Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
"Are Republicans turning into libertarians?"
That's the question posed by baseball/politics numbers-cruncher Nate Silver, atop a pile of anecdotes and polls.
Aside from all the this-year's-model economic stuff that you'd expect from a party that miraculously relocated some of its alleged principles at the precise moment it lost power, there were these notes I found interesting/promising:
-- Republican insiders are increasingly uncertain about whether gay marriage, which was such an important issue for the party over 2000-2004, is any longer a winning issue at all for them. Reaction to the Iowa Supreme Court decision was surprisingly muted in conservative circles. Meanwhile, at least one prominent Republican presidential candidate, Utah's John Huntsman, has come out in favor of civil unions (although not gay marriage itself).
-- If gay bashing is becoming less in vogue among Republicans, it's unclear which other cultural issues -- areas where Republicans sometimes favor bigger, more statist government -- might take its place. Yes, there's always abortion. But I'm surprised there hasn't been more anti-immigrant sentiment, as often happens when jobs are scarce; perhaps the Republicans' poor performance among Latino voters on November 4th might have scared them away from that issue. Marijuana legalization seems to be gaining some traction (although more among pundits than policymakers), but about half the conservative commentariat (see Glenn Beck, for instance, who calls himself a libertarian) seems to embrace it.
Silver's conclusion:
Maybe you see a pattern there and maybe you don't. But of the roughly four different pathways the Republicans could take in the post-Obama universe -- toward Ron Paulesque libertarianism, toward Sarah Palinesque cultural populism, toward Mike Huckabeesque big-government conservatism, or toward Olympia Snowesque moderation/ good-governmentism -- the libertarian side would seem to have had the best go of things in the First 100 Days.
I don't know if I see a pattern, but I do know that A) I'd be happy if it were true, B) there does seem to be some public-opinion tectonics underfoot on bailouts, marijuana, and gay marriage; and C) my expectation of national Republicans going libertarian even one hour past election day is roughly zero. Other thoughts?
Kinanik|4.22.09 @ 3:54PM|#
I was just reading that post too, and there does seem to be a more libertarian theme running through the Republican party recently. Maybe at the grassroots it's real, but where were these people when George Bush was expanding government horrifically? Ultimately,for the politicians, it seems to me that this is just a reactionary stance against Obama and losing power, not a genuine change of heart. They're saying all the right things, but for the wrong reasons. Which means once they get into power again, we're back to a big Government Republican party.
|4.22.09 @ 3:56PM|#
NO NO NO NO NO
GODDAMNIT NO!
Don't fall for it AGAIN. Republicans are loathsome belly-crawling
shit-eating vermin. They change their tune when they want your help
but will dry fuck you up the ass the first chance they get. How
many times you gonna fall for that "I'm sorry honey, you know I'd
never meant to hurt you" line?
FUCK THE REPUBLICANS
FUCK EM!
|4.22.09 @ 3:57PM|#
I voted for some republicans in the past, but ya know, I don't
really care what they say anymore, I won't believe them.
Since I'm going to wind up with a spendthrift, wasteful, screw
individual liberties, ever-growing federal government, I'm going to
vote for democrats. At least they won't come with all the religious
baggage.
Joe Kristan|4.22.09 @ 3:59PM|#
Muted reaction? Not in Iowa. Maybe stuff like this will blow over, but this is typical of how the Republican politicians are reacting. I hope they're wrong about how opposing gay marriage will play, but that's not how they're betting.
|4.22.09 @ 4:00PM|#
Warren,
Well, let's not be hasty. Unless the LP or some other limited
government party takes over as a major party--which isn't going to
happen in the near term--the GOP is the only alternative
we have to Democratic mania. If nothing else, I'd prefer a
GOP-controlled Congress or a split Congress come 2010.
I don't trust any limited government rhetoric coming out of their
mouths, either. If they win back all or part of Congress in
2010--which I think is very likely--then they can friggin'
demonstrate their new principles by dismantling Leviathan.
♪|4.22.09 @ 4:00PM|#
Because same-sex marriage is the litmus test to being libertarian? No economic central planners are for SSM?
|4.22.09 @ 4:04PM|#
Other thoughts?
(see Glenn Beck, for instance, who calls himself a libertarian)
I can call myself King of the World, it doesn't make me so.
Legalizing reefer is getting some traction. 2020
maybe.
Pro gay marriage will be majority thinking sooner than most expect.
There's no rational reason to accept heterosexual unions and oppose
homosexual ones.
I don't see any major party espousing libertarianism as a governing
philosophy.
Ever.
|4.22.09 @ 4:04PM|#
But of the roughly four different pathways the Republicans
could take in the post-Obama universe -- toward Ron Paulesque
libertarianism, toward Sarah Palinesque cultural populism, toward
Mike Huckabeesque big-government conservatism, or toward Olympia
Snowesque moderation/ good-governmentism -- the libertarian side
would seem to have had the best go of things in the First 100
Days.
Sure.
My money is still on the Freedom-is-Slavery wing of the Republican
Party.
ktc2|4.22.09 @ 4:06PM|#
ROFLMAO.
Yeah, sure! We can trust them this time! Really! Lucy wouldn't pull
the football away AGAIN!
Idiots. Yes, if you believe they will now become libertarian, hell
or even real conservatives you are an idiot.
ChrisO|4.22.09 @ 4:08PM|#
I don't sense anything coherent coming out of the GOP lately. As for an emerging libertarian streak among the populace? I think people still are all too happy to accept various forms of Government Cheese as long as someone else is paying for it. And I see little or no slackening in demand for the regulatory state. If anything, the "throw the bums in jail" mentality about financial institutions indicates the opposite.
|4.22.09 @ 4:09PM|#
"There's no rational reason to accept heterosexual unions and
oppose homosexual ones."
Rational American Voters? surely you jest.
|4.22.09 @ 4:09PM|#
Yes, the GOP has rediscovered its principles just as it's lost power. And the Dems have forgotten their principles just as they've gained power. Against the war(s)? That's so 2007.
|4.22.09 @ 4:10PM|#
Republicans are loathsome belly-crawling shit-eating
vermin.
You need to learn to express yourself!
♪|4.22.09 @ 4:11PM|#
"Are Republicans turning into libertarians?"
From the evidence you give, I say the possibility is there that
they are becoming cosmotarians.
Barry Loberfeld|4.22.09 @ 4:12PM|#
What the GOP is now is the Spite Right - pseudocons who love to hate "liberals." They will mindlessly oppose whatever they perceive to be "the Left."
|4.22.09 @ 4:13PM|#
I'm with Warren. Until the religious right gets up and scream
"to hell with the republican party", I aim to stay out. Those
bastards and their neo-conservative kin ruined any sense of liberty
the party may have had and until they're all dead and gone, tossing
my hat back into the republican ring might as well be sidling up to
Jerry Falwell, David Frum, et al. May they all rot in whatever hell
they are destined for.
I, will, however, support any individual who loudly denounces the
aforementioned and supports my policies of capitalism, freedom and
rule of law regardless of what letter comes behind their name. I
just don't expect them to win.
creech|4.22.09 @ 4:14PM|#
The fact is we libertarians don't do politics well because we won't compromise. If, for however brief a time, we are let into the GOP tent, the more pragmatic among us could eventually work their way into positions of power (depending on the makeup of the electorate in particular districts - e.g. like those where Ron Paul lives.) Someone has to do this dirty work or the GOP (or Dems for that matter) will not really and truly move in a libertarian direction until a good portion of the electorate does. So, the strategy for those libertarians who can stomach it may be to infiltrate the GOP while those who can't content themselves with trying to educate the electorate who, hopefully over time, start embracing semi-libertarian views that will cause the politicians to follow.
jtuf|4.22.09 @ 4:16PM|#
Marijuana legalization seems to be gaining some traction (although more among pundits than policymakers), but about half the conservative commentariat (see Glenn Beck, for instance, who calls himself a libertarian) seems to embrace it.
Palin fought in the governor primaries to support the right to
privacy in Alaska's state constitution that protects small time
marijuana users. Obama bragged in his presidential primary about
his past personal marijuana use. I'm still keeping my registration
Libertarian instead of Republican, but my gut tells me that a
marijuana legalization bill will be signed by a Republican
president, not a Democrat president.
|4.22.09 @ 4:16PM|#
The only use for the GOP is as opposition to the president, by controlling Congress. They cannot be trusted to have both branches of government, just as the Dems can't. They seem to go their closest to limited government when they have a Dem president to stymie, so the ideal (which still sucks total ass) is GOP Congress--maybe even just the House or Senate--and a Dem president. All the time.
Kyle Jordan|4.22.09 @ 4:16PM|#
"NO NO NO NO NO
GODDAMNIT NO!
Don't fall for it AGAIN. Republicans are loathsome belly-crawling
shit-eating vermin. They change their tune when they want your help
but will dry fuck you up the ass the first chance they get. How
many times you gonna fall for that "I'm sorry honey, you know I'd
never meant to hurt you" line?
FUCK THE REPUBLICANS
FUCK EM!"
BRAVO!!!
That was some damn good righteous indignation.
|4.22.09 @ 4:19PM|#
How about this: right after George W Peron and Dick Cheney appear on national television to apologize, and immediately afterward commit ritual suicide, on the steps of the Jefferson Memorial, I'll register as a Republican.
|4.22.09 @ 4:20PM|#
I think the libertarians have the best chance of taking over the
Republicans in 30 years, and we're pissing it away by being
puritans.
For one thing, the partisan hacks that make up the Sarah Palin
crowd are no problem. They'll support whatever has an elephant
stamp on it, including drug legalization. The only hard cases are
the religious right, but the gay marriage issue is no longer a net
vote getter.
Republicans plus drug legalization, minus gay marriage, and we're
already in center-libertarian territory. Of course, the mainstream
party isn't going to turn into a bunch of Rothbardian minarchists.
The Democrats aren't exactly Leninists either. We'll still be on
the extreme wing, but at least the axes will have rotated.
jtuf|4.22.09 @ 4:22PM|#
Creech, the LP sees the strategy of the Socialist Party as a role model. Socialist candidates did horribly in the ballot, but their campaign platform ended up getting passed by the major parties. Refusing to compromise on your long term goal is a bad career move in politics, but a good way to get laws passed.
|4.22.09 @ 4:26PM|#
Episiarch,
Exactly. Until, of course, I assume the throne and dispense
libertarian policies to my subjects through the benevolent use of
absolute power.
Before you object, the one government program I intend to
implement--contrary to my libertarian principles--is a massive
cloning project to provide each U.S. citizen with a Salma Hayek (or
functional equivalent) clone. Delivered at the appropriate age, of
course, and suitably programmed. Maybe we'll just make some
androids, come to think of it. Mere details.
J Mo|4.22.09 @ 4:26PM|#
Fool me once Republicans, shame on - shame on you. Fool me - I won't get fooled again.
ChrisO|4.22.09 @ 4:27PM|#
I think you can make a good argument that evangelicals are a
declining force in American society--all that stuff about the
"Fourth Great Awakening" and such. They seem to have less control
over the GOP than in years past. Heck, John McCain certainly wasn't
one of them, however many other faults he possessed.
For me, the critical test will be whether the GOP can abandon the
various forms of big-government conservatism that crept into the
party, especially the neo-cons and the 'compassionate conservative'
crapola. That is far more important than the waning influence of
the fire-and-brimstone crowd, even if not as good for stoking
discussion.
|4.22.09 @ 4:27PM|#
It won't matter until either the GOP or the LP recruits somebody other than white males.
|4.22.09 @ 4:28PM|#
The fact is we libertarians don't do politics well because
we won't compromise.
Compromise with what? Oh, its ok to ban gay marraige and infringe
on a person's individual rights...if you respect the rights of
corporations to creatively destroy each other? Or, its fine if you
destroy impoverished people's homes to make way for fancy shopping
centers...if you respect those now homeless people's rights to
smoke up? At what point does compromising on the basic premise of
libertarianism NOT make us look like opportunistic hypocrites?
Better to be a tiny minority of sane thinkers than give up the high
ground for a pittance here or there. The two parties are more
interested in what the irrational vocalists are saying than the
rational thoughtful individuals...or have you never been to a
rally?
head ---> desk|4.22.09 @ 4:30PM|#
Pro gay marriage will be majority thinking sooner than most
expect. There's no rational reason to accept heterosexual unions
and oppose homosexual ones.
Um, other than because heterosexual unions have a social utility
that homosexual ones don't?
How many cosmotarians ever got a passing grade in biology
101?
I don't see any major party espousing libertarianism as a
governing philosophy.
Ever.
If libertarians in general are as oblivious to fundamental facts
regarding the human condition as you are, that could only be a good
thing!
Flex Nasty B.I.G.|4.22.09 @ 4:32PM|#
It's over. Change in a small government direction won't happen in the U.S. through the existing political process. We'll just have to wait for the federal government to collapse, and then rebuild from the rubble, USSR-style.
|4.22.09 @ 4:35PM|#
John McCain certainly wasn't one of them
That didn't stop him from kissing John Hagee's ass, did it?
tarran|4.22.09 @ 4:37PM|#
Not to be snarky but I don't think there is such a thing as a Rothbardian minarchist. Rothbardian anarchists on the other hand... ;)
Kyle Jordan|4.22.09 @ 4:40PM|#
"Before you object, the one government program I intend to
implement--contrary to my libertarian principles--is a massive
cloning project to provide each U.S. citizen with a Salma Hayek (or
functional equivalent) clone. Delivered at the appropriate age, of
course, and suitably programmed. Maybe we'll just make some
androids, come to think of it. Mere details."
You've found my price.
What is thy bidding, my Master?
|4.22.09 @ 4:42PM|#
Um, other than because heterosexual unions have a social
utility that homosexual ones don't?
Not to get off topic, but heterosexuals are allowed to get married
for whatever damn reason they want. The social utility argument has
no merits whatsoever, and is certainly not stronger than the equal
rights argument.
|4.22.09 @ 4:42PM|#
It's over. Change in a small government direction won't
happen in the U.S. through the existing political process. We'll
just have to wait for the federal government to collapse, and then
rebuild from the rubble, USSR-style.
Ding, Ding, Ding!! Tell him what he wins Johnny!
Lets just hope we do a better job! And lets hope its soon!
Elemenope|4.22.09 @ 4:45PM|#
Republicans are always libertarians when out of power.
This is not news.
When they become libertarian while in the majority, I will be
impressed.
|4.22.09 @ 4:49PM|#
Compromise with what?
Because as we all know libertarianism is the ONE rigid ideology
that actually does have all the answers for all time, unlike all
those others that claimed to.
Kyle Jordan|4.22.09 @ 4:49PM|#
Welcome back LMNOP. Good to see you posting again. I haven't always agreed with you but you're one of the posters who always makes me think.
|4.22.09 @ 4:52PM|#
Creech, the LP sees the strategy of the Socialist Party as a
role model. Socialist candidates did horribly in the ballot, but
their campaign platform ended up getting passed by the major
parties. Refusing to compromise on your long term goal is a bad
career move in politics, but a good way to get laws
passed.
The socialists were able to harness the natural tendency of
government to grow. Libertarians have to work against that
tendency. A long-term strategy that relies on going along with an
institutional imperative won't necessarily work if your goals are
antithetical to that institutional imperative.
Joel|4.22.09 @ 4:52PM|#
The fact is we libertarians don't do politics well because
we won't compromise. If, for however brief a time, we are let into
the GOP tent, the more pragmatic among us could eventually work
their way into positions of power
And promptly cease to be libertarian. One little compromise to get
elected, one more itsy-bitsy one to get on that committee, then
you've got to keep your political nose clean to get some of your
people in with the national party, then shovel some pork to the
voters back home, then there's that chairmanship dangling in front
of you, a few swapped votes...
Gimme a break. When, when, when are libertarians gonna finally
learn that you can't get there from here, if "here" has anything to
do with the GOP? Lucy and the football, indeed.
|4.22.09 @ 4:58PM|#
As I consolidate my rule, I'll remember you little people here
at Hit & Run.
Aside from robotic sex slaves, I'll also be shipping
non-libertarian minded folk to Greenland. I have a mind to create a
little welfare state for them to enjoy.
creech|4.22.09 @ 4:58PM|#
Sure, jtuf, but did some socialists involve themselves in the Democratic and Republican parties in order to move them toward the eventual adoption of the Socialist platform? Or did they all stand there shouting that these new friendly major party types were insincere phonies (e.g. Glenn Beck) or infiltrators (e.g.Bob Barr)? Whether or not libertarians want to influence the GOP by working with them, or continuing to politic in the LP, strategically it isn't helpful to denigrate every libertarian glimmer that they give on one issue or another.
Alan Vanneman|4.22.09 @ 4:59PM|#
The post-2008 Republican strategy is clear: all torture, all the time.
|4.22.09 @ 5:14PM|#
It's too early to tell, but I'd like to think the party is
taking a turn for the more libertarian. We'll see during the
primaries.
Snowe is a worst case than Huckabee for me (though I hate Huckabee
far more). If the Republicans take a turn for Snowe-style
government, we'll effectively have one political party.
head ---> desk|4.22.09 @ 5:25PM|#
Not to get off topic, but heterosexuals are allowed to get
married for whatever damn reason they want.
So what? Their reasons for getting married are irrelevant. The
consequences of doing so are not.
The social utility argument has no merits whatsoever, and is
certainly not stronger than the equal rights argument.
How many people here had same-sex parents? Raise your hands!
I hate to break this to you, but human beings managed to survive
quite nicely for many millennia without any concept of rights,
equal or otherwise. When you can tell me the same thing about
heterosexuality, I might buy the proposition that equal rights
trumps utility. Until then, I don't think so.
|4.22.09 @ 5:27PM|#
I will look for it if required. I remember seeing a piece (it may have been here) about McCain and his badmouthing Falwell and others in 2000. It showed him sucking up to them in 05 or 06 and realigning some of his ideals to theirs so he could get the nomination. IMO the GOP is still bending over willingly at the foot of the cross.
|4.22.09 @ 5:30PM|#
The whole anti-gay marriage thing will be part of the GOP's battle stance in 2012. I predict that they will rally The Church to try to win back D.C.
Brandon|4.22.09 @ 5:36PM|#
I have a set of college friends in their mid-twenties who were
were reliable Republican voters up until November. So was I until a
few years ago. They're pretty mainstream conservatives. I was
pleasantly surprised that they managed to look past the "if you
don't vote for McCain you're voting for a black communist Muslim"
bullshit and see the man and his party for what they were:
spineless sellouts who didn't deserve their vote. Some supported
Paul in the primaries and in the general all voted Barr or wrote in
funny names.
I'll be interested to see if they can quit the drug for good or the
GOP manages to lure them back.
|4.22.09 @ 5:38PM|#
Do we seriously need to turn this into another gay marriage debate? The Republican Party potentially tilting libertarian is about 100,000 x more massive (even if it's only conjecture). And this is coming from a dude who may or may not one day marry another dude.
nj|4.22.09 @ 5:54PM|#
Fuck the republican party. I am tired of my ideas being associated with a bunch of reactionary warmongers.
|4.22.09 @ 5:56PM|#
Um, other than because heterosexual unions have a social
utility that homosexual ones don't?
If the (rational) point is that marriage is all about making
babies, I'd be happy to debate you sometime. That would be like
hunting at the zoo.
mark|4.22.09 @ 6:01PM|#
Other people have said it and probably better than I, but does
the Republican party really expect me to ever go back to
them?
It's time for a new party. or get the Libertarians to actually come
down from the mountain and work a practical methodology for
governing from a Libertarian viewpoint with a pragmatic
understanding that change is best incremental (People tend to
reject the revolutionary and embrace the evolutionary) and to work
to get the hearts and minds of the younger generation.
It takes a generation to build a party, but you have to take the
steps to do it
Paul|4.22.09 @ 6:04PM|#
Libertarians don't do well in politics because we don't, as a rule of thumb, have ambition for power. We want to create a space where no power exists. The very act of getting elected or running for office runs contrary to that. How do you run for office telling people you're not going to solve their problems or intervene in their troubles?
|4.22.09 @ 6:15PM|#
I hate to break this to you, but human beings managed to
survive quite nicely for many millennia without any concept of
rights, equal or otherwise. When you can tell me the same thing
about heterosexuality, I might buy the proposition that equal
rights trumps utility. Until then, I don't think so.
You're so right. If we allow gay people to marry, everyone will
turn gay and stop procreating.
The only thing that stops most men from being raging homos is
clearly the fact that homosexuality is brutally suppressed by the
culture. Take that away and we'll all turn into fags and lesbians
overnight.
Franklin Harris|4.22.09 @ 6:16PM|#
Tell the GOP to get back to us when someone besides Ron Paul speaks out against perpetual war for perpetual peace.
Robert|4.22.09 @ 8:02PM|#
Republicans are loathsome belly-crawling shit-eating vermin. They change their tune when they want your help but will dry fuck you up the ass the first chance they get. How many times you gonna fall for that "I'm sorry honey, you know I'd never meant to hurt you" line?
How can the above possibly be true of about 1/3 of the US
population?
|4.22.09 @ 8:08PM|#
Libertarian Republicans face a daunting problem: Their
politicians, like most politicians, are self-interested
whores.
And the easiest way for self-interested whores to profit is to use
raw government patronage.
Liberals don't have half the problem because the majority of their
program is raw patronage anyway.
MlR|4.22.09 @ 8:13PM|#
"It's over. Change in a small government direction won't
happen in the U.S. through the existing political process. We'll
just have to wait for the federal government to collapse, and then
rebuild from the rubble, USSR-style."
Yep, and we're more likely to get devastating chaos or Napoleon
than libertopia as the result.
BakedPenguin|4.22.09 @ 8:50PM|#
What do the Republicans deserve? Some Giuliani time. You did this to the country, and your asshole, piece of shit president and congress fought for the expansion of government powers that the current dick is using to push the country completely in the crapper. So FUCK YOU with a plunger, motherfuckers. Don't even bother with the rhetoric of freedom, you soil it with your fecal tongues.
Elemenope|4.22.09 @ 9:06PM|#
Welcome back LMNOP. Good to see you posting again. I haven't
always agreed with you but you're one of the posters who always
makes me think.
Thanks, Kyle. My posts will be much more infrequent while I busy
myself looking for a new job, but I still do peruse the comments
when I have time. :)
|4.22.09 @ 9:25PM|#
I would rather take over the GOP and take my chances than vote
for a 3rd party just to create "Senator Franken".
It's going to take an alliance between social conservatives and
libertarians to wrestle power away from the socialists. Finding
common ground is important.
Start with abortion. Social conservatives will oppose federal
funding of abortion because abortion is wrong. Libertarians will
oppose federal funding of abortion because federal funding is
wrong.
WTF, run with what you've got.
|4.22.09 @ 9:30PM|#
the problem with the Repubs is that about half of them or more
are Progressives and secretly love Obama's big Gov. programs. also,
ppl are as against gay marriage and illegal immgration as ever,
they're just tired and overwhelmed by the sheer scope and depth of
the assualt on our freedoms and traditions by the current (and
former) Administration.
if there is a Libertarian canidate on my ballot in 2010, I will
vote for them. After years of voting for the Repubs i've had about
enough.
|4.22.09 @ 9:35PM|#
It would be really nice if the GOP became America First
Libertarian nationalists.
Libetarianism in one country. If you admire it, replicate it in
your own country. I don't see it happening from the wholly owned
asswhores in the GOP or Reason.com.
They continue to be Nick Gillespie style open border, so called
"free" trade", we are the world, we are the children,
internationalist Libertopians. The Nick Gillespie style destroyers
of the American country, culture and people.
|4.22.09 @ 9:35PM|#
"I'm going to vote for democrats. At least they won't come with
all the religious baggage."
Yea, let's be so afraid of a wing of the Repubs that makes a lot of
noise but rarely gets their stuff enacted. On the other hand, let's
suck up to Obama and his new libertarianism. You know, the one that
turns the nation to socialism. Nothing odd about that at all, is
there?
As other commentors noted, I was struck as well how suddenly social
issues define libertarianism. I can be free market on everything on
the planet but if I oppose abortion I'm a stinking statist.
Both examples explain why I grew to loathe what passes for
libertarianism in this country. In its current state, it seems
little better than the religious right. Subscribe 100% to my
orthodoxy or I vote for somebody 1,000 times worse than you! I hope
you enjoy your higher taxes and socialized medicine, the true
values of libertarians everywhere.
|4.22.09 @ 9:40PM|#
Republicans and Democrats are exactly the same. Immediately upon
assuming office they become members of the Permanent Incumbent
party.
Any differences between the parties are merely advertising spin for
the rubes.
Vote for Real Change.
Re-Elect Nobody!
|4.22.09 @ 9:47PM|#
rrr;
You are right.
Internationalist libertopian whores like Gillespie masquarade as
"libertarians".
They demand we flood America with tens of millions of third world
welfare parasites and that we give these third world welfare
parasites a "path" to a Democrat voter registration card.
Gillespie them bemoans the fact that his millions of welfare
parasites voted for the party of welfare!!!
Mike|4.22.09 @ 9:51PM|#
Not being a full fledged Libertine and more of a Burkean
Conservative, my observation on the matter is that the GOP
politicians are everything you accuse them of. Shit eating vermin,
for the most part. The people making up the party, at the
grassroots level, are definitely embracing purist conservatism's
strong libertarian roots. They are another story all
together.
I cannot say the LP will dominate the GOP, but if what is happening
that I think is happening you sure as hell will have a major seat
at the table on economic and small government issues.
On social issues, the great divide will remain.
Two out of three ain't bad. So you guys have to be willing to
compromise if the far left is to be taken down.
The GOP and conservative grassroots are going to need you. I
suggest you mobilize and help them find their way. They are
receptive to your economic messages right now. Don't miss the boat
on this, the consequences will be devastating.
Take care.
M. Simon|4.22.09 @ 9:52PM|#
Fags AND lesbians?
I could see turning into a fag (it would be difficult but given the
right incentives one can fake anything) but turning into a lesbian
as well? Just the surgery alone is offputting. Not to mention the
cost.
|4.22.09 @ 9:53PM|#
They may be talking a good game now, but Republicans proved their promises to be worthless after failing to hold up their end of the Contract with America back in 1994. So what are the alternatives? Here's a thought: every day the Constitution Party seems less and less an extreme one. Of course, if any Constitutionists or Libertarians managed to be elected without substantial change in the workings of the Special Interest State, what would prevent them from being corrupted into behaving the same as today's Republicans?
|4.22.09 @ 9:55PM|#
Millions of Gillespie encouraged turd world, uneducated,
unskilled, welfare dependent "immigrants" voted for Obama.
Gillespie wants to blame Obama's election on the 400 or 500
"libertarians" who voted for Obama.
Newsflash for Nick Gillespie; Welfare parasites vote for the party
which promises to defend and expand programs for welfare parasites.
DOH!
M. Simon|4.22.09 @ 10:03PM|#
When you can tell me the same thing about heterosexuality, I
might buy the proposition that equal rights trumps
utility.
If homosexuality has no utility why does it exist in humans and
other species?
And you know - homosexuals can procreate. Just not with each
other.
The Grey Man|4.22.09 @ 10:03PM|#
Right now, Main Stream Republicans (MSR) are in a sorry state.
They abandoned their principles of liberty and small government,
and thus got their butts kicked twice in a row. The second time
they got whopped by a Socialist in all but name, that's how bad it
is.
The MSR are no more becoming libertarian than I'm growing a third
arm. They're just noticing that there's a serious groundswell of
small government libertarianism, IE traditional "Legacy" republican
values. They're trying to ride the wave, and keep what power they
have, or increase it.
What the MSR don't realize is that we hold them even more
responsible than Democrats for the current mess. Big government
liberals don't know any better. The MSR knew better, and made a
conscious choice to betray us for cash or power.
I may vote Republican again, but there'd better be a damned good
candidate. And I'll remember Reagan: Dovyon no provyon. Trust but
Verify.
If they can't come up with an honest candidate, who'll reduce
government, never do an earmark, I'll start voting for the Rabid
Space Aardvark Party.
Jimbobb|4.22.09 @ 10:03PM|#
I just read a bunch of the comments...new to this site...and
wow. People are soooo funny here. Gay marriage is opposed by a
large percentage of Americans. Get over it. May change, may
not.
Worrying about gay "rights" in the face of whether or not we work
for the government 50 or 60% of the year is the silliest example of
straightening the chairs of the titanic I have seen in a long time.
Gay marriage is a trivial issue. Libertarians would be better off
to drop this issue entirely and work on just the fiscal issues,
because the gay issues turn off half your would be allies and
appease a 1% population that hates you.
Legalization of drugs...same thing. I agree, lots of drugs should
be legalized. But it is a small issue. If libertarians really care
about freedom, the indentured servitude of all of us to the
government is the clearest, most draconian invasion of freedom
imaginable. The rest is insignificant. Why turn away potential
allies over trivial issues?
Ideological purity is for religion and academics, not politics.
Greg F|4.22.09 @ 10:08PM|#
As soon as the "stimulus" (rape the people) package was passed
everybody where I live was in line for a handout. We have the
government policies we have because the people are
greedy. We have the politicians we have because the
people are greedy. The people don't
realize their folly because the people are also ignorant. They
think the government money comes from someone else. They don't care
who the government steals it from as long as they get their
cut.
Party affiliations are a distinction without a difference. Both
parties appeal to the narcissistic western culture where everybody
thinks they deserve a handout. We have become like a bunch of
spoiled teenagers who have no idea where their meals come from. It
will take a severe beating from reality before the people grow up.
The political parties are the effect, not the cause.
|4.22.09 @ 10:10PM|#
Dear M. Simon.
If rape and murder have no utility, why do they exist in humans and
other species?
The Bearded Hobbit|4.22.09 @ 10:12PM|#
"Are Republicans turning into
libertarians?"
.. perhaps .. but I sure don't see many libertarians turning into
Republicans ..
.. Hobbit
Eric Dondero|4.22.09 @ 10:46PM|#
Just as interesting question:
Are Libertarians turning into Republicans?
The Libertarian Party is morphing into a harder-line version of the
GOP, and that's a very welcome development.
DJP|4.22.09 @ 11:09PM|#
Jimbobb, as if the Republicans didn't massively grow the
government and debt pre-Obama?
What's the use of supporting a party that is not only
huge-government, but also warmongering and civil-liberty
destroying?
|4.22.09 @ 11:13PM|#
Let's see. If the Repubs dump the Christians for the
Libertarians they can get, what, 25% of the vote?
Then we can have permanent nanny statism, gay marriage, abortion on
demand, hate speech legislation, cap and trade and, oh yeah, no
guns. Cool!
engineer|4.22.09 @ 11:14PM|#
Ah, the Notorious Eric Dondero. I heard of you, and thought you were merely a myth.
engineer|4.22.09 @ 11:15PM|#
"What's the use of supporting a party that is not only
huge-government, but also warmongering and civil-liberty
destroying?"
To avoid a party that's equally bad on civil liberties, and
even-huger government?
Just throwin' out there.
engineer|4.22.09 @ 11:17PM|#
"Libertarian nationalists."
The only term more contradictory than this is "libertarian
socialist".
|4.23.09 @ 1:20AM|#
Libertarianism is a non-starter in American politics for the
simple reason that most of the electorate have a track record of
voting against it.
Only certain coalitions are possible, except under freaky one-off
conditions, you can't combine, for ex, religious right
anti-abortion activism with social liberal 'judicial supremacists'
who believe that opposition to gay marriage is a sin. Likewise, you
can't combine socialists and free-market liberatarians, again
except for freaky instances.
The GOP cannot win as a libertarian party. If it tries, it'll not
just lose, but lose catastropically. John McCain was a terrible
candidate, but Rudy Giuilani would have been even worse, his
social-issues positions would have alienated the entire South, and
Obama would still have won the Northeast handily.
This is the underlying problem for the GOP leadership, at heart
they are cultural 'light blues', but that part of the electorate
that is prepared to vote GOP is cultural red. They oppose illegal
immigration passionately, hate abortion, are adamantly nationalist,
they certainly aren't liberatarians.
Likewise, the northeastern majority, contrary to fond wishes of
many, is liberal, not libertarian. The theory that the GOP can win
large swaths of votes outside the South by moving away from
cultural conservatism simply is not supported by the data.
Bush Sr., Bob Dole, the Congress in 1998 and 2006, McCain in 2008,
the GOP _loses_ when they 'moderate', try to appeal to the
northeastern mindset (on social issues, which is what the media
class mean when they insist the GOP must 'moderate').
The recent winners have been Nixon, Reagan, Bush in 2000, Congress
in 2002 and 2004, Bush in 2004.
The electoral demographics of the United States are such that
elections, for sincere libertarians, are always a choice of the
lesser evil, a 'liberatarian majority' is a mathematical
non-starter.
chris |4.23.09 @ 2:03AM|#
Yes. Yes we are. Not everyone who is/was a Republican was beholden to the religious right. Some of us were small government/fiscal conservatives that got sold out by Bush and his cronies. I came to the conclusion that neither party had my best interests in mind so I became a Libertarian.
|4.23.09 @ 2:03AM|#
It won't matter until either the GOP or the LP recruits somebody other than white males.
You're right. There are no women in either group*, and
definitely no blacks. :p goofball.
In its current state, it seems little better than the religious right. Subscribe 100% to my orthodoxy or I vote for somebody 1,000 times worse than you!
WTH are you talking about?
*actually, I'm registered as an Independent
Nash|4.23.09 @ 4:46AM|#
The last time the GOP pretended they were pseudo-libertarian was
when Clinton was in power. Then he got a blowjob from an intern,
they went crazy and proceeded to lose all credibility in congress
once they got their guy in charge.
Evangelicals are really obnoxious but I think I hate
neoconservatives even more.
Every time I consider voting GOP I discover their candidate is
either a) a warmonger b) a gay bashing evangelical immigrant hater
or c) a corporate shill. Sometimes you even get the hat trick. If I
can find a GOP candidate that doesn't fall into those 3 categories
they get my vote by default.
MJ|4.23.09 @ 7:27AM|#
Being against gay marriage is the equivalent of
"gay-bashing"?
Nate Silver, you are a dick.
MJ|4.23.09 @ 7:30AM|#
"If homosexuality has no utility why does it exist in humans and
other species?"
Are you suggesting that every genetic defect or developmental
disorder has utility?
That's not quite how biology works.
Brian|4.23.09 @ 8:47AM|#
Republicans are doing great things in Indiana to balance budgets and keep government small. The big government at the federal level is somewhat of a myth when you look at the actual numbers. As no surprise the numbers are crippling after 2006 when the democrats take over congress and with a new president surprise the spending spree continues. If the same pattern exists, don't you have to blame the people that are the same, not the ones that are gone. Oh no, that would be logic.
|4.23.09 @ 8:51AM|#
Most who bash Republicans have NO IDEA what they really stand
for. They just blindly believe an old and tired stereotype. That's
dumb and anathema to how informed and "tolerant" to how Liberals
are SUPPOSED to be.
Republicans are NOT gay bashers. Nor are Conservatives. Small
minded peeps can't wrap tiny brain around the fact that many
Republicans and/or Conservatives do not like the re-definition of
marriage yet still like gays just fine, thank you very much.
And as for it not being winning issue, many of the people in
California (blacks and hispanics and other minorities) VOTED
AGAINST PROP 8...and those peeps also voted for Captain ZerObama.
So there!
Yeah, I notice many going to the Libertarian side. I'm gonna stay a
Conservative and fight. I was once a Liberal and that side is just
WRONG (and very sick and stupid). And I know 'cuz I was within the
ranks. Many Republican/Conservative bashers have never been on that
side so they are tragically misinformed.
I'M STICKING TO MY VALUES! PROUD TO BE CONSERVATIVE!
|4.23.09 @ 8:52AM|#
I have libertarian leanings for sure but man some of you guys
come off as intolerant as Perez Hilton, Rev. Wright, or Jerry
Falwell. I'm totally libertarian when it comes to the federal
government and that's where you guys can make hay in the GOP. At
the state/local level I want to leave it totally up to the
peeps.
I see no problem with Cali having gay marriage, legal drugs,
statist education, cap and trade, abortion on demand ect. so long
as Florida can ban gay marriage, no weed, educational choice, zero
enviro taxes, and ban abortion except in cases of threat to the
mother. Let the peeps decide how they want to live just keep the
feds out of it.
The oppressive fedzilla has screwed the country. Let the states
experiment and we can learn what works best. Kill the fed and the
federal government and you can create your own libertarian paradise
in some state.
|4.23.09 @ 9:17AM|#
Well the lib party ideaology is closer to conservative ideology than the track record of republicans. if this is a serious trend things will get alot worse before they get better.
|4.23.09 @ 9:17AM|#
I truly doubt that Republicans are turning into Libertarians.
Most Republicans actually really like the leviathan war state and
the empire that it has accumulated. They really don't know much
about libertarian principles, and when informed of such, are often
appalled.
All one has to do is mention a couple of the core libertarian
principles (ZAP, for example) on a Republican-dominated site to
quickly learn of the vituperative nature of many Republicans. It is
quite sad.
|4.23.09 @ 9:28AM|#
Next time, write about reality. Whenever the people vote on same-sex pseudo-marriage, the result is a foregone conclusion.
|4.23.09 @ 9:43AM|#
I'm a former Repub. and a future Libertarian - and like most of
you at some point in your life, I've had an awakening. I've been
shaken out of my comfort zone. I now see that freedom is the answer
and the republican party has only ever increased the size of
gov.
So have some hope, American is a slow moving beast and sometimes
she has to do all the wrong things first but she eventually gets
around to the right thing. DON'T BE SO CYNICAL!
cackcon|4.23.09 @ 11:15AM|#
None of the four paths cited by Silver are "conservative."
The conservative path would be a restoration of the balance between
State and federal governments. Nix the "incorporation" nonsense and
other idiotic paraconstitutional rulings that the federal courts
have imposed; trim the power of Congress--like the good old days
before the Commerce Clause was rendered moot; keep the powers of
the executive in check when appropriate--as one example, stop
allowing presidents to be legislators-in-chief, since that's the
role of Congress.
In sum, let the States decide which of Silver's paths they wish to
take, and stop letting the feds dictate State law without the
authority to do so.
Ian|4.23.09 @ 11:29AM|#
I'm a member of your 'religious right'. I vote. You can try it without me. Good luck.
|4.23.09 @ 11:41AM|#
"If homosexuality has no utility why does it exist in humans
and other species?"
Are you suggesting that every genetic defect or developmental
disorder has utility?
That's not quite how biology works.
Homosexuality is not a defect or disorder. It's a normal variation
on sexuality that occurs in thousands of species in stable
numbers.
Sexuality and evolution are much, much more complex than we used to
think. I recommend reading some current science on the subject.
It's fascinating.
|4.23.09 @ 11:46AM|#
John Dean, former Nixon staffer:
"As I was writing this closing section, an old friend from the
Nixon White House called. Now retired, he is a lifelong Republican
who told me that he voted for Bush and Cheney twice, because he
knows them both personally. He asked how my new book was coming,
and when I told him the title, he remarked, 'I'll say the
government's broken.' After we discussed it, he asked how I planned
to end the book, since the election was still a good distance away.
I told him I was contemplating ending midsentence and immediately
fading to black-the way HBO did in the final episode of The
Sopranos-but that I would settle for a nice quote from him, on the
record. He explained that he constantly has to bite his tongue, and
the reason he does not speak out more is because one of his sons is
in an important (nonpolitical) government post, and we both know
that Republicans will seek revenge wherever they can find it. How
about an off-the-record comment? I asked. That he agreed to.
'Just tell your readers that you have a source who knows a lot
about the Republican Party from long experience, that he knows all
the key movers and shakers, and he has a bit of advice. People
should not vote for any Republican, because they're dangerous,
dishonest, and self serving. While I once believed that Governor
George Wallace had it right, that there was not a dime's worth of
difference in the parties, that is no longer true. I have come to
realize the Democrats really do care about people who most need
help from government. Republicans care most about those who will
only get richer because of government help. The government is truly
broken, particularly in dealing with national security, and another
four years, and heaven forbid not eight years, under the
Republicans, and our grandchildren will have to build a new
government, because the one we have will be unrecognizable and
unworkable."
Anyone saying there is no difference between Republicans and
Democrats are guilty of lazy thinking.
|4.23.09 @ 11:46AM|#
Ditto, Warren.
Only an idiot would trust any lying POS Republican to actually do
what they promise. I threw hundreds of dollars down their rat hole
every election until 2006.
The only reason Matt is pondering this question is because not a
single one of these crooks has stood up and charted a clear path in
ANY direction.
I want the GOP DEAD.
|4.23.09 @ 11:53AM|#
The ONLY thing that will save the GOP - and the country in general - is a move back towards strong conservatism, i.e. Ronald Reagan. You can like it or not, but that's the truth. And from the tenor of the posts here, I am assuming that most of you were not even born during the Reagan era. Your cynicism is frightening. "Libertarian" is just a word for "too lazy to take a stand on anything".
|4.23.09 @ 11:58AM|#
"I think you can make a good argument that evangelicals are a
declining force in American society--all that stuff about the
"Fourth Great Awakening" and such. They seem to have less control
over the GOP than in years past. Heck, John McCain certainly wasn't
one of them, however many other faults he possessed."
Yeah, and he got his ass handed to him, didn't he. The only reason
he got the votes he got was because of Sarah Palin - a strong
evangelical Christian.
|4.23.09 @ 12:09PM|#
Litmus test for republicans.
The best one I can think of is, are they in favor of abolishing the
Federal Reserve and ending the state sanctioned monopoly on
currency?
If they say that issuing currency and arresting competing currency
issuers somehow helps the economy then they are idiots or thieves.
It is a powerful monopoly that serves no purpose but to enrich the
politically powerful at the expense of the politically weak.
Orange Line Special|4.23.09 @ 12:12PM|#
Raoul has Gillespie and Reason pegged above.
As for MattW's blatherings, the easier explanation is that GOP
leaders are even dumber than usual and keep wasting their time
trying to create material for Hannity's show rather than doing
things that are effective like truly discrediting their opponents
in ways that their opponents' supporters can understand? Combine
that with the MSM being even more aligned with those in power than
usual, and what we're experiencing results.
In case anyone coming here from HotAir wants to see an effective
way to oppose BHO - a way that's about a million times more
effective than the tea parties - click here.
|4.23.09 @ 2:47PM|#
The question is 'is our Republicans learning?'
The answer is, no. They're becoming more insane with every passing
day, feeding red meat to their gerrymandered constituents and
ensuring a generation of defeat on the national level.
|4.23.09 @ 3:20PM|#
Tony, it's true-believer libertoonians who "are becoming more
insane with each passing day."
I read the libertoonian prattle here in Reason's comment sections
and discover that the purest of the pure libertoonians would sell
out freedom in a heartbeat for pot and a pretend marriage to a
fudge-packer. Those folks are sick and most of the rest of the
liber-ranters here are even sicker for signing over their brains to
the potted packing crowd.
Here's a free clue: Your neighbors and co-workers are those people
you call "the Republicans" and "the Democrats." They don't like
John Dean or Bill Moyers. Your neighbors aren't stupid either, they
understand - even if they can't write research papers explaining it
all - that without a common culture and commonly shared mores a
free society soon disintegrates. Another clue (I'm feeling generous
like libertarians don't): The more free the people in a country
generally are, the louder the whining about the remaining
restrictions on libertine behavior becomes.
|4.23.09 @ 3:42PM|#
I think that in order for many Republicans to become Libertarians, even the ones that are stuanchly fiscal conservatives, the Libertarian Party will have to adopt a foreign policy approach other than sticking the country's head in the sand
|4.23.09 @ 4:30PM|#
Don't kid yourself - Sarah Palin has a strong libertarian streak - it just doesn't match with how the main stream media want to paint her.
|4.23.09 @ 5:58PM|#
"I read the libertoonian prattle here in Reason's comment
sections and discover that the purest of the pure libertoonians
would sell out freedom in a heartbeat for pot and a pretend
marriage to a fudge-packer."
These things are part of freedom, as is the right not to
engage in them. Government regulation of drugs back in the
1900s-1910s was the nose of the camel making its way into the tent,
which statists subsequently have used as a pretext to regulate
anything they damn please.
" Another clue (I'm feeling generous like libertarians don't): The
more free the people in a country generally are, the louder the
whining about the remaining restrictions on libertine behavior
becomes."
Is there anything else you'd like to pull straight out of your ass
to-day?
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Social conservatism =
hammer, nail, etc.
|4.24.09 @ 1:32PM|#
If we get another "Contract with America" promising economic libertarianism; can get get a contract with teeth this time? Maybe we can get one or two of the promised dozen points if it has some recourse should they give up on it again...
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245