24/7 Newsfeed

Put Reason 24/7 on Your Site

RSS

Follow Reason 24/7 on Twitter and via RSS

Who Is Dave Brat? Take a Look at the Ayn Rand Loving, Immigration Reform Hating, Cato Institute Referencing Man Who Beat Eric Cantor

Dave Brat/TwitterDave Brat/Twitter

Who is Dave Brat? That's the question that literally every national news outlet seems to be asking right now. The Randolph-Macon College economics professor was little-known nationally until he unexpectedly beat Republican Rep. Eric Cantor last night in the Virginia primaries—the first time a sitting House Majority leader has lost his own's party's vote since the position was created in 1899. 

Brat will now face off against Democrat Jack Trammell—also a professor at Randolph-Macon—in November to become the new representative for Virginia's 7th congressional district. So just what do we know about this guy?

Here's a fun fact: Brat has published papers titled "Adam Smith’s God and the End of Economics," "An Analysis of the Moral Foundations in Ayn Rand," "God and Advanced Mammon—Can Theological Types Handle Usury and Capitalism?" and "The Moral Foundations of Capitalism, From the Great Generation to Financial Crisis." 

But while he's for free markets, Brat's not so keen on other aspects of a free society. Here's a quick overview on the man who beat Eric Cantor. 

Brat Basics:

Brat lives in Henrico County, Virginia with his wife and two children, ages 15 and 11. He's one of the last of the baby-boom babies—born in 1964, Brat celebrates his 50th birthday this July. At Randolph-Macon, a small liberal arts college, Brat teaches economics and ethics and chaired the Economics and Business department for the past six years. Brat himself studied economics at American University and divinity at the Princeton Theological Seminary. 

Brat's Campaign:

Though Brat is being painted as the "Tea Party candidate" in this race, he didn't have major Tea Party support, failing to secure endorsements from big groups such as Freedomworks or the Tea Party Patriots. Ultimately, he raised just over $200,000 for his campaign, according to The New York Times

Brat's Views:

Pro-market: In an interview on MSNBC Wednesday morning, Brat answered a question about minimum wage by responding, "I'm a free-market guy. Our labor markets right now are already distorted from too many regulations. I think Cato estimates there's $2 trillion of regulatory problems and then throw Obamacare on top of that....There's just distortion after distortion after distortion." 

Pro-privacy: Brat supports "the end of bulk phone and email data collection by the NSA," and says National Security Agency data collection efforts are a violation of the Fourth Amendment. 

Deeply religious: A Catholic, Brat's bio describes him as being "a man of deep faith." Upon winning Tuesday, Brat told AP: "This is a miracle from God that just happened." 

Anti-immigration: Brat says we need to "secure the border," and that allowing more people into America would "lower wage rates for the working person." He opposes amnesty and other current immigration reform efforts, and contrasting himself with Cantor on these issues was a major focus of Brat's campaign.

Randian: Brat is director of Randolph-Macon's BB&T Moral Foundations of Capitalism program, which teaches free-market economics and the ideas of Ayn Rand to students.

Pro-"war is peace": On his campaign page, Brat lists among his core beliefs that "peace is best preserved through a strong national defense."

Miscellaneous 

From The Wall Street Journal:

Mr. Brat was so unknown that his Wikipedia entry was only two sentences before Tuesday night. 

From Vox.com:

Cantor's campaign spent over $168,000 just at steakhouses—which appears to be more than Brat spent on his entire campaign.

From Brat's campaign website:

I support a full investigation into the Benghazi attacks.

From Politico:

Dave Brat...earned a red chili pepper for hotness from students on RateMyProfessor.com. He's "total eye candy," one commenter wrote.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • T. Walls||

    Hard CORE!

  • ace_m82||

    A Republican who says, "peace is best preserved through a strong national defense" can be anywhere on the continuum from Ron Paul to John McCain. It means nothing, so there is little reason to judge him on it... yet.

  • DarrenM||

    Yes. To claim a "strong national defense" is to be "pro-war", then to be consistent you need to be for a weak national defense to be anti-war. Dumb.

  • LiveFreeOrDiet||

    This is analogous to an old friend's assertion that people who carry guns are just waiting for the chance to shoot someone. She thinks the world of me, even after knowing me for 30 years. She has no idea that she's never seen me unarmed.

  • OneOut||

    I love that Diet.

    A cousin of mine was called on the carpet by his Corporate office. He was accused of carrying a weapon in his company truck. He assured them he did not carry a weapon in his company truck. He's very productive in the oil field so they just went thru the motions for legal ass covering.

    He told me he carried three weapons in his company truck, not A weapon.

  • RAHeinlein||

    Can someone please put us out of ENB's misery. Thanks for yet another ineptly-written, liberal-biased story, full of your usual, trite, twitterisms.

  • Scarecrow Repair||

    Or you could just skip all her stories.

  • Greendogo||

    In lieu of rereading the article and guessing at what you're referring to: What in the story is a "liberal-bias" that couldn't also be a libertarian bias?

  • SIV||

    Equating "a strong national defense" with being "pro-war" is "bake sales for bombers" 1970s era knee-jerk liberalism.
    Somebody get that fish a bicycle!

  • Westmiller||

    He isn't an "Ayn Rand Loving" politician. At best, he "appreciates" her defense of free markets:

    http://m.nationalreview.com/ar.....y-woodruff

    He's "associated" indirectly with John Allison, who was a contributor to the Ayn Rand Institute and currently heads the Cato Institute.

    On the issues, he's a pretty standard Tea Party religious conservative, even though ALL of the national TP organizations had written him off and didn't help with his campaign.

    Best guess: he ran a full-time, personal, shoe-leather campaign while Cantor stayed in DC, assuming he had the primary "in the bag" (according to every poll). Brat focused on immigration "amnesty", where Cantor was weak (i.e.: had a humanitarian bone in his body).

  • Eric Bana||

    I don't see how you could be a strong Catholic and embrace the entirety of Ayn Rand's philosophy, as ENB indicated.

  • Aloysious||

    Interesting to me that this kind of debate in the primaries, such as it is, is happening on Team Red, while Team Blue appears to continue in lock step, no real debate apparent.

  • craiginmass||

    Pretty amazing that he claims the Fiction Writer as The Teachings and then says the Pope's God is responsible for his election. Pope against the Jewish God, I guess?

    I think most "reason-able" libertarian minds should see danger in the "God did it" attitude toward a political and rational job.

    Another populist - here we go! Taking the popular themes from the Fiction Writer, with no mention of that those themes are an important part of the whole (freedom FROM the "weak" religious people, etc.).

  • Cap'n Krunch||

    That turned me off immediately. If I voted for him and he then thanks God for the votes I'm wondering why I bothered to leave home and go vote. I also have to wonder why, if God turned the votes for him, he got less than 100% of the votes. Was God trying to hide his ballot stuffing by letting a few "real" votes get in? What the heck kind of omnipotent God is that?

    The God the Iranians worship is my idea of a real god, he consistently gets his guy over 100% of the votes.

  • craiginmass||

    He didn't just talk about God once - he repeated it over and over in his acceptance speeches.....that we need to return to "Judeo-Christian" morality and that we need to go back to the "Founders Faith" and all kinds of other BS.

    This guy is going to be quite entertaining.

    He basically won because Canton was too busy eating steaks to campaign...and a low turnout. Add that to the small populations who thought he was someone different. those who prefer a Christian to a Jew, those Democrats who voted in the open primary....and there you have it.

    What amazes me is that this simply math seems to shake up the media and the entire country! Accidents Happen.

    Well, nothing new here. Another God-Fearing Southerner who won't be scared to being Jesus back to our government to save us all.

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    American Fascists come in all sorts of packages don't they? The guy looks a bit like Himmler. Must be the glasses.

    Let's see now. This asshole is a Catholic (Catholics can be fascists too, and millions of them were in World War II), and he teaches Ayn Rand who was for all practical purposes an atheist.

    All this goes to show is that more than a few people (especially shit brain politicians) can entertain three to five contradictory ideas in their fucking brains at the same time, and believe in all of them simultaneously.

  • Brian||

    All this goes to show is that more than a few people (especially shit brain politicians) can entertain three to five contradictory ideas in their fucking brains at the same time, and believe in all of them simultaneously.

    Don't you keep telling us you're leaving? And, then you're back?

    Maybe all these people are just changing their minds.

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    Brian,

    I decided to come back, because I have as much right to post on this website as you do. Get used to it, dick brain.

  • triclops||

    Great justification.

    "I decided to break my own word because the law does not prevent me from breaking promises."

    Which totally makes sense for someone without a shred of human dignity.

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    triclops,

    Clearly my return irritates you. That's good, because there is nothing I enjoy more than irritating thorough going assholes like you. Get used to it turd bird. Have a nice evening dimwit.

  • OneOut||

    On The Road To Mandalay|6.11.14 @ 4:54PM|#

    Brian,

    I decided to come back, because I have as much right to post on this website as you do. Get used to it, dick brain."

    You also have the right to be a man of your word. But I see that escapes you.

    Personally I don't care. The night you declared you were through with Reason you posted many more times after you gave your word that one was your last post ever.

    I knew you were full of shit right then.

    But I give you credit for admitting you are a lying asshole and not just create a new user name, for whatever that's worth.

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    OneOut,

    Take your medications and relax. See you around the site, asshole.

  • OneOut||

    Will it be under the lying asshole name of "On the road..."?

    Or will you have adopted a new identity to hide your past and start anew with no history of you past ignorant remarks ?

    You just can't can't Reason can you mandalay ?

  • Suellington||

    Last. Post. Ever.

  • sasob||

    Ayn Rand who was for all practical purposes an atheist.

    You say that as though there might be some doubt of Rand's atheism. If you had actually ever read much of her work - something besides her novels - you would know that she explicitly professed her atheism more than once. She just didn't make a point of continuously harping on it the way that Madalyn Murray O'Hair used to do.

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    No doubt at all. I read everything she ever wrote, and probably before you were hatched. My point (which you missed) is that Brat is contradicting himself by teaching Rand and professing to be a Catholic.

    The man is a hypocrite, but he probably doesn't even know it, for all the reasons (no pun intended) I just posted. Anyway, fuck all the self righteous assholes like Brat, and fuck the horse the silly son of a bitch rode in on.

  • Scarecrow Repair||

    My you are confused. Does one have to ape everything about someone in order to teach one facet?

    If he were teaching Rand's atheism, you might have a point. But as it is, all you have is a geometrical point, ie 0 dimensions.

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    Go f*** yourself.

  • craiginmass||

    Actually, her philosophy is very much grounded in religion being a very dangerous world view and state of mind for mankind.

    You cannot pick and choose only the "money" stuff and claim that stands on it's own. It doesn't.

    Every time I hear Christian pols say she influences them, I have to chuckle. You couldn't make this stuff up - they are so far from her world view that it's not even in the same ballpark.

    He should be ashamed to take money in her name and do anything. Then again, he's academia - and you know what conservatives think of people like that, right?

  • OneOut||

    You swore multiple times you were never going to post here again. I was there that night.

    You are a lying asshole who's word means nothing. Fuck you, you lying son of a bitch. I feel sorry for the horse that had to carry you here.

    Lowest of the low.

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    Take your medication. Have a nice evening Anal Breath.

  • OneOut||

    AAh... does you have a butt hurtz?

    I'm so sorry Mandaygay.

    I didn't realize that the truth of your history here would bother you so much.

  • Peej||

    Is it THAT hard to wrap your brain around the concept that one can agree with Ayn Rand on one subject, and disagree on another?

  • Kure'i||

    Yes. Just talk to an Objectivist and witness the difficulty firsthand.

  • craiginmass||

    Actually, you cannot when it comes to the bedrocks of her philosophy and world view.

    You simply cannot claim to understand anything about her worldview - let alone take money and teach classes with her name on them - and at the same time take orders from imaginary creatures that have much more power and control than you do.

    Please explain how it's possible to take orders from God and be "Randian"? I'm interesting in how you would parse this out. Note that he doesn't claim to be a "catholic by birth", but a true believer in the miracles, etc.

  • JPyrate||

    It does not have a brain. It's fun to poke at it with a stick, and watch it freak out. =D

  • sasob||

    On The Road To Mandalay|6.11.14 @ 4:58PM|#

    No doubt at all. I read everything she ever wrote, and probably before you were hatched.

    Umm...probably not. Much of what she wrote was written after I was "hatched." I began reading Rand in the late 1960's in high school. With the exception of a few things that weren't available in those days, I, too, have read everything she ever wrote - much of it multiple times. In fact, the last time I read Atlas Shrugged was well over twenty years ago, and that was the fifth time I'd read it completely through. (I'm one of those unusual individuals who thinks Galt's speech is one of the more interesting parts of the book.)

    My point (which you missed) is that Brat is contradicting himself by teaching Rand and professing to be a Catholic.

    I didn't miss it - I just thought it too obvious to bother mentioning.

  • TopherB||

    Again you seem to think I can't like one idea a person espouses if I don't like all of them.

    I'm sure if I looked hard enough I'd even find one thing I'd praise Obama for. Doesn't mean I like anything else he has done to the country.

    Actually now that I think about it, I'm an atheist that largely respects Rand's views on Free-Market and how governmental regulation is beyond a point very destructive to the country.

  • Suicidy||

    You keep regurgitating the same old line. Find a new tune. And if that really is your analysis of this guy then nothing you have to say is of value.

  • TopherB||

    Or that you can take an aspect of a person without buying into the whole. In the case of Rand (no need for 'practical purposes' she was very admittedly and unabashedly an atheist) he is smitten with her free market ideas. The rest we can assume not.

    Most people don't fit neatly into little boxes or ideologies no matter how hard various forces try to get them all in lock step. I know I don't.

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    This man's election is living proof that the radical right (a unique American blend of fascism with religion) is coming to the fore in American politics. The radical left is out there too, in full bloom. With fanatics like this in office, I fear for whatever democracy we have left, much less a constitutional republic.

  • Scarecrow Repair||

    You fun. Me like watching you trip over your tongue after inserting foot in mouth.

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    You Asshole. Me like seeing your semi-literate posts. I call them bowel movements in print. Keep up the good work, dip shit.

  • OneOut||

    Hey Liar

    Are the Koch Brothers Republicans or Independents ?

    Put up or shut up.

  • AndrewR||

    Here we have another claim by an open-borders statist that Brat is "anti-immigration". By claiming that believing that the laws against ILLEGAL immigration matter makes one "anti-immigration", Elizabeth Nolan Brown just reveals herself to be just another leftist contemptuous of the most core principle of democracy, the Rule of Law.

  • Scarecrow Repair||

    Usually statist means someone who believes in the power of the state to regulate as much as possible, if not more. What is an open-borders statist?

  • Greendogo||

    An "open-borders statist" is an oxymoron.

    Somehow, believing people should have the liberty of travel across borders unhindered by the State is statist? I don't think so.

  • crazyfingers||

    Let's be honest -- the Democrats could care less about free movement of people, they want to create a permanent big government majority -- and giving citizenship to millions of downtrodden immigrants is a way to do it in one fell swoop.

    Unfortunately the libertarian ideal doesn't match up with the political reality.

  • Peej||

    Well, when the interests of the people that control the state (corporate Republicans and Democrat party apparatchiks)are served by open borders, then yes, you can have an "open-borders statist."

  • Eric Bana||

    I disagree. Open borders itself would not be statist; the statist policies would be statist.

  • Peej||

    But the politicians, judges, and bureaucrats that control the US government are statist, aren't they? And they want open borders in part because the majority of illegal immigrants want social services and will support statist politicians once granted a vote. The statists support open borders, but for a different reason than libertarians do.

  • craiginmass||

    Illegal immigration is about as illegal as illegal going over the speed limit - and I don't hear you yapping about that.

    It's not a criminal offense (in most cases).

    Plus, libertarians don't really believe in "the state", so how can we have borders to protect anyway? That's a false construct....

  • TopherB||

    It's criminal by law. Just not by application of the law.

  • craiginmass||

    It's a real issues - if he is such a devout Catholic - what he is going to say and do when the Pope personally tells him to be nice to brown poor people.

    No two entities could be further apart than true Catholics and the Fans of She who Writes Fiction (Ayn).

  • sasob||

    "She who Writes Fiction" Oh my, aren't you the clever wordsmith? She also wrote a bunch of nonfiction as well, genius. But then you knew that.

  • craiginmass||

    She also took bowel movements, I hear.....

    Bottom line is that the tomes which made her "famous" are Fiction. If you think the Bible has some whoppers, hers are pulled from even further in her arse. Poor writing, also.

    Really, it's a cultish thing. I'll bet many people who haven't even read or understood the stuff "believe".

    She was just like the rest of the libertarians - a failure when it came to practicing what she preached...that is, unless you count her influence on Greenspan and the resulting destruction of our economy as a "plus".

    But, yes, it's accurate to say she has sold 100X or more the amount of fiction than anything else...probably many more times than that. That would accurately be called "A famous and bestselling writer of fiction".

    Would you call John Grisham anything but that?

  • sasob||

    She also took bowel movements, I hear.....

    And 'tis a great pity that you do not - well except here at Hit and Run, of course.

    Poor writing? That's a matter of opinion. I've always thought her writing was pretty good - especially considering that English was not her native language. Btw, how many of your pieces did you say had been published, translated, and how many copies sold?

    I don't know of anyone who is perfect or infallible, including Rand, but it is far better to have ideals and fail to perfectly live up to them than to make no effort or to have no ideals at all.

    As for Greenspan - apparently she and her ideas didn't have as much of or as lasting an influence upon him as is generally supposed. Either he sold out or he totally misjudged the people and the situation with which he was dealing. Possibly both. In any event he is hardly responsible for the "destruction of our economy" - the seeds of that were sown in the early part of the last century.

  • triclops||

    Your 1950's understanding of Catholicism is cute.

    You must have voted for Nixon in 1960.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    He only listened on the radio.

  • craiginmass||

    Uh, you must not be listening to this current Pope. I suggest you tune in. Also, I work for Jesuits occasionally and I can assure you that they not only listen to the Pope, but are very much for the poor brown people. Very much so. In fact, they'd probably say Brat is going to Hell...quickly.

  • Johnimo||

    Brat's critics on his immigration stance apparently didn't listen to all he said on the subject. One of his main points was that we should use our influence to reform (Mexico) so that it's people have job opportunities in their own countries. He has a valid point. Are we going to accept all 7 billion people living outside the US because their countries have poor economies?

  • triclops||

    No, just enough to ensure a massive Team Blue majority, then we can start thinking about solving problems.

  • craiginmass||

    It's not a valid point for him to even suggest we can "reform" Mexico. We can't reform our own small towns, cities, states and country.

    Again, he's talking magic from God. Maybe he has a direct line and can ask Jehovah to reform the world.

    If you want a valid point, here is one to swallow - after you chew. We are responsible for a vast amount of the violence in Central America and Mexico which is causing this. This is due to our crazy love of drugs - 80% of which come up through there. It's a long story - but I suggest some reading is in order. As long as the "free market" for heroin and cocaine exists, we are going to have people running away from those folks with guns (usually our guns, too, but that's another story).

  • Brian||

    craiginmass:

    As long as the "free market" for heroin and cocaine exists, we are going to have people running away from those folks with guns

    Wow.

    Just...wow.

  • MSimon||

    We are responsible for a vast amount of the violence in Central America and Mexico which is causing this. This is due to our crazy love of drugs - 80% of which come up through there.

    I thought it was because Mexico enforced Prohibition.

  • Eric Bana||

    The U.S. doesn't enforce Prohibition too?

  • craiginmass||

    It's not a valid point for him to even suggest we can "reform" Mexico. We can't reform our own small towns, cities, states and country.

    Again, he's talking magic from God. Maybe he has a direct line and can ask Jehovah to reform the world.

    If you want a valid point, here is one to swallow - after you chew. We are responsible for a vast amount of the violence in Central America and Mexico which is causing this. This is due to our crazy love of drugs - 80% of which come up through there. It's a long story - but I suggest some reading is in order. As long as the "free market" for heroin and cocaine exists, we are going to have people running away from those folks with guns (usually our guns, too, but that's another story).

  • Echo||

    "Dave Brat...earned a red chili pepper for hotness from students on RateMyProfessor.com. He's "total eye candy," one commenter wrote."

    eye candy? holy shit! someone desperately needs new glasses....

  • Echo||

    on the whole, as much as i hate eric cantor??? i think this needs a serious recount....

  • Faber||

    On the plus side, no matter your opinion of his policies, there is one less incumbent in Washington come November.

  • Tony||

    Oh look another pet economist of an eccentric billionaire who hates paying taxes.

    Why can't libertarian economics compete in the marketplace of ideas without getting welfare checks?

  • OneOut||

    Tony|6.11.14 @ 5:49PM|#

    Oh look another pet economist of an eccentric billionaire who hates paying taxes."

    This isn't about Krugman and Buffett Tony.

    Get up to speed.

  • gracepmc||

    This headline and content -- worthless. Kneejerk claptrap. Libertarians should be better than this.

  • Michael Hihn||

    What a bizarre column. An allegedly libertarian publication, but not a single word on Brat's positions for the largest social issues of our time -- abortion and gay marriage. Is he a wacky socon who ignores the Constitution, like the allegedly libertarian Ron and Rand Paul?.

  • Suicidy||

    Or maybe he's some asshole like you who has no respect for other's beliefs and likes the institutionalized practice of infanticide.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Libertarians don't impose their beliefs by law. And cut the infanticide bullshit (not prior to viability). Read the Bill of Rights. LEARN that the fetal child has an unalienable Right to Life. LEARN that the woman has an unalienable Right to Liberty. You lose. Sorry.

    On what authority do you reject our Constitution and the Will of God?

    asshole like you who has no respect for other's beliefs

    (laughing out loud) Would Jesus be proud of your trashmouth ... as YOU trash the beliefs of others? And of our Founders?

  • craiginmass||

    I think we can guess his views on those and other such subjects. He'll let us know after he consults his newly hired PR people and groomers.

  • Michael Hihn||

    (snicker) You had nothing at all to say on a single issue, just the mouth of a 15-year-old kid. Did you also giggle?

  • J2Hess||

    Brat's cv illustrate a less than impressive career. His most recent journal publications are in an unfindable journal ranked with 800 others at the absolute bottom of the list; other publications are in non-reviewed proceedings from an obscure conference; he even includes an undergraduate project on his professional cv with himself as 2nd author!

  • Peej||

    I'm sure he'll be able to compete well enough against super geniuses like Sheila Jackson Lee and Debbie Wasserman Shultz.

  • OneOut||

    Damn.

    Did he use someone elses money to seal his writings and transcripts also ?

    Pretty soon you will be telling us he lied on his bar application about using an alias and having to give up his law license to head off being dis barred ?

    What a scumbag, huh ? Kinda like someone who lives in the White House huh ?

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    Pee,

    In keeping with your posting name, you need to piss in a bottle and drink it. Urine therapy is just the thing for retards of your ilk. Have a nice evening, dick wad.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    "Son of a bitch asshole pig fucker."

    That was it, wasn't it? I like that one better. Dick wad is so 3rd grade.

  • JPyrate||

    @ Peej You can trust OTRTM's advice on urine therapy. He is a real expert on the subject.

  • JPyrate||

    Once you get really into the whole urine therapy thing, you can mainline the stuff like OTRTM.

  • Peej||

    Whoa. That escalated fast. I recommend you go back on your meds.

  • MSimon||

    Si vis pacem, para bellum

  • MSimon||

    What is his position on Drug Prohibition?

  • kingdvd74||

    People that support free market capitalism have forgotten or never learned our economic and social history prior to the 1900's when free market capitalism reigned. Workers had no rights, worked for slave wages, for long hours, 6 days a week, in unsafe conditions, until they could no longer physically work. Businesses and Industries were allowed to dump whatever they wanted into our air and waterways. There were no rules about monopolizing. Wall Street was allowed to do whatever they wanted. Basically, it wasn't a good time for the masses and the environment. free market capitalism likes to exploit labor and resources at the lowest cost possible to maximize profits with no concern of the consequences. Unfortunately, our history prior to the 1900's and even into the 70's on environmental matters, is why we need regulations. Sure we're over regulated and need to clean them up but in a lot cases, regulations were created by big-money interest to stifle growth and computation from small businesses. Commonsense regulations that protect people, our food, money and environment from capitalism's exploitations are needed. I like the Libertarian ideas about the economy but as history has proven, they don't work. Just like communism in practice. People are never content. some people always want way more than they need and will do anything in their power to pursue that quest with no care who they step on or the long-tern consequences.

  • kingdvd74||

    Correction: People that support free market capitalism don't care about, have forgotten or never learned our economic and social history prior to the 1900's when free market capitalism reigned.

  • Eric Bana||

    Do you seriously think we have never heard this exact same thing before?

  • kingdvd74||

    Good! Just shows it's sinking in.

  • tlapp||

    A strong national defense could be very libertarian. The constitution does provide for a national defense. If we can't defend our nation we can't defend our freedoms.

    Now the attacks on our freedoms from within are another story.

  • MoreFreedom||

    Given Cantor's vote for TARP, for the stimulus, for the Prescription Drug benefit, for raising the debt ceiling several times, for funding Obamacare, for providing the Democrats the spending they want, Brat can't be worse.

    In fact, based on these major votes, we should be asking "What's the difference between Cantor and the Democrats?" Apparently only the fact that Cantor is a Republican, and not how he votes. One might also ask, if Cantor has ever voted for more freedom?

advertisement