Posted on 04/05/2005 5:27:27 AM PDT by crushkerry
The conservative-libertarian marriage is on the rocks. So says the Instapundit, Glenn Reynolds, who sees a “conservative crack-up” afoot. Ryan Sager agrees. Jonah Goldberg of National Review says there will be no crack-up, but doesn’t deny there is marital strife. The relationship between conservatives and libertarians has always been troubled, he argues.
Too often, though, the idea of a conservative-libertarian divorce reads like an ultimatum from libertarians, who occasionally express so much frustration at conservative apostasy they threaten to walk away. If we’re going to follow the marriage analogy to its grisly end, this dynamic is akin to a mouthy, pushy wife riding her hardworking husband (cheap fedora cocked to one side, tie askew, briefcase bulging with work still unfinished) about how useless he is around the house from the moment he walks in the door to the moment his head hits the pillow. With all respect, on Election Day, conservatives are the ones doing all the work.
I have worked on dozens of Republican campaigns for high public office and never once, not one time, did I ever sit in a strategy session dedicated to formulating an appeal to the libertarian wing of the party. Conversely, I have never been on a campaign in which we did not devise strategies to communicate with and recruit conservatives, whether they be pro-lifers, anti-taxers, guns rights folks, or Christians. What I’m saying is that if the libertarians walk away from the table, the party will be a whole lot less principled, but we’re not likely to lose a lot of votes.
Sager, seems to acknowledge this in his latest piece in Tech Central Station.
So if we are all agreed that the libertarians need the conservatives a whole lot more than the conservatives need the libertarians, the question then becomes, and I mean this with all respect: Shouldn’t the libertarians just sit down and shut up?Now, to be clear: What's most disturbing to libertarians about all of this is not that the shift in the traditional alignment will hurt the Republican Party at the polls -- at least in the short term. What's disturbing is just how powerful the idea of a "God-and-government" coalition could be.
What if Karl Rove's idea for a permanent majority actually worked? The GOP could convince soccer moms that it's not so hard-hearted by implementing national health care piece by piece. It could pick up the votes of blue-collar union members by appealing to them on "values" issues that the Democrats can't talk about without choking on their own bile. And the GOP could even pick up votes from socially conservative black and Hispanic voters who are adamantly opposed to gay marriage.
Take, for example, the recent dust up over the Terri Schiavo tragedy. For some reason, libertarians have expressed an inordinate amount of anxiety over this issue even though, in my view, there is a perfectly libertarian argument that one of the few legitimate roles of the federal government is to protect the rights of people like Terri Schiavo. Furthermore, who are these people who have endured the PATRIOT Act, the prescription drug benefit and the steroids-in-baseball show trials, only to watch the Schiavo case and say, “That’s it! Now I’m standing outside the tent and pissing in.” Seems exaggerated and illogical to me.
Here’s Glen Reynolds:
I don't have an opinion on what should happen to Terry Schiavo -- though given the rather large numbers of judges who have looked at this case over the years I'd be especially reluctant to interfere. Can they all be deranged advocates of a "culture of death?" But regardless of the merits, Congress's involvement in this case seems quite "unconservative" to me, at least if one believes in rules of general application. Florida has a general law, and it's been followed. That people don't like the result isn't a reason for unprecedented Congressional action, unless results are all that matter.
And here’s Ryan Sager:
In coming years, political historians might look back and try to pinpoint the day or week or month that the Republican Party shed the last vestiges of its small-government philosophy. If and when they do, the week just past should make the short list. For it was in this last week that the Republican-controlled Congress made it clear that it sees no area of American life -- none too trivial and none too intimate -- that the federal government should not permeate with its power.
It can all be summed up in two words: steroids and Schiavo.
For the record, we believe Sager is right about the steroid silliness. But c’mon. Implying the Schiavo intervention drove the final nail in Mr. Madison’s coffin is a bit overstated, isn’t it?
But forget all that. The libertarian-right’s remarks and behavior during and after the Terri Schiavo debate were terribly counterproductive and demonstrates why libertarianism has never graduated from the junior leagues of American politics. Here we are amidst a gruesome fight over Social Security against an unimaginably hostile press corps and an unscrupulous political left; we are pleading for the cavalry to come riding in. The only faction that can provide anywhere near the ground troops we need is the so-called Religious Right. So what do the libertarians do? They piss all over the Religious Right’s principal issue of the day. If I was James Dobson, or some other politico-religious leader, I’d tell the think tanks, corporations and interest groups hungry for Social Security reform to pound sand.
Of course, it didn’t start last month with Terri Schiavo. Writing for the American Conservative in 2003, James Antle observed:
Also consider that in two recent cases where popular conservative figures have been embroiled in personal controversies—when the Washington Monthly and Newsweek reported on William Bennett’s substantial gambling habit and Rush Limbaugh disclosed that he was addicted to painkilling drugs—libertarian commentators piled on with the same relish as their liberal counterparts. FoxNews.com columnist Radley Balko lambasted Bennett as a hypocrite on his Web site: “Your vices—sinful, regretful, damnable. My vices—not so bad. The guy lost $1.4 million in one two-month stretch. But he doesn’t have a problem. Cancer patients who want to smoke marijuana—they’re the ones who have problems.” Reason editor Nick Gillespie wrote how conservative defenses of the pre-eminent radio talk-show host were ruining the “otherwise enjoyable story of Rush Limbaugh’s exposure as a pill-popping hypocrite.” This hostility is partly attributable to Bennett and Limbaugh’s high-profile disagreement with libertarians over drug legalization and greater willingness to use government in the service of conservative ends in general. But it also shows the degree to which many conservatives and libertarians no longer see themselves as being on the same team.
Now, I happen to take the libertarian position on the decriminalization of some drugs. But these are harsh words for two men who may have done more than anyone this side of George W. Bush himself to give the Republicans a governing majority.
Don’t get me wrong. It takes two to whine … one to whine and one to listen. And the conservative wing of the GOP coalition has done altogether too much whining over the years. I have often thought that when my Religious Right friends start in with their poor-me, “House Negro” meme that they demonstrate poor sportsmanship. Consider James Dobson’s post-election quote:
“If Republicans do what they’ve always done in the past, which is say, ‘Thanks so much for putting us in power: now we don’t want to talk to you anymore,’ they will pay a price.”
Oh, c’mon. The Republicans do no such thing. But hearing Ryan Sager bemoan “the God and Government Coalition” and all the talk of “theocracy” in the wake of Schiavo makes you wonder if the paranoia of Dobson, et al isn’t somewhat justified.
But so Ryan Sager, Glenn Reynolds and a few other disaffected libertarians decide to walk out on conservatives? I love those guys, and I, for one, would be sad to see the libertarian-right split from the coalition. But I must say, the movement will go on.
Instead of lecturing their conservative cousins about catching up on the Hayek, the libertarians should bone up on their Plunkett and their Alinsky.
George Washington Plunkett of Tammany Hall learned at a young age that the more votes you control the more you matter to this process. This is a lesson the Religious Right has learned well. That’s why when Dobson or Paul Weyrich mumble about splitting from the GOP or staying home on Election Day, the ground shakes.
Radical organizer Saul Alinksy told the cranky Leftist protesters of the 1960’s to stop complaining and become the delegates of the next convention. They did. The result in 1972 was a disaster, but years later the filthy, stinkin’ hippies got their Bill Clinton.
The libertarian-right needs to organize. Hold monthly meetings of like-minded groups. Call it the Alliance for Limited Government. Or something. Force would-be members of Congress to sign a free-market, civil libertarian pledge before they can earn an endorsement or procure choice lists. These are the fundamentals of political organization. And if the libertarian right were to put them to use, the next time they start talking about a “crack-up,” GOP leaders will sit up straight and take notice.
Ping
Where to begin....
Until the big "L" libertarians stop whining about post-9/11 foreign policy like Michael Howard's echo, and cease promoting the homosexual agenda and abortion on demand as privacy issues, the party is DOA. A strong national defense, low taxes, and marijuana legalization would be a strong base on which to build the party into something more than a joke that gets slammed every few months in The Onion.
I for one, am stuck in the middle. The LP is bogged down with anti-security, pro death fools, and the GOP is spraying my money all over the place.
Personally, I'm looking for a common sense, moral, small government party. When the Dems are relegated to irrelevance, I'm gone from the GOP.
Fortunately, there are some alternatives. Not to be listed here, but you could find them if you looked.
The LP isn't representative of libertarians, no matter what their name is. Most libertarians have long since realized that the LP as a party is absurdly absolutist and has no practical agenda. It's one thing to be libertarian, it's quite another to be delusional.
I suspect that more Libertarians vote Democrat than Republican.
That is why I described them as big "L" libertarians. Don't want to get flamed by other libertarians (such as myself) who want nothing to do with the LP as it currently exists.
Small government usually requires moving beyond common sense to extraordinary insight. And since that’s not going to be a trait of the electorate any time soon, strict adherence is incompatible with democracy. I think that the path to fixing this is choice in education.
I agree. They seem remarkably similar to the Green Party in most of their views.
The only Libertarian worth his salt is Neal Boortz.
I agree. We homeschool, mostly because we don't want the government turning our kids into 'good little multicultural socialists'.
Plus we can talk about Jesus.
Good call. I myself am finding it more and more important to make that distinction. Libertarian philosophy has a lot to recommend it (not least of which is that it is the dominant philosophy on which this nation was founded), but the LP isn't guided by it. The LP is more about anarchy than libertarianism.
One would almost think that they were a GOP device used to discredit the most powerful contending philosophy on the right and force us into the only political party not completely abhorrent to us.
Actually beyond the Big "L" and Small "L" business, it's more Social Cons vs. everyone who doesn't consider themselves a Social Con...in some cases people may be small "l" libertarians and not even realize it.
Most social spending is because of immorality. It's caused by the break up of the family unit. When Mom and Dad work together to raise upright citizens, their children have morals and good work ethics. Government handouts aren't necessary. The government is actually a burden on a strong family.
Right now, the left wing leeches are still breading more left wing leeches. Their apples don't fall far from the tree, and we end up with a bunch of lazy do nothing people demanding to be housed and fed. They all take after their parents, and we have @ 50% of the population feeding like vampires off the productive and self accountable.
Wow, without putting on tinfoil here...your comment is right on target. Maybe it's not intended that way (tinfoil), but it sure turns out that way for many folks, I think (reality).
Yep, that giant Medicare Prescription Drug benefit plan is the result of all those immoral seniors.
Most social spending isn't on the poor; it's on the Middle Class.
Boortz is right when he says libertarian politicians should be more mainstream. You aren't going to get elected by pushing legalization of crack.
Boortz sounded like an uninformed idiot on Shiavo. I'm meeting a lot of those now.
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.