Once More: Can the Libertarian-Conservative Marriage Be Saved?

Nick Gillespie | February 23, 2005

Tonight, America's Future Foundation is hosting a roundtable forum titled "Conservatives and Libertarians: Can This Marriage Be Saved?"

Speak then or forever hold your peace.

More info:

During the Cold War era, conservatives and libertarians united around hostility toward communism and liberalism. The National Review's Frank Meyer called this union "fusionism," and argued that it wasn't just a marriage of convenience, but a union based on the deep compatibility of liberty and tradition. Increasingly, however, that ideological marriage has been punctuated by long, sustained spats: over war, gay marriage, stem-cell research, and a host of other issues. Just another rocky patch, or is it time for a divorce?

Arguing to keep the marriage together will be W. James Antle III of The American Conservative and Jeremy Lott of the Cato Institute. Amy Mitchell of The American Spectator and Nick Gillespie of Reason will take the side of divorce.

The event will take place on Wednesday, February 23rd, at the Fund for American Studies (1706 New Hampshire Ave. NW). Drinks will begin at 7:00 p.m., with dinner and discussion following at 7:30.

To RSVP and for more information, go here.

Panelist Jeremy Lott, a former Reason intern now with the Cato Institute, writes to plug his latest piece at The American Spectator Online:

If you mention [the AFF debate on Hit & Run]...you might mention that [in my latest Spectator col], I took on a mad dog as a warm up for taking on Nick. Just a thought.

Words that hurt.

Comments

Warren|2.23.05 @ 11:59AM|#

... And once more the answer is no

|2.23.05 @ 12:07PM|#

What part of "no" don't conservatives understand?

|2.23.05 @ 12:29PM|#

So, is there going to be a transcript of this roundtable posted?

|2.23.05 @ 12:39PM|#

"Conservatives and Libertarians: Can This Marriage Be Saved?"

...And once more the answer is that the Bush Administration has betrayed traditional conservatives as well as libertarians; so the answer is that once we get rid of the Bush Administration, maybe we can go into counseling.

Until then, the answer is no, but after that, the answer is yes.

|2.23.05 @ 12:43PM|#

Instead of rehashing all the same points for the 3rd or 4th time, is there any way they could incorporate all of the old comments when they repost this?

It may be too late for this particular thread, but the next time you have several identical threads to remind people of an event, keeping the old comments is something to consider.

|2.23.05 @ 12:49PM|#

Like I wrote before, I'll be happy when they get this fucking forum over with. :)

|2.23.05 @ 1:10PM|#

...And once more the answer is that the Bush Administration has betrayed traditional conservatives as well as libertarians; so the answer is that once we get rid of the Bush Administration, maybe we can go into counseling.

I disagree. This isn't simply about Bush. I could understand conservatives simply holding their noses and voting for him simply because he was the least of 2 evils, but that isn't the case. That would be understandable, everybody elects a lemon once and awhile. But conservatives aren't reacting to him as a lemon that needs to be tolerated, they're enthusiastically supporting him and his agenda. That tells me everything I need to know about the current state of the conservative movement.

Thanks, but no thanks!

|2.23.05 @ 1:10PM|#

I don't think so. Look at Senator Santorum in Pennsylvannia. He is now thinking of raising the minimum wage. Click here.

|2.23.05 @ 1:31PM|#

Louis Varnson,

But it won't apply to homosexuals, right? :)

|2.23.05 @ 1:32PM|#

Thank you, Senator Santorum, in addition to you protecting me from queers, I get a raise.

|2.23.05 @ 1:38PM|#

hey, wait a minute ... what kind of blue collar worker would be posting online during work hours? You're not a blue collar worker! You're that clever land shark, aren't you!

|2.23.05 @ 1:44PM|#

Next thing I need is for Senator Santorum to increase my unemployment benefits.

|2.23.05 @ 1:49PM|#

I LIKE this discussion, although I don't think it needs to be framed every time by an identical announcement of the upcoming debate - perhaps some aspect of the differences could have been featured each time, followed by a short, standard reminder.

H&R can do whatever they want with their blog, of course, but most of the items posted attract few comments, and little in the way of an evolving discussion. "Brickbats" items, really - and that's cool, too.

But most of the threads you come back to, are about this or about Iraq and similar foreign policy concerns.

Foreign policy concerns since 9/11, the invasion and Iran/North Korea are pretty scary (this ain't the 90's) and how you use your vote is always worth arguing about.

|2.23.05 @ 1:52PM|#

Andrew,

My primary concerns are on social and economic issues. Foreign policy is too idiosyncratic and dictated by events to be considered a good way to judge a political party.

|2.23.05 @ 1:56PM|#

Interesting post by Randy Barnett at the Volokh Conspiracy on how the LP may make both parties (and therefore our government) less libertarian.

Short version: By pulling out the political libertarians from both major parties, there is little internal impetus for change.

|2.23.05 @ 1:59PM|#

I'm shocked--shocked!--that a guy who thinks gay marriage will lead to bestiality would be dumb enough to support a minimum wage hike.

Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)|2.23.05 @ 2:04PM|#

I have it on good authority that strip clubs and porn shops are hiring a lot of minimum-wage workers. That's why I'm supporting a minimum wage hike--to make porn more expensive!

Maybe if gay porn costs more I won't buy so much of it...

|2.23.05 @ 2:17PM|#

Good plan, Senator. A higher minimum wage will also jack up the pricing on track lighting, stuff from Bed, Bath, & Beyond, and WNBA tickets. Gays and lesbians hate it when that happens.

Unfortunately, club drugs are inflation-proof.

Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)|2.23.05 @ 2:21PM|#

Now, if I could just find a way to jack up the price of condoms and lube...

|2.23.05 @ 3:44PM|#

I may be totally off base here... but arent libertarians pretty much split already? It seems to me that those who worry more about economic issues will tend to side more with republicans, while those concerned with social issues will go democratic. I dont have hard numbers to back up this assertion, but in terms of a general sense from talking to people here and there, this seems to be the case. If this is true, maybe it explains why we never seem to get anywhere in terms of our agenda.

|2.23.05 @ 4:12PM|#

Libertarian-Conservative marriage????

That sounds really perverted. My colleague Sen Santorum and I are working on a FEDERAL BAN.

I can't imagine what kind of slippery slope you're on when you start allowing that.

|2.23.05 @ 5:34PM|#

I hear all kinds of strange things happen when libertatarians and conservatives go in the same bathrooms.

|2.24.05 @ 10:18AM|#

The problem is not whether to be "conservative" or "liberal." Clearly no one disputes the inadequacy of those labels. The question is, from a pragmatic perspective, what party or organization is most likely to support libertarian ideals. As far as I can tell, the Republican Party is still where it's at-- even if neocons have undermined the Goldwater vision for a moment. Humans are creatures of hope, and I still hope that Ron Paul and the rest will make a comeback (or a cometo).

|2.24.05 @ 2:19PM|#

Nicolas -- a shrewd observation, and I think you may be correct.