of folks I’ve met of a similar mindset are “agnostic” in the sense that they are fed up with organized religions but believe a high power exists.
Take that for what it’s worth.
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.