A Return to Triangulation (libertarion vs social right)

National Review Online ^ | 10/25/06 | David Boaz & David Kirby

[MineralMan]

"there is no Conservative party."

Perhaps not in the USA, but there is in England and Canada.

[Beagle8U]

I'm a very conservative Republican. Conservative is a term used to define beliefs, not a alternative party.

Just because I'm 100% pro-gun, property rights, low taxes, doesn't mean that I dumb enough to vote for an "Aardvark" party or abandon the only party that agrees with 99% of what I do.

The confusion that Libertarians have over who to vote for isn't my problem.

It's not something I can solve for them.

[Jim Robinson]

And some of you are absolutely worthless to the cause of conservatism.

[MEGoody]

No I'm not afraid of limited government and looking after my own business...are you?

Uh, not sure what this has to do with my post.

[Gradient Vector]

I think New York state has one too.

My point is that libertarians don't have to have their own parties. In fact the difference between libertarians and conservatives (Goldwater and Reagan, not neocon, or theocons) are very small. The republican parties ever expanding government is a real danger, if the conservatives and libertarians get together and make a third party it would effectively move the republicans to a minority party.

The republican party is made up of different factions, which have a modest amount in common with each other. The problem is the national party isn't interested in getting done what they all have in common.

[Jim Robinson]

But I do thank you for allowing me the right to control the use and conetent of my own private property not to mention my first amendment rights to freedom of assembly and association.

[Dominic Harr]

Something has gotten way out of whack recently, and it's not good for FreeRepublic, and it's not right.

Interesting. I haven't noticed anything different lately, myself.

I've been here quite some time. It's a big place, with lots of mods, so I'm not going to pretend that it's impossible for some of them to be unfair. I haven't noticed, but I've been pretty busy at work this past year. If so, that's sad. But to be honest, I don't think it's that big a deal.

This is a privately-owned site. It's JimRob's playground. I'm thankful to be able to play here, even if there's some kitty litter in the sand on occasion.

I tried to post at DU once, a while back, and got banned after 5 posts simply for disagreeing politely. I didn't complain, it's their site. I simply moved on.

Here, over the years, I've disagreed with the R party a *LOT*. Never once had any problems. Well, been flamed plenty . . . but I've got a very thick skin.

[MineralMan]

I don't know. Given the amount of animosity here against (L)ibertarians in several areas, I don't see that the GOP really represents them these days. Nor does it represent the right end of the conservative spectrum very well.

The organized GOP, it seems to me, is pretty centrist these days, for whatever that's worth.

[VadeRetro]

And some of you are absolutely worthless to the cause of conservatism.

It is a talking point of the left that there is a conservative (or Republican) war on science. To let this become undeniable would drive conservatism over a cliff. It will give the left an issue which cannot fail to provoke distrust of conservatives among people who like living with the benefits of science.

Thus I submit that the pro-science posters on FR are fighting to preserve the credibility and electability of conservatives.

[Beagle8U]

"if the conservatives and libertarians get together and make a third party it would effectively move the republicans to a minority party."

When the Libertarian platform is just fine with queer marriage, sex with children,abortion, legal drugs etc, just how exactly do you think they will team with conservatives and take over the world?

[Gradient Vector]

"Just because I'm 100% pro-gun, property rights, low taxes, doesn't mean that I dumb enough to vote for an "Aardvark" party or abandon the only party that agrees with 99% of what I do."

The national republican party isn't 99% conservative. At best its 33. They aren't pro-gun, or property rights, and when they lower taxes they do it temporally so 8 years later they can lower them again without actually lowering them. And when they do cut taxes, they just spend the money anyway and barrow it. They are just lending you taxes they aren't collecting, you're going to be responsible for the debt eventually.

Thats not even mentioning Medicare, the borders, campaign finance Bush said was unconstitutional then signed anyway, and bridges to no where.

The worst part of this mess is there no alternative. The democrats are worse, but in the end it appears either way we are on our way to a socialist government that controls more and more of our lives.

I'm lucky my Rep. is very good, and there is no Senator from my state up for vote, otherwise I might be inclined to vote out all incumbents regardless of party.

[antiRepublicrat]

And if its made legal every employer will have to deal with it daily.

Why? Part of libertarianism is companies being able to say what workers they will and will not hire, not being forced by regulation to hire those that they may not want. It's perfectly acceptable to say you won't hire anyone who takes recreational drugs.

[Jim Robinson]

Could've fooled me.

[RadioAstronomer]

Could've fooled me.

Unfortunately you seem to have been. :-(

[VadeRetro]

You think maybe the antiscience types are doing a better job?

[Gradient Vector]

"I don't know. Given the amount of animosity here against (L)ibertarians in several areas, I don't see that the GOP really represents them these days. Nor does it represent the right end of the conservative spectrum very well.

The organized GOP, it seems to me, is pretty centrist these days, for whatever that's worth."

Thats what I see, and thats the reason so many here say they aren't voting. They are without representation and have nowhere to turn, so they get angry at those who they think should be on their side.

Its a mistake for the republican party to abandon political conservatives and libertarians. The most popular Republican president was Reagan, was also the most conservative. Even then the moderate republicans tried to destroy him, and threatened to throw the election if G HW Bush wasn't given the VP. All the disastrous loses the republicans have had came from moderate republicans, and the 1994 revolution was based on conservatism.

[Jim Robinson]

What is antiscience?

[Dominic Harr]

I feel left out. :-(

I've not been banned even once!

[antiRepublicrat]

Thats not even mentioning Medicare, the borders, campaign finance Bush said was unconstitutional then signed anyway

Don't forget promising to sign the "assault weapons" ban extension. He dodged a bullet when it didn't pass.

[Beagle8U]

Before you damn the Republican party for not being conservative enough, and not giving you everything you want, perhaps you could fight to give them 60 Senate votes to see if they would?

Give them 60 in the Senate and see if slime balls like McCain ( with his gaggle of 14) still have the power to screw up everything.