The GOP's Gen Y Problem: Young Republicans Alienated by Party's Social Conservatism

Elizabeth Nolan BrownElizabeth Nolan BrownLast week, at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), there was a guy with a mohawk. I suppose this was notable because the GOP is generally a mohawk-free zone. Every time I passed said man throughout the day, a crowd was gathered, snapping his photo. It made me chuckle. He was no politician, pundit, or public intellectual. He was just a guy with a mohawk. At CPAC.

But while dude’s hair choices may be atypical for young Republicans, his views aren’t. Our mohawked friend—who goes by Rooster—is mentioned liberally in a recent article concerning the split between young and old party members on social issues. Rooster is part of an emerging young conservative cohort "who are pro-free market on fiscal issues and libertarian on social ones," The New York Times informs us, somewhat confusingly (so he’s libertarian on everything, then?). "While his views represent a potential growth wing for a party that is losing among other demographics, they also show an emerging tension with the older social conservatives at the core of the party’s base." 

I wrote about this last week in the context of a new Pew Research Survey on millennials. The survey revealed that more than half of Gen Y identifies as politically independent—though these young independents are more likely to vote Democrat than Republican. Surmising from this and previous polling data, along with anecdotal experience, it seems to hinge heavily on the GOP’s handling of social issues. A majority of young people (regardless of political affiliation) support marriage equality and ending the drug war. And no matter where they fall on birth control issues such as whether Hobby Lobby should have to pay for it, most realize that it is a widely-used tool to prevent pregnancy and not some dirty thing that only dirty dirty whores need (a viewpoint all too rarely displayed by seasoned Republican politicians, whose feet are pretty much permanently wedged in their mouths when it comes to contraception). Even millennials who do have socially conservative views seem less likely than their elders to want to force them on all people through the state.

People say that young adults outgrow liberalism, which may be frequently true on economic issues. But it seems less likely that this generation will eventually “grow into” social intolerance. Certain liberal cultural ideas—like tolerance toward homosexuality and marijuana use—aren’t going anywhere. As the Times puts it: “This youthful libertarianism is not fading when the Republicans of tomorrow graduate from college.”

Right now, the Republican party is losing young independents because of its insistence on making culture war issues preeminent. But they could soon start losing more young Republicans, too. The Times suggests that GOP politicians embrace more libertarian attitudes or pay the price in upcoming elections. But as someone with no vested interest in whether Republicans win elections, I think the more interesting question is why all these socially-liberal young folks still self-identify as Republicans?

Psssst, Gen Y: There is a third way, you guys. The way of no party. The way of small-l libertarianism. Come over to the dark side, dear socially liberal young Republicans!

Unlike the GOP, we won’t try to change you. We won’t try to insist you grow out of loving liberty for all. You can even still vote Republican when (if) decent candidates present themselves. Or vote Democrat. Or don’t vote at all.

Meanwhile, you can be pro free markets and fiscal responsibility while also supporting personal liberty and sensible drug policy. [You can also be pro- or anti-abortion rights; there’s a libertarian case for both…] And you can do so without the outside world assuming you're a big, intolerant jerk. When "the Duke freshman porn star" recently defended her membership in the college Republicans, she complained that people automatically assume her membership makes her “a bigot and a homophobe.” When I recently attended a panel of young conservatives talking about poverty, they complained that people think the right’s poverty policy involves nothing more than cruelly cutting benefits.

But these are the primary connotations of the GOP among much of Gen Y: Bigotry, homophobia, lack of empathy (not to mention sexism and sexual prudishness). As frustrating as it is for less socially-conservative Republicans to be lumped in with those associations, the party has done little to make them seem undeserved. And it won’t, until younger party members start turning away in large numbers.

For young Republicans who really want to change the GOP, the best way may be to leave the party for a while. In the meantime, we'll be waiting over here all pro-markets and pro-tolerance. 

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.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    At least part of it likely has to do with the pitch rather than policy. Reagan won younger voters. But since Reagan the GOP has put up candidates a decade or more (on average) older than the Democrat's candidates.

  • BigT||

    Right. It was Reagan's youth that won 'em.

    Oh, wait...

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Not his youth, his charisma, which is often, but not always associated with youth by many.

    In 1980 Reagan had the dyed hair, the movie star background, and more vigor than the worn out looking Carter. Same for Mondale.

    Compare that to Dole falling off the stage, McCain saying he could not work the internet and a sixty-something Mormon, and it is no mystery why young people are breaking towards the Democrats in national elections.

  • WTF||

    Or, it could be that people who are young now are more into the "free shit" entitlement agenda than people who were young in the 1980s.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Well, that just begs the question, why would young people now be more into that than young people today?

    If anything, as the debt grows, young people should be less so.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    why would young people now be more into that than young people today?

    It even begs a moronic question.

  • mr simple||

    That's not what "begs the question" means.

  • WTF||

    I was going to jump on Bo for not understanding the meaning of begging the question, but you beat me to it.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

  • Tony||

    You mean the liberal agenda that worked for decades vs. the 1980s deregulatory cut-the-welfare-state agenda that undid much of the progress?

  • WTF||

    Yeah, the 1980s were so much worse than the Carter years with the "Misery Index". You really are an idiot.

  • BigT||

    Are you better off than you were 4 years ago? That killed Jimmy. The liberal agenda and 40 years of Donkey House needed some fixin', and Reagan did a decent job of it.

  • Calidissident||

    What alternate universe do you inhabit?

    I could list one flaw in this post for almost every word, but just to take one, the welfare state has been far more extensive since 1980 than it was for any comparable amount of time before. Before the mid-60s, there was very little federal welfare spending aside from SS. And in case you're unaware, the 1970s weren't exactly a time of economic paradise.

  • BigT||

    So basically age has nothing to do with it. It's all about perceptions and behavior ( and issues for some). Agreed.

  • John||

    For young Republicans who really want to change the GOP, the best way may be to leave it for a while.

    Do you have the same advice for young Democrats who are angry about the NSA? I assume yes, but why are there not ever any posts saying such?

    And what does "social conservative" mean other than gay marriage and pro abortion? I would say that the GOP is getting significantly better regarding the drug war. So really we are left with gays and abortion.

    Well, I don't see how believing that life begins before the magic trip down the birth canal is being "social conservative". And as far as gays, the only thing I see the GOP doing is protecting the right of people to object to gay marriage and not recognize it in private transactions. Last, I looked that was or was supposed to be the Libertarian point of view.

    The left has won the debate over gay marriage to such a degree that anything short of full recognition of gays as a protected class is now considered the social conservative position. Whether you realize it or not, Reason is in the social conservative camp on this issue, that is assuming they recognize the right of people to act on their religious beliefs.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "Well, I don't see how believing that life begins before the magic trip down the birth canal is being "social conservative". "

    I imagine any crosstab of a poll with both questions would find considerable overlap with people who identify as religious and those who oppose abortion.

  • John||

    Except that those under 30 are as a group much more pro life than those over 40.

    Since 1990, the percentage of those 18-29 who thought abortion should be legal under all circumstances dropped from 36% to 24%. Currently, those over 65 are the only group who have a less favorable view of abortion than those under 29.
    http://www.gallup.com/poll/126.....arrow.aspx

    Technology and the development of the ultrasound has had a real effect.

    I get it Bo. You think anyone who disagrees with you is part of the evil SOCON cabal. It is a really tiresome act. Get a new one.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Your projection is so strong John! All this and last week you have criticized, cursed and screamed at everyone from me to Gilmore and the Reason contributors as we are all in the bag for the liberals, to get into cocktail parties or something.

    http://www.christianpost.com/n.....ife-75772/

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/154.....hoice.aspx

    Religion and pro-life overlap, as I said, if you want to come back to facts and stop screaming like Red Tony.

  • John||

    Needs more Red Tony, you half wit.

    You have been reduced to the level of shreek.

    The fact is that under 29 are as a group the most pro life demographic out there short of old people. That means that pro life doesn't mean religion. The fact that religious people are also mostly pro life doesn't answer my point.

    Saying "we love abortion" isn't, considering the actual attitudes of young people, likely to on its own attract many of their votes.

    You might be the dumbest person on here. Shreek is worse, but he is just retarded and insane and doesn't count. You in contrast actually try and often end up doing as badly shreek.

  • SIV||

    You have been reduced to the level of shreek.

    shriek is way better

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    You have been reduced to the level of shreek.

    shriek is way better

    I second this statement.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    2 out of 3 trolls agree!

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    What definition of troll are you using?

    And what do you mean by agree?

  • mr simple||

    CPA,
    He must be counting himself as the third troll for his math to work out.

  • SIV||

    Sockpuppet AND a troll

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    John, that 'most pro-life demographic out there' is breaking significantly to the Democrat Party in national election to national election. Keep telling yourself whatever helps you sleep at night, but do not come run crying on here in 2016 when the candidate you thought was going to win because of their surefire pro-life appeal to those young people loses yet again.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Coochi took more of them than McCauliffe. Also, voter participation in this block is low.

  • sarcasmic||

    Needs more Red Tony, you half wit.

    WAAAAAAAAAAH! IT'S ALL YOU! IT'S NOT ME! I DIDN'T DO ANYTHING! WHY DO YOU KEEP PICKING ON ME! I DIDN'T DO ANYTHING! WAAAAAAAAAAAH!

  • John||

    Go fuck yourself Sarcasmic. No one picks on me, I just pick on you.

  • sarcasmic||

    Ass.

  • John||

    You only scream Red Tony because you have nothing else to say.

  • sarcasmic||

    Once again proving that you Just. Don't. Get. It.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "Go fuck yourself"

    John's All Purpose Argument.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Just because two things overlap doesn't imply a direct relationship. I don't think the young are going for abortion nearly as hard as John wants to believe but there are secular anti-choicers out there.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I am not positing a direct relationship, just that they overlap, which reinforces the perception among the young that abortion is a cultural issue with religious social conservatives on one definite side.

  • John||

    I am not positing a direct relationship, just that they overlap,

    Which is another way of saying you have no point and are just trolling the thread.

    Thanks for conceding the argument.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    John, as a matter of politics perception is important, no? To the extent that young people perceive the pro-life movement to be made up of religious conservatives they are likely to be less attracted to support it, and as the polling data I linked to shows, their perceptions are not incorrect.

  • John Thacker||

    However, the young people mentioned in this poll are more heavily pro-life than older Republican leaners.

    Being pro-life is correlated with being religious, but being younger is correlated with being irreligious and with being pro-life.

    If you restrict to the poll at the top of the article, you'll see that this group of young people includes a lot of secular and irreligious pro-lifers.

  • SIV||

    Which is another way of saying you have no point and are just trolling the thread.

    It's its raison d'être

  • John Thacker||

    In general, yes. However, younger voters are considerably less religious and more socially liberal on other issues-- but, if anything, oppose abortion more than older voters. Especially the young Republicans and Republican-leaners in this poll.

    Perhaps they think that opposition to gay marriage, pot, etc. can't be justified since any supposed harm (if it exists) affects the people who do the actions themselves, but see abortion differently.

  • Elizabeth Nolan Brown||

    I totally have the same advice for young Democrats fed up with the NSA and Obama's foreign policy, etc. (and I"m hoping I'll have plenty of occasion to write posts saying such). I try to cajole my liberal friends over to the libertarian side all the time, too, rest assured. I think my / the general focus on young conservatives recently just stems from CPAC and all the associated press around it.

  • John||

    Good luck with that. In fairness, I can't blame you for concentrating on the young Republicans since they are not brain dead like the liberals and can therefore perhaps at least listen to a reasonable argument.

  • John||

    Good luck with that. In fairness, I can't blame you for concentrating on the young Republicans since they are not brain dead like the liberals and can therefore perhaps at least listen to a reasonable argument.

  • John||

    Good luck with that. In fairness, I can't blame you for concentrating on the young Republicans since they are not brain dead like the liberals and can therefore perhaps at least listen to a reasonable argument.

  • sarcasmic||

    Spanked by the 3 o'clock squirrels! Burn!

  • GILMORE||

    Ch-ch-ch-CHANGES

  • SForza||

    So nice you said it thrice!

  • wareagle||

    young conservatives at least bring with them a belief in free markets; young progs bring hostility in that regard. Social views can and do change over the course of one's life, informed largely by a person's experiences.

    Views on gays have changed because they're not closeted anymore. Who hasn't been around an openly person, or several, nowadays and figured out there is nothing scary there? Contrast that with changing the mind of someone who doesn't understand basic economics.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "young conservatives at least bring with them a belief in free markets"

    This is generally true in comparison to young progressives, but it should be qualified based on the topic and region. Where I live many young conservatives would be quick to restrict voluntary exchanges in, say, pornography, strip clubs, drugs or abortion services whereas many young progressives would not.

  • ||

    Don't worry the Young Democrats would be all for this restrictions so long as you labelled them "common sense regulations."

  • carol||

    I think you are right that gays being "out" makes all the difference. I seriously doubt that my eighty-three year old mother knows any gays (or at least knows that she knows any gays)but when the court case came out about the two women who and been partners for fifty plus years and the surviving partner was having to fight for her inheritance rights my mom became pro gay marriage. She had just lost my dad after sixty years of marriage and she could relate.

  • Tony||

    Give up the horseshit economic fairy tales first. I'd prefer you also be realists on foreign policy too. Realists on everything, actually. Start there.

  • ||

    You got the part already

  • Overt||

    "I totally have the same advice for young Democrats fed up with the NSA and Obama's foreign policy, etc."

    That seems like a pretty faint denial given the articles I've seen from you.

    These threads seem dominated by two viewpoints. Those who think the biggest threat to Liberty is a Socon agenda, and those who think the biggest threat to Liberty is the Liberal agenda. When forced, people will (as you do in the quote above) admit that both parties have drawbacks, but you can tell by the tenor of the posts who you and Bo on the one side believe is the real threat to Liberty.

    And so you are probably going to see a lot more disagreement from people like John and to a lesser extent from people like me.

    Socons have essentially three issues- Abortion, Gay Marriage and Intelligent Design. Liberals have two: The enivronment and economics. Basically 98% of the stuff that we deal with on a day to day basis. Which is really the bigger threat?

  • Tony||

    What if you're a fertile woman living in Texas?

  • Overt||

    Environmental and Economic issues still dominate your life to a much further extent than the small likelihood that you will need to kill your unborn child.

  • Tony||

    In that event the vicious murdering of an unborn innocent baby child angel will, however, be the most immediate concern.

    This is leaving aside the fact that libertarians and the GOP have an economic and environmental agenda that is totally fucked logically, morally, and empirically.

  • ||

    Because fertile woman = pregnant and seeking an abortion.

    Man, those sexist Republicans sure do treat women like stupid, unthinking commodities, don't they?

  • Tony||

    Do you live in a cave?

  • Warren's Strapon||

    The GOP has an image problem in addition the issue problem. Comments about Sandra Fluke being a slut and about how you can't get pregnant via rape come to mind. Complaints about the War On Christmas, despite the fact that I can't go 30 seconds for 10% of the year without being reminded that Christmas is coming.

  • John||

    Of course Sandra Fluke is a vile totalitarian who specifically went to Georgetown so that she could fuck with them.

    The problem is that there is no way to make peace with the left on social issues. That is what Libertarians don't get. Libertarians' biggest blind spot is thinking everyone is as reasonable as they are. So, they think liberals believe in social liberal causes because they believe in freedom. No, liberals support those causes as a means to control everyone else. When they get their way on one thing, they will immediately move onto something else. They will never quit.

    The question is when and over what issues do you want to make a stand and fight the liberals on the culture war. It is an an "if" question because they will continue to find new issues until finally your freedom will come into jeopardy.

  • Cytotoxic||

    No John, what you don't get is that the left =/= everyone who isn't a conservative. The non-affiliated average folk are offended by SoCon 'ideas'. They are far more numerous than the left. Canada ipso facto demonstrates that you are wrong. Social issues are pretty much non-issues here and that's because SoCons got put in their place (that place being history).

  • John||

    No, that just says Canadian liberals are less vile than American liberals. American liberals are insane. We get done with gays and we move onto kids who claim to be transvestites getting to use the girls bathroom. We get done with gays and we get the hard left being angry that a man was allowed to play female transvestite in Dallas Buyer's club.

    The left started 40 years ago saying that anyone should be able to buy birth control. Today they stand for the proposition that everyone must pay for birth control, including groups of elderly nuns. We started 40 years ago with no fault divorce. Now we have divorce that is so biased against men, men are routinely denied due process.

    I get it that you like liberals and culturally identify with them and hate conservatives. Hell, I culturally identify with liberals more too. But I have no illusions about how nuts they are and what their real goals are. And more importantly, the fact that conservatives are so generally out of tune with the culture means I owe defending their rights even more.

    Go fuck yourself with your "I will only defend the rights of people I find appealing".

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "Go fuck yourself "

    Ah, at least John is consistent in being an abusive jerk.

  • Cytotoxic||

    that just says Canadian liberals are less vile than American liberals.

    The argument of ignorance-and a howler at that! Even if our liberals are less vile (they're not), there's a whole slew of left-wing whackjobs out here.

    Go fuck yourself with your "I will only defend the rights of people I find appealing".

    Oh fuck you John and your rationalization bullshit. You're the one selectively defending peoples rights and then getting mad when libertarians calling you out for it. You rationalize this hypocrisy with 'the left will demand more'. So be it. They will demand more anyway, but you're fight against gay marriage empowers them because it makes their opposition more culturally out of whack. You are a liability for us, not the other way around.

  • John||

    Whose rights am I not defending? The right of Sandra Fluke to force Georgetown to buy her birth control?

    You tell me whose rights I am selectively defending? You just accuse me of that because in your view not putting your foot on someone's face is selectively defending rights.

    And do me a favor Cytoxic, listen to my actual positions not the voices inside your head. I have never objected to gay marriage. I have only objected to reading it as a right in the Constitution and using it as a way to prevent people from acting on their religious beliefs. I am all for gay marriage beyond. I don't care who gets married.

    You and people like you who have no principle beyond fucking those you don't like are the liability. Sorry if having actual principles bothers you.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Oh how melodramatic.

    I have never objected to gay marriage.

    Oh...kay. You have done a very bad job of communicating this position previously.

    How about you tell me what rights I'm not defending. Protip: no relying on stramwan arguments or conflating issues, the latter of which you become very prone to when excited.

  • John||

    Oh...kay. You have done a very bad job of communicating this position previously.

    I communicate it fine. You are just a fucking moron who thinks anyone who disagrees with you must be a SOCON whatever that is.

    How about you tell me what rights I'm not defending.

    The right of people to say "no I don't recognize or support your gay marriage".

    And you can claim you do that. But doing that involves fighting the culture war because liberals view that view as no different than saying gays should be jailed. So which is it, are you willing to stand up for those people's rights or are you not going to fight the culture war? It can't be both.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Nice false dichotomy! Maybe I consider freedom of association a non-culture war issue-did that cross your mind!

    Come back when you aren't so angry John. Maybe you'll be able to think clearer.

  • John||

    ! Maybe I consider freedom of association a non-culture war issue-did that cross your mind!

    Sure you don't. Neither do I. But liberals don't see it that way. The moment you stand up and say "people have a right to freedom of association", liberals are going to tag you as a homophobe and you are going to be fighting the culture war.

  • SusanM||

    Would it help you deal with the trans* stuff if you viewed it not as icky eroticism but as a variety of transhumanism?

  • ||

    Lol, uh, yeah, Canada with its Human Rights Commission that is empowered to jail you for utilizing your freedom of speech is a paragon of social tolerance.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "who specifically went to Georgetown so that she could fuck with them."

    Where do you get this stuff? You think in thinking of where to apply she thought 'my main choice would be a Catholic school that I could fight on their contraception policy!"

    Sheesh.

  • John||

    Where do I get this stuff? I read the fucking news you lying sack of shit.

    Fluke herself is really a 30-year-old women’s rights activist who not only didn’t get caught without contraception at Georgetown, but specifically knew the university didn’t cover it and chose to attend for precisely that reason.

    http://www.theblaze.com/storie.....aceptives/

    It was no secret that Georgetown was a Catholic college. She went there to be an "activist" to change that.

    Since you are a leftist and don't think anyone has a right to do anything you don't like, I am sure you think it is great.

    But just admit that and stop fucking lying about it.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I think it is ridiculous to imagine someone chose their college with the intent to challenge its contraception policy. Do you not think it is much more likely that she was just one of the many (most) Cathoics who takes birth control?

  • John||

    I think it is ridiculous to imagine someone chose their college with the intent to challenge its contraception policy.

    It is not ridiculous. It just makes you a totalitarian idiot. It is a private college. If you don't like their policies, don't go there. They have a right to have whatever policies they want.

  • WTF||

    Uh, Bo, you don't have to do any imagining:

    For me the interesting part of the story is the ever-evolving “coed”. I put that in quotes because in the beginning she was described as a Georgetown law student. It was then revealed that prior to attending Georgetown she was an active women’s right advocate. In one of her first interviews she is quoted as talking about how she reviewed Georgetown’s insurance policy prior to committing to attend, and seeing that it didn’t cover contraceptive services, she decided to attend with the express purpose of battling this policy. During this time, she was described as a 23-year-old coed. Magically, at the same time Congress is debating the forced coverage of contraception, she appears and is even brought to Capitol Hill to testify. This morning, in an interview with Matt Lauer on the Today show, it was revealed that she is 30 years old, NOT the 23 that had been reported all along.
  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "In one of her first interviews she is quoted as talking about how she reviewed Georgetown’s insurance policy prior to committing to attend, and seeing that it didn’t cover contraceptive services, she decided to attend with the express purpose of battling this policy."

    I would have to see that directly sourced before I would find such a crazy thing more likely than that she was one of the many Catholic women who use contraception.

  • wareagle||

    why is it ridiculous, bo? Because you are a more or less sane person who chose a school for perceived academic benefits rather than as a platform for your activism?

    If Fluke dislikes some of the tenets of Catholicism, fair enough. Call out the church and suggest it move into the 21st century. But don't stand there demanding that everyone else subsidize your lifestyle choices, particularly when you make a point of letting us all know you're in a Jesuit-run school that opposes your viewpoint.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    wareagle, I am no fan of Fluke. I should not be compelled to pay for her contraceptives anymore than I should be compelled to pay for John's aspirin.

    My point was only that without any more information I find it more believable that she may have been a Catholic who agreed with birth control and wanted it for free from GU than that a grown person would pick their college in order to challenge one of its myriad policies.

  • John||

    No Bo. You called me a liar when I said she was an activist who wen there to change the policy. then when I pointed out she was, you have been changing the subject and moving the goalposts ever since.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I still await some proof of what you 'pointed out' John, and until provided I maintain my original position.

  • John||

    Bo Cara Esq.|3.11.14 @ 3:57PM|#

    I still await some proof of what you 'pointed out' John, and until provided I maintain my original position.

    The article I linked to that says exactly that and points to numerous statements she made indicating just that. That would be the proof.

    God you are a mendacious fuck. Seriously, I give you the link showing you are wrong and you just pretend it doesn't exist while you also move the goal posts and deny you ever said what you said.

    you are a troll Bo. You should be thankful I put up with you because few others will.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    The excerpt you pointed to, from Glenn Beck's news organization, only asserts that. Like I told wareagle I would need to see it independently sourced before I would by that.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Here is what the Blaze article links to:

    Fluke came to Georgetown University interested in contraceptive coverage: She researched the Jesuit college’s health plans for students before enrolling, and found that birth control was not included. “I decided I was absolutely not willing to compromise the quality of my education in exchange for my health care,” says Fluke, who has spent the past three years lobbying the administration to change its policy on the issue. The issue got the university president’s office last spring, where Georgetown declined to change its policy."

    That does not, in my opinion, justify the following line that she intentionally chose Georgetown with the goal to agitate to change its policy. Her line “I decided I was absolutely not willing to compromise the quality of my education in exchange for my health care,” certainly suggests otherwise.

  • John||

    “I decided I was absolutely not willing to compromise the quality of my education in exchange for my health care,”

    That says exactly that. You are just lying. There are any number of law schools rated as high or higher than Georgetown. Fluke she has a right to go there and demand that they change to suit her.

    And who cares if it is "Glen Beck"? The article quotes Fluke herself.

    You lost Bo. You talked out of your ass and had your point shoved back up into it.

    Fluke was an activist who went there so she could fuck with Georgetown, either defend that or admit she is a fascist twit.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    It would take a pretty amazing read to turn “I decided I was absolutely not willing to compromise the quality of my education in exchange for my health care,” into "I decided to go there because I disagreed with their health care policy." Because under normal English word usage she said "even though I did not like their health care policy I decided I was not willing to not go to a quality school like GU." She went there DESPITE its health care policy is what that meant.

    So, it is you who lost here John, unless you have some other piece of information.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "There are any number of law schools rated as high or higher than Georgetown."

    Georgetown is ranked 13th in the nation.
    http://grad-schools.usnews.ran.....w-rankings

  • ||

    Georgetown is ranked 13th in the nation.

    12 is certainly a subset of "any number".

  • ||

    I would need to see it independently sourced before I would by that.

    The information in the Blaze link originates from a Washington Post profile.

    Fluke came to Georgetown University interested in contraceptive coverage: She researched the Jesuit college’s health plans for students before enrolling, and found that birth control was not included. “I decided I was absolutely not willing to compromise the quality of my education in exchange for my health care,” says Fluke, who has spent the past three years lobbying the administration to change its policy on the issue. The issue got the university president’s office last spring, where Georgetown declined to change its policy.

    She probably wasn't a TRUE Scotsman though!

  • ||

    Lol, I should have scrolled down all the way. Turns out she IS a True Scotsman, because she knowingly and willingly chose a school that didn't provide contraceptive coverage and then became an activist for changing the school's policy, but she certainly didn't attend because she wanted to change the school's policy.

    Fucking wow.

  • Warren's Strapon||

    John, 2:52 pm

    Do you have the same advice for young Democrats who are angry about the NSA?


    John, 3:14 pm

    The problem is that there is no way to make peace with the left on social issues. That is what Libertarians don't get.

    Should I engage Democrats, or not? Which would annoy you less? I don't want to be the cause of a heart attack.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    John, 3:14


    For a second I thought you were quoting us bible verses.

  • 110 Lean||

    John 3:14
    King James Version (KJV)
    14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

  • ||

    But was he lifted on his own petard?

  • Swiss Servator, alles klar?||

    Nice

  • BakedPenguin||

    Yeah, especially with that rainbow wig.

  • John||

    Engage all you like. Just understand that they are never going to make peace on the culture war.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    John 3:14
    And thou shalt not suffer a cosmo to live in your midst!

  • Jordan||

    ROFL. Nah, that's from the Book of SIV.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Just understand that we don't care.

  • John||

    Cytotoxic|3.11.14 @ 3:43PM|#

    Just understand that we don't care.

    Yes, you don't give a fuck about defending anyone's rights but your own. I already knew that.

  • Cytotoxic||

    This really is Red Tony-level dishonesty.

  • John||

    Sure Cytoxic. Just pretend defending people's right to object to homosexuality doesn't involve fighting the Left on the culture war. Just yell Red Tony. I am sure that will change reality or something.

  • Robert||

    there is no way to make peace with the left on social issues.


    That does indeed seem to be the problem, and it exists for 2 reasons.

    Reason 1 is that the "left" is ruthless and will use groups, and use them up, one after another in their march toward whatever.

    Reason 2 is that the "left" is mercurial on social issues. They have no actual long-term plan. All they seek is to disrupt the social order, whatever it is at the moment. Things can never get to be the way they like, because they don't like anything.

  • lap83||

    " In the meantime, we'll be waiting over here all pro-markets and pro-tolerance."

    BS. Nobody's completely pro-tolerance in practice.

  • John||

    No one can be as long as the public view is that anyone who thinks the government shouldn't solve a problem is in favor of that problem persisting.

  • lap83||

    We don't even agree what the definition of tolerance is as a society. Progressives define it as whatever makes their constituents happy. Many libertarians define it in accord with the non-aggression principle. Conservatives typically only use it to highlight hypocrisy in liberals.

    It's an empty buzzword.

  • John||

    I think there is a definition for it, even if we as you point out ignore it. It means letting people think and act as they please in their own homes and businesses.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    So -- it seems that every definition used in contemporary politics is an empty buzzword. I can accept that.

  • lap83||

    Probably. That's why I try not to discuss politics very much at work or with family. Even if you think you're being clear-headed and precise with your terms, the other person usually has put no thought into it beyond trying to recall as many of their side's talking points as possible

  • Citizen Nothing||

    That's why I always try to make up entirely new words for political discussions.

    "I admire your glambism, but I fear your magopher is a bit naive and nostrocizing."

  • wareagle||

    is nostrocism an act of tolerance or intolerance. Oy! These kids with their fancy pants new words.

  • ||

    The truly tolerant will not tolerant intolerance, nor will they tolerate deviation from the prevailing standard of tolerance.

  • Sevo||

    "Young Republicans Alienated by Party's Social Conservatism"

    Old libertarians are, too.

  • Tim||

    The Ned Flanders types that are funding the GOP, that's why.

  • Winston||

    Ned Flanders was only turned into that because of BOOOOOSH!

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    OT: I have a moral dilemma I need help with.

    I finally installed AdBlock, as I got sick of waiting for ads to load before I can interact with the page. Works great so far. My problem is the Google download page said it was free, yet as soon as I installed it a page came up with this:

    The Honor System

    Hi, I'm Michael, the creator of AdBlock! That's me and my wife Katie in the picture.

    AdBlock is honor-ware, which means that we trust each other to be nice:

    You pay what you can afford for AdBlock. I let you choose the price.
    I'll send you a thank you note for paying -- and more, if you pay more.
    You get a refund - and you can keep AdBlock - if you don't love it.
    Ten percent of your payment goes to charity.
    I quit my job to work on AdBlock, so we're trusting you a lot, but we think it's the decent thing to do.

    Please pay as much as you can, since if you change your mind you have 60 days to get a refund!
    Are Katie and I naïve for trusting you to pay? I guess we'll find out :)

    My contract was for free. I don't mind supporting his efforts, but I don't really care for his methods in springing this on me (or him guilting me).

    What did/would you do and how much would/did you give?

    WWJGD?

  • Sevo||

    I would delete adblock and reply that you are not pleased with his rank dishonesty.

  • ||

    There's no moral dilemma. Is it free? Is that how it's marketed? If so...then it's free.

  • GILMORE||

    Is his wife hot?

  • ||

    That's the truly pertinent question.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    NO!

  • GILMORE||

    Eh. From behind I meant.

  • sarcasmic||

    Weird. I've installed AdBlock a dozen times and don't recall ever seeing that.

  • Brett L||

    "An actual honor system would tell you about that salient fact BEFORE installing its software, douche."

  • Warren's Strapon||

    You made the mistake of reading the page that popped up. I never did, and never knew that was there.

  • Bam!||

    He sound write commercials for Wounded Warriors, ASCPA, and starving African children.

  • BigT||

    That's a bait-and-switch. You accepted a deal. Stick to it.

  • Juice||

    Are you kidding? Is this your first encounter with shareware?

  • Tonio||

    ^This. I mean, being surprised at the dif between freeware and shareware is so 1990.

  • Robert||

    That's not shareware. Shareware is distributed on an approval basis. You get it for free, and then if you wind up liking it you pay for it and in some cases get an upgrade.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    I have him nothing because he wouldn't seriously be giving this away for free if he depended on it for income.

    If he is, then he is a fool.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    From the article:

    "There is no division, however, on the issue of abortion, with young and old opposed in almost equal numbers. Still, younger Republicans are more willing to support a candidate who does not share their position on abortion than those over 45, according to the poll."

    So the old folks are more willing to stand up for their ideals, but young folks share the same ideals re life.

    And let us note that the Dems don't avoid social issues. They play up these issues, and not the libertarian side of these issues, either. Someone who is truly tolerant on social issues won't want to tell Hobby Lobby and the bakers and florists what to do.

    To the NYT, a person who is *truly* tolerant and libertarian on social issues is a bigot, a Jim Crowite, a hater because he doesn't want to coerce private businesses into endorsing the modern cultural agenda.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    In the Democrats' defense, what are they going to do, run on their economic record? Much better to wave the social-issue flag.

    "You may be un- or underemployed, but darn it, we'll recognize your same-sex relationships!"

  • Overt||

    "You may have had your insurance canceled, but that's ok- we are busy forcing those kooky old sky-god worshipers to serve transvestites in humiliation. Stupid old religious people. Doesn't it just feel good to make an old guy feel uncomfortable and do something he doesn't want to? Doesn't that make you feel superior? GOOD! Now let's stop talking about healthcare and start talking about that photographer down the block!"

  • wareagle||

    let's see...what might be easier to change - opposition to SSM or hostility to free markets?

  • Bam!||

    One is a religious position backed by dubious morality and the other is opposition to SSM.

  • Marshall Gill||

    I see what you did there.

  • ||

    Why the fuck does anyone care about attracting "Republicans"? Or "liberals"? You're either a believer in liberty or you aren't. And if you are, you sure as fuck aren't a Republican or a Democrat.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Only those untainted by partisan impurity may join The Free!

  • ||

    Well, I hear they don't allow sociopathic Canadian Randian virgins either.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    How many of those adjectives are redundant?

  • ||

    All of them.

  • Brett L||

    I'm pretty sure Geddy Lee has kids. So...

  • Cytotoxic||

    Who is Geddy Lee?

  • WTF||

    High Priest of the Temple of Syrinx.

  • Swiss Servator, alles klar?||

    Have you assumed control?!

  • Cytotoxic||

    They'll take anyone. Even your mom.

    BURN

  • The Last American Hero||

    How many seats in Congress are held by Libertarians? What percentage of the vote did Gary Johnson get?

    So the path to liberty is likely through Team Red or Team Blue. And since Team Blue has gone off the deep end on spending and forgot all about civil liberties the day Chocolate Nixon got elected, all we're left with is influencing Team Red. And if Rand's speech at CPAC is any indication, it's working a little bit.

  • Cytotoxic||

    But I'm too kool for ur roolz! /epi

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Team Blue has gone off the deep end on spending

    Bush amnesia above.

    Clinton and Obama have single digit growth in spending - two terms of Bush gave us 40% growth in federal spending.

    Gen Y does not equate the GOP to low federal spending.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Clinton and Obama have single digit growth in spending

    Lies and mendacity.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Not lies!

  • ||

    Just mendacity then?

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Why the fuck does anyone care about attracting "Republicans"? Or "liberals"? You're either a believer in liberty or you aren't. And if you are, you sure as fuck aren't a Republican or a Democrat.

    I almost like you for this statement.

  • Tonio||

    Except that TLAH is, I think, one of the many aliases of "American" who is (if possible) despised even more than you, 'Plug.

  • wareagle||

    the quote was from Epi.

  • Marshall Gill||

    Epi is definitely despised more than, well, everyone except Hitler, and Nikki.

  • Homple||

    "Our mohawked friend—who goes by Rooster—is mentioned liberally....", in the New York Times.

    Somebody slipped their freudian there.

    The Republicans might want to be circumspect about taking advice from a guy named Rooster with a multicolored mowhawk via the New York Times.

  • GILMORE||

    ""Rooster—is mentioned liberally....", in the New York Times.""

    "Eh? Le Coq? C'était donc une surprise? Il n'y a pas d'autre moyen!"

  • SIV||

    ^^^THINGS INTOLERANT SOCON BIGOTS SAY^^^

    The New York Times and people sporting stupid early-80s hairstyles have the political pulse of the Millenial Generation and know what the Republicans need to do to win this low-participation voter demographic.

  • Warren's Strapon||

    Here they come to snuff the rooster.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    No, no, no, ya know he ain't gonna die

  • GILMORE||

    Before anyone says anything actually germane to this post...

    ...... We should first encourage a no-holds-barred Thunderdome blood-match between Bo and John. "Go for the eyes! Groin! use your teeth!"

    that said,

    I will admit to probably being closer to John in general (not in specifics - which is an endless source of amusement for me, and frothing by him)...

    ...in the sense that for the meantime, until all the SoCon fuddy-duddies are dead, we pretty much have TEAM RED to vote for, and not much else, and the effort should be on improving it - not 'leaving it', as per the Liz Brown invite - wherever possible.

    I say this having spent 2000-2014 on the sidelines, and just getting a big fucking headache. Non-involvement isn't really working.

  • Cytotoxic||

    But it makes us feel really good! Too kool for your party rulz!

  • Warren's Strapon||

    Non-involvement is working pretty awesomely for me.

  • BigT||

    Has Hillary's clitdong found a new love?

  • GILMORE||

    Obama is just so *dreamy*

    ....

    No, I think even if you can argue that
    "team no-team"/aka 'the one-hand clapping party' was the best place to be 2000-2014, I still think many people in our cozy little camp are going to have to ask themselves a very important question in the near future =

    HOW MUCH DO YOU HATE HILARY CLINTON?

    if the answer is anything other than, "meh", then I think you're going to have to accept clicking TEAM RED in 2016. And the focus between then and now should be on trying to make that inevitable choice as least unpleasant as possible.

    e.g. helping Rand get his shit together

  • Cytotoxic||

    Gilmore speaks the truth.

  • Swiss Servator, alles klar?||

    Rand is the best possible TEAM RED candidate - if he gets on the ballot, I will actually vote for an Elephant in the Presidential election... been awhile for that.

    No Rand...most likely, no vote (For TEAM RED, what do we call the L...TEAM ORANGE?)

  • SugarFree||

    TEAM NOTHING, because we are all nihilists. [insert big lebowski joke]

  • GILMORE||

    At least its an ethos, dude

  • ||

    I still think many people in our cozy little camp are going to have to ask themselves a very important question in the near future =

    HOW MUCH DO YOU HATE HILARY CLINTON?

    Because she'll be so much worse than Obama? If 2012 was a "meh" election for you, then 2016 shouldn't be any different.

    Also, Rand Paul will not be running for president unless he does so independently or under a third party banner, so...

  • SIV||

    people think the right’s poverty policy involves nothing more than cruelly cutting benefits.

    Cruelly cutting benefits is a damn good start.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    No. We should lovingly cut benefits. See -- that's politics.

  • BigT||

    That is how Obama is selling Ocare forcing people to part time work - more time for your family!

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    How many times do you hear a prog say, "I support SSM and candidate Jones is against it, but I'll vote for Jones anyway because he's sound on economics"?

    ANSWER: Rarely, I bet. More likely, the prog would not consider voting for Jones because OMG SSM is the civil rights issue of our day!!!

    So I am bemused when progs tell other people, "you're really hung up on these cultural issues, aren't you?"

  • lap83||

    I don't know if I've ever even heard a prog say the word "economics", other than to call it a fake science.

  • Juice||

    It's not a fake science. It's not science at all.

  • Swiss Servator, alles klar?||

    Isn't it "the Dismal Science"?

  • KDN||

    Of course social sciences are real science. It's right there in the title!

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I think you are missing the point: the cultural issues are, nationally, losers for the GOP. That is why the Dems like to bring them up and why people counsel the GOP not to.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    Sure, but as I said, what the NYT wants is to force bakers to serve gay weddings. Anyone who's against that is the next incarnation of George Wallace. That's the cultural issue that's most pertinent now.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    As Cytotoxic mentioned supra, it is not those who read and follow the NYT that the GOP needs to worry about scaring off, they would be scared off no matter what, it is the independents who will be turned off by 'real rape' talk.

  • John||

    And if the independents have decided that gays should be a protected class and the minority who object to them are just going to have to fall under the government's boot, what then? Should the GOP and libertarians go along with that in the name of winning?

  • Cytotoxic||

    No, libertarians will argue against that too John. This may be too much for you to handle, but freedom is a two-way street and-follow me here-one anti-freedom restriction (anti-discrimination acts) does not justify another as a pre-emptive strike or otherwise (bans/non-recognition of gay marriage).

    GOP tactics should respond to what is the worst threat to freedom. If making gays a protected class meant a freedom whopper like cutting spending in half or ending the WoD, I'd take that deal.

  • John||

    No, libertarians will argue against that too John,

    You have spent the entire thread saying you shouldn't. Saying that means fighting the culture war. And you are pretty clear that is something that is just too embarrassing to fight.

  • Cytotoxic||

    You have spent the entire thread saying you shouldn't.

    No I haven't. 0/10 reading comprehension.

    Saying that means fighting the culture war.

    No it doesn't. You can't just wave your hands and declare this is a culture war issue because you want it to be.

    And you are pretty clear that is something that is just too embarrassing to fight.

    Libertarians should always be busting for freedom. The GOP will need to be a lot more tactical. Ending the CRA: not a hill to die on.

    Perhaps a first, but I totally agree with Cytotoxic here.

    Worlds collide, resonance cascade, pre-Abrams ST actually good.

  • John||

    No it doesn't. You can't just wave your hands and declare this is a culture war issue because you want it to be.

    Yes it does. You may not think it does. But the left considers anything short of total protection of homosexuals as a protected class to be the same thing as making homosexuality illegal.

    You may not be interested in the culture war. But if you care about freedom of religion, it is interested in you because the Left is going to lump you in with everyone you defend and call you a homophobe.

    That is what I keep saying. You can't make peace with the Left. You can't just walk away and say "I won't fight the culture war" because the left will just find a new subject to fight about until you have to fight.

    Right now, the debate about gay marriage is over. The debate now is about forced public accommodation. And if you stand up and say no to that, you are fighting the culture war. Stop pretending otherwise.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "Right now, the debate about gay marriage is over."

    Er, I think gay marriage recognition bans currently exist in effect in more states than not right now, correct?

  • John||

    Er, I think gay marriage recognition bans currently exist in effect in more states than not right now, correct?

    Not for long. SCOTUS recognized a right to gay marriage under the 14th Amendment last year. And two federal courts have already enforced that. It is just a matter of time before all of those laws fall and we have universal court mandated gay marriage in every state.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    " SCOTUS recognized a right to gay marriage under the 14th Amendment last year."

    In what case?

  • John||

    look it up Bo. there was a long thread about it here where I said it did exactly that. And sure enough last week two federal judges agreed with me.

    You know what I am talking about and if you don't, use google and learn something.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Perhaps a first, but I totally agree with Cytotoxic here. Well said.

  • ||

    supra

    Drink!

  • BigT||

    "Anyone who's against that is the next incarnation of George Wallace."

    Democrat George Wallace, who promised he'd never be out-niggered again.

  • mr simple||

    Democrat George Wallace

    Shhhhhhhhh!

  • wareagle||

    funny thing about Wallace. Black folks in AL always voted for him.

  • Almanian!||

    Well, in Birmingham, they love the Gov'nor...

  • MJGreen||

    All the time. This or that candidate is not good on SSM or abortion, but OMG do you want children to die!? Fuck, Obama was against SSM, dude.

    Conversely, "Republican/Libertarian supports SSM, but I won't vote for him because he's crazy on economics."

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Gen Y doesn't remember a GOP that was "fiscally responsible". Hell, I don't and I am a Baby Boomer.

    Time to retire that notion for good.

  • GILMORE||

    " and I am a Baby Boomer."

    At least we have some better clarity on why you're so retarded.

    Those Johnson-era policies were just *great* ideas, weren't they? it must be so rewarding to see how much you've done for the poor blacks in America.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    I don't remember LBJ. 1980 was the first election I was eligible to vote for.

    LBJ reminds me of Bush 43 policy wise. Big social spending and in love with a crappy war - then sprinkle in some social justice (although Bush failed with immigration reform).

    Nice to see that you admit you are TEAM RED though. I knew it all along.

  • KDN||

    Death, taxes, the sun rising in the east, and shriek's lack of reading comprehension.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    "partnering" is the same as playing on Team Red.

  • KDN||

    Way to completely miss the point. I wouldn't have it any other way.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Those Johnson-era policies were just *great* ideas, weren't they?

    I said I hated LBJ, didn't I?

    I compared him to Bush.

  • KDN||

    It's hot in my office today. Thank god the point that keeps whooshing over your head is around to provide me with a nice breeze.

  • GILMORE||

    Honestly, Boomer is unfair.

    To Boomers. "Shit-throwing monkey" is more your style.

    And yesssss shrike. We're ALLL team red. you've been paying *such* close attention. Good monkey. have a cookie.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Not all of you. But you are Team Red.

    Me? I am honestly for gridlock. A 'D' POTUS and GOP House works best as recent history has shown.

  • GILMORE||

    "
    Palin's Buttplug|3.11.14 @ 3:57PM|#

    Not all of you. But you are Team Red."

    that's only 8% of me.

  • ||

    A 'D' POTUS and GOP House works best as recent history has shown.

    Holding the line at 3/4 of a trillion a year and only racking up 4 trillion in new debt. FORWARD!

  • BigT||

    You forgot Jack Kemp and Barry Goldwater? You're a Boomer wannabe.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    They would be considered Democrats today.

  • Jordan||

    Yeah, Barry Goldwater sure was a fan of the Welfare/Police State. Derp.

  • carol||

    Who is more likely to be fiscally responsible? On the Right you have Paul, Lee, Amash and to some extent, Cruz. On the Left you have...who?

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    The GOP had Ron Paul and Goldwater for 40 years.

    So what?

    Bush/Cheney still happened.

  • carol||

    But who do the Dems have?

  • Cytotoxic||

    Can someone please explain to me how leaving the GOP to the old SoCons will help pull the GOP out of the grasp of SoCons, especially when the GOP is actually improving somewhat on drugs and jail 'n stuff?

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    Well, you raise some very interesting points, and perhaps we should...

    Icky, look at those gross old people with their hang-ups!

    I mean, should work together to...

    Eeeeew, I think I touched a SoCon! Get him off me!

    Now, where was I?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Eddie, I actually see your point. There is a lot we can work with socons on now. Obama has driven them to a point where right now their greatest concerns dovetail nicely with things we would fight for anyway.

    But in fairness, a lot of hesitancy to partner with socons is that while today we are more in line, many can remember recently, during the Bush administration, when a socon friendly administration gave us virtually nothing on economics or social issues, and we think that could easily happen again once they return to power.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Precisely. Neither the GOP nor the Dems have EVER given us any reason to trust them -- and in fact, have give us every reason not to trust them.

  • Cytotoxic||

    It's not about trust. It's about vulnerability to infiltration and influence. The Ukraine GOP is weak. Ripe for picking. Ours by right.

  • cavalier973||

    *Opens door to GOP HQ and stands back out of the way in a polite manner*

  • David Wall||

    My business partner is a die in wool kinda boomer socon. He shocked the hell out of me the other day by talking positively about what what going on in CO with the MJ laws. Said, you know, "a lot of really sick people are helped by MJ, and the rec users don't seem to be a big deal"

    I think now that his 3 daughters are raised and married, he is less concerned about social influences on them, and has liberalized his attitudes to probably where they were before he had kids. Just guessing.

  • Robert||

    Which Bush?

  • Brett L||

    Tell me about the current status of the Whigs.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    I'm confused, though...the Whigs tried to avoid divisive cultural issues, yet they still collapsed.

  • Brett L||

    The salient point is that a party who can't maintain a coalition of interests collapses. So voting with one's feet can be effective.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Er...GOP collapse will NOT necessarily lead to a better replacement and may lead to bad outcomes. GOP destruction is a bad strategy for the medium term. First try to influence the GOP ie Randify it.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    First try to influence the GOP


    You kids are so cute.

  • Brett L||

    I tried that from 1997-2004. Maybe they'll throw us a bone if we're good for long enough. Say, 2025.

  • Cytotoxic||

    You and CN had shitty timing. Just because something didn't work before doesn't mean it won't in different circumstances. The existence of Rand Paul and Amash in Congress prove me right.

  • ||

    The existence of Rand Paul and Amash in Congress prove me right.

    Because fucking congressional districts, how do they work?

  • R C Dean||

    GOP collapse will NOT necessarily lead to a better replacement and may lead to bad outcomes.

    You have to weigh the odds of taking over the Republican Party against the odds of a replacement being better than the Republican Party.

    I see virtually no reason to believe that anyone but establishment Republicans has any chance of taking over the party anytime soon.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Patience.

  • Juice||

    If the GOP would be much less socially conservative and the Democrats would be much less economically fascist, I might not mind the two party system so much.

  • mr simple||

    Do you mean if they were both libertarian, arguing about which taxes to cut and telling people to take care of their own damn problems? Yeah that wouldn't be so bad.

  • Drake||

    Almost got it right. What the GOP needs is less bigotry, homophobia, AND less empathy.

    Bush and company lost me with their shitty "Compassionate Conservative". Have all the compassion and empathy you want with your own money.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Yeah, trying to 'empathy' your way to victory is fighting on the enemy's terms.

  • sarcasmic||

    "Compassionate Conservative" means "Big Government Liberal Who Opposes Abortion."

  • BigT||

    I thought it was just rhetoric. But it sounds nice and might attract some soccer moms.

  • Drake||

    I thought it was just rhetoric in 2000. Then they won and, instead reforming the tax code or cutting spending, they gave oldsters free drugs.

  • Swiss Servator, alles klar?||

    What Drake said.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    When Gen Y starts voting in the numbers that Boomers do then things might change. (Especially in primaries.)

  • GILMORE||

    Ding ding ding.

    From the purely politically-venal and amorally strategic point of view, the socon Oldies (AARP vote) are far more lucrative than the fickle and hip yunguns who may yap all day about politics on the internets, but don't give Dollar-One to any political groups or vote in any predictable fashion.

    the GOP will shrug and say, "Fuck em"

  • AlmightyJB||

    What's better than a dirty, dirty whore? Nothing, that's what.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    A whore who *isn't* infected?

  • sarcasmic||

  • ChrisO||

    In electoral campaigns, the only people I see bringing up the Kultur War crap are Democrats, mostly so they don't have to discuss the important stuff. Obviously, it's different among columnists and talking heads, but that's not actual politics.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    It's like the don't-mention-the-war episode of Fawlty Towers - the progs keep not-mentioning gay marriage, birth control and abortion.

  • lap83||

    To be perfectly honest, I think I would vote for a neo-nazi for president if he/she had a very hands-off political style. They wouldn't be my ideal choice, but the vast majority of political decisions are fiscal...not social. Fiscal is what worries me.

  • The Last American Hero||

    Except those guys want to use the government to actively oppress others and are quite vocal about it, so the odds of one of them being "hands-off" is about the same as finding a hands of Marxist candidate.

  • lap83||

    It was probably a poor example. I was trying to illustrate the fact that I'd be willing to overlook distasteful social aspects of a politician if they're good in fiscal matters. Just because someone holds a particular view, doesn't mean they're going to make it the law of the land.

  • BigT||

    Exactly! Social issues are not easily changed, but pass one Ocare and we're all f'ed.

  • Calidissident||

    "It was probably a poor example."

    That's a bit of an understatement

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    But I'm glad the article acknowledges that weed is a culture-war issue.

  • Robert||

    Why? How else are people classifying it?

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Libertarian and Ayn Rand fan Mark Cuban is a good indicator of Gen Y attitudes:

    http://preview.tinyurl.com/c3arcn2

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    The same Mark Cuban who wanted Bloomberg to run for president?

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Yeah. That is a serious demerit on the LP Purity Test. We can both agree on that.

  • SIV||

    Libertarian and Ayn Rand fan Mark Cuban is a good indicator of Gen Y attitudes:

    Cuban is almost as old as sevo.

  • ||

    Gillespie's only 5 years younger and thinks he's got his finger on the pulse of the kiddos these days.

  • mr simple||

    When "the Duke freshman porn star" recently defended her membership in the college Republicans, she complained that people automatically assume her membership makes her “a bigot and a homophobe.”

    Of course they do. That's because anyone who isn't on my team must be evil and the exact opposite of everything I believe I am. There can be no dissent!

    /progtard

  • John||

    ^^THIS^^

    In what universe do progs not define the other side as bigots?

    They think Rand Paul is the next Bull Connor. Should Paul just give up and stop talking about all of that freedom of association stuff?

  • Tony||

    Really John? You're some example of an ideologically tolerant person?

    How many garden variety liberals have you called Nazis today?

  • John||

    I don't call every liberal a Nazi Tony, just you and people like you. And you are not a Nazi. You are a fascist. You worship the state, believe in absolute control of every aspect of life by the state and think anyone who doesn't actively help you is your enemy.

  • Tony||

    No I don't.

  • John||

    Yes you do. There is not a single thing in life you don't think should be controlled by the state. And you will happily use state force to suppress views you don't like.

    Here is the thing, if you wake up in the morning knowing some person you will never meet doesn't recognize your marriage and think the state needs to do something about it, you are a fascist.

  • Tony||

    Stop telling me what I think, fuckface.

    Did you support the Bush torture regime or didn't you? Are you gonna run away now, again?

  • prolefeed||

    You could just try shutting him up by pointing out the many things in life you don't think should be controlled by the state.

    If any.

  • Swiss Servator, alles klar?||

    Where do you not endorse the state being involved/in control?

  • Swiss Servator, alles klar?||

    Dang prolefeed's speedier typing!

  • John||

    Swiss Servator,

    It is amazing. I walked right into it. He could have destroyed me and gone on for two posts about all of the areas in life he thinks should be free of government control. And yet, he couldn't do it. Tony is so in love with government control, he couldn't even lie about something.

    You really can't make these people up.

  • John||

    What prolefeed says.

    Tony you could have won the argument by running off a long list of things you think should be beyond government control. Instead you just screamed Bush, which is your way of crying for help.

    Thanks for conceding my point.

  • Tony||

    I don't think government should control people's speech, reading habits, sex lives, beliefs, haircuts, meal choices, TV viewing, or drug use. I could probably go on for some time. I'm sorry, I didn't realize I actually had to defend myself from John's stupid hysteria. But there you go.

    Now, about that government torture John supports.

  • Carnival||

    Is there some context to this that the rest of us are missing? Are Tony, Epi, John and Bo all involved in some kind of weird mutual-dom/sub humiliation contract?

    You guys must have some pretty intense orgies.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    I don't think government should control people's speech, reading habits, sex lives, beliefs, haircuts, meal choices, TV viewing, or drug use.

    Lies again Tony?

    As If you believe in McCain-Feingold and other such "campaign finance reform" (which you most certainly do) then you absolutely agree that government should be able to control people's speech, reading habits, beliefs, & TV viewing at a bare minimum because that one anti-free speech "law" affects every one of those things.

    & it doesn't just try to control minor stupid things like Saturday morning cartoons or late night semi-porn - it attempts to control the most important speech in a free society - political speech.

    & you believe full well the government should be directly involved.

    Try again (though since John was right that you do love the state as you have made the case before that individuals don't have a right to not be rape without the state first having made a law - you really shouldn't try - as you'll simply fail again and again and again).

    Face it - you're a statist - you'll be happier with yourself when you are able to agree with that reality.

  • Tony||

    Spending money is not speech. It is spending money. If you want to say something, you can use your mouth or type it out.

  • ||

    I don't think government should control people's speech, reading habits, sex lives, beliefs, haircuts, meal choices, TV viewing, or drug use

    Top lel.

    Campaign finance ring a bell (speech)? Hate speech laws ring a bell (reading habits)? Mandatory HPV vaccination ring a bell (sex lives)? Hate speech laws ring a bell again (beliefs)? USDA, FDA, farm subsidies, and crop insurance ring a bell (meal choices)? Public television ring a bell (TV viewing)? FDA ring a bell (drug use)?

    I guess you get credit for haircuts. Hey everybody! Give Tony a big round of applause! He doesn't think government should control our haircuts!

  • ||

    Son of a bitch, skunked again.

  • Tony||

    I don't support all of what you're claiming I do (hate speech laws), and you're really stretching on the ones I do. Mandatory vaccinations are about public health. I don't know how they constitute controlling anyone's sex life.

  • R C Dean||

    If you are young and foolish enough to believe that the issues that you should vote on are abortion and gay marriage, then there is virtually no chance that the GOP is going to woo you away from the Dems.

    The GOP should focus on convincing people that, in the big scheme of the Total State that has its boot ever more firmly on your neck, those are relatively minor issues.

    That's where the DemOp media really earns its kibble, though. The DemOp media will bury stories about the other issues, and foreground stories about abortion and gay marriage.

    Its a trap that's been decades in the making. The way out of the trap isn't to cut and paste the Dem positions into the Repub platform.

  • Cytotoxic||

    The way out of the trap is to stop giving the DemOP media ammo ie legit rape, opposing gay marriage or birth control in any way

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    The GOP should focus on convincing people that, in the big scheme of the Total State that has its boot ever more firmly on your neck

    The party that just recently gave us the PATRIOT Act, warrantless spying, the TSA, Fatherland Security, and Medicare Part D?

  • prolefeed||

    Yeah, I've been noticing how the Obama administration and the Democratic controlled Senate have been fighting to overturn all these things, now that they are in control.

    The DemoPublicans are inching toward the Total State, not just one wing of that party.

  • GILMORE||

    Its a hilarious gripe =

    I HATE THE GOP FOR THE THINGS MY PARTY DOUBLES-DOWN ON!!

    the PATRIOT Act X2 = NDAA
    warrantless spying X2 = NSA
    the TSA & Fatherland Security = Redundant, and the same!
    Medicare Part D X911 = PPACA

  • wareagle||

    guess I missed the Dem votes against reauthorizing the PA, scaling back spying and the TSA, and the righteous opposition to Obama's improved droning program. What opposition to them exists comes from a certain few within the GOP.

  • prolefeed||

    To be fair, one of the D Senators from Oregon seems to be pretty good on these issues.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Feingold (D) was the only Senator to vote against the PATRIOT Act and the Iraq War.

    Then he got dumped on by voters.

  • John||

    So long as any Republican anywhere says anything about these issues, all Republicans will be portrayed by the DemOp media as endorsing it. Pretending you can just end this by not talking about it is fantasy.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Step 1: stop talking about it.

    Worked for Harper.

  • John||

    So you are not going to defend people's right to act on their religious views? If you are, the Left is going to interpret that as being a homophobe and their op media will ensure you are just like Rand Paul is a "racist" because he dared question the CRA.

  • prolefeed||

    They've got the right to act on their icky religious views, and get pummeled for it.

  • John||

    Pummel them all you like. But you shouldn't have a right to sue them over it or throw them in jail.

    This isn't about acceptance. This is about not being sued or having a gun stuck in your face.

  • prolefeed||

    I'm with you on the not being sued or threatened with a gun thing.

    Problem is, a lot of socons are pretty happy to threaten to toss you in a cage for stuff they find icky. It's like they don't grasp the cognitive dissonance of hating liberals for wanting to do things to them that they want to do to liberals, but for different things.

  • waffles||

    As a conservative progressive libertarian free market capitalist I feel that framing any national debate around social issues is damaging to real progress. It is only when we have politicians that stand up for the smallest minority, the individual, that we will achieve anything resembling liberty.

    I'm young, but it seems to me that politicking is becoming increasingly fractious due to the constant pushing of social issues and agendas that completely sidestep the legitimate purpose of government.

  • prolefeed||

    What the heck is a "conservative progressive"? These seem to me to be opposites.

  • prolefeed||

    Oh, and about your question on the polygamy thread -- my girlfriend costs me only a little money at the margin -- I pretty much pay her way, but I'd be renting an apartment anyway, and food and gas don't cost that much.

    It is a small price to pay for hot sex, though I am careful not to point out the hookerish relationship we are in, because I'm not an idiot. =D

    The big "expense" is in emotional commitment, being monogamous.

  • waffles||

    It means I want to conserve our current rate of technological progress by using government to get the fuck out of the way.

  • prolefeed||

    Ah, if only conservatives believed in conserving like that ... or if progressives believed in actual progress.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    I admire your glambism, but I fear your magopher is a bit naive and nostrocizing.

  • Marshall Gill||

    Your comment amounts to micro-nostrocizing!

  • ||

    They ought to give him a full disadulation.

  • prolefeed||

    So, they think liberals believe in social liberal causes because they believe in freedom. No, liberals support those causes as a means to control everyone else.

    My experience with actual liberals, including some family members, is that they believe in legalizing weed because they want to freely smoke weed, not because they want to somehow control everyone else by legalizing it.

    Their problem is one of intolerance for people who do things they personally find icky -- the exact same problem that conservatives have, just for different causes.

  • Drake||

    Yep - the mainstream of neither party is rooted in any kind of consistent logic or ideology.

  • prolefeed||

    Oh, individuals in both parties often use both logic and ideology, but not for the purpose of freedom in all aspects of life.

    The parties themselves lack consistency because they are composed of cobbled together constituencies with oftentimes opposing aims -- UAW autoworkers with internal combustion hating greenies for the Ds, or socon religious zealots with pot-smoking libertarians for the Rs.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Well put.

  • Elizabeth Nolan Brown||

    Agreed.

  • GILMORE||

    "UAW autoworkers with internal combustion hating greenies "

    both love subsidies. need better example.

    Although your point is still 100% correct.

  • John||

    Their problem is one of intolerance for people who do things they personally find icky

    Exactly. And that is why gay marriage has nothing to do with marriage. It is about their desire to make everyone conform to their views and accept gays.

  • prolefeed||

    Well, not every gay. I know at least one gay couple that want to get married and get the legal recognition on IRS returns and whatnot without having to move to Vermont or wherever.

    In fact, I haven't met a single gay person who said they wanted what you said they wanted.

  • John||

    In fact, I haven't met a single gay person who said they wanted what you said they wanted.

    I have multiple law suits in several states that says there most certainly are such gays. Beyond that, the left is pretty clear that that is what they want.

  • Tony||

    But what do you want John?

    God forbid people want to be accepted as full and equal members of their society both legally and actually. You act like that's something people shouldn't be doing.

  • GILMORE||

    I missed the part where being a petulant statist asshole was your path to full equality and acceptance.

  • Tony||

    John is bitching about the nefarious agenda of gays to encourage other people accept them as full human beings.

    If it takes a law, then blame the bigots.

  • GILMORE||

    You're personally helping no one, FWIW. Least of all yourself

  • Tony||

    Maybe not, but I'm still gonna win, and John is going to move on to whatever is the next losing cultural battle the American rightwing will fixate on as dictated by the simian rednecks with websites he gets all his thoughts from.

  • Emmerson Biggins||

    if you arent free to be an asshole you aren't free. So no, I'll blame those that pass the law. They are the freedom killers in this scenarios.

  • SIV||

    What the heck is a "conservative progressive"?

    Mike Huckabee,David Frum, the whole Bush family...

  • Tony||

    Glenn Beck U graduate right here.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    The funny thing about conservatives is that to hear them tell it, not a one of them actually voted for Bush.

  • prolefeed||

    I see quite a few fading Bush bumper stickers on cars here in Texas, though that is limited by conservatives tending to buy new cars often enough that the bumper stickers vanish with the purchase. Dunno about the part of the country you're from.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    prolfeed, it was meant as a joke, poking at the fact that so many (though of course not all) conservatives who once supported Bush now insist that he was a progressive all along.

  • prolefeed||

    Guess my humor sensor malfunctioned on that one.

  • GILMORE||

    " so many (though of course not all) conservatives who once supported Bush now insist that he was a progressive all along."

    Citation needed

  • Tony||

    As an actual progressive I find it more insidious than just trying to run away from their past. The Beck shtick is to call everything evil "progressive" and turn the word into a pejorative just as they did with "liberal"--there was that particularly nasty way it reverberated in the ample jowls of Rush Limbaugh that did it.

    Point is it's completely substanceless propaganda talk.

  • GILMORE||

    Citation still needed.

  • ||

    ... said the guy who can't differentiate between libertarianism and anarchy and uses the word SoCon in any disagreement over politics

  • ||

    Hey, look Bo finally found a friend at Reason. It's Tony.

    ...

    Yeah

  • waffles||

    But I do think the social conservatives are icky. Just not as much as the socialists and anti-capitalists. Social conservatives can't hurt me nearly as much. But if I were part of a group of people who were told to be permanently aggrieved then I would believe the social conservatives would have me put down if they ever got to power.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Come for the rational, dispassionate analysis; stay for the shit-flinging and masturbation.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Strike that, reverse it.

  • John||

    What is the internet for if not that? Other than the obvious kitties and porn, which goes without saying.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    It's pussies, all the way down.

  • Brett L||

    Really, if this isn't on the masthead for at least the H&R section, they've missed a perfect summation.

  • Winston||

    cruelly cutting benefits.

    As supposed to what, kindly cutting benefits? Or shouting "Fuck You Cut Spending!" or "Fuck Off Slaver"?

    tolerance

    Barf. Are plastic bag bans, smoking bans and plastic water bans socially tolerant?

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    Of course. They ban icky things. Nothing cultural or intolerant about that.

  • Winston||

    One of my pet peeves about Reason is their delusion that if they show how much they love blacks, gays and abortion then the progs will stop calling them reactionary bigots. Sorry but to the progs the mere act of disagreeing with them make you a reactionary bigot.

  • GILMORE||

    But can't we all still love blacks gays and abortions for the great pumping music and the responsibility-free sex?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMPM1q_Uyxc

  • GILMORE||

    An example of a far more important interest group than "The Young" and how they think (brought to you by your non-partisan, objective and rational friends at the NYT) =

    '
    A parent
    Seattle suburb 19 hours ago
    If the Republicans want my vote as a college educated, suburban soccer mom of two in the West Coast, then they need to come to the table on gun control. At the very least we need to ban semi-automatic rifles and high capacity magazines, and limit purchase of bullets in the mail. We're tired of living under the omnipresent threat of gun violence anywhere anytime, at our children's schools, at the mall, just driving around town, enough is enough! In addition, lay off on abortion. No thinking woman wants to cede control of her body to the government, it's a matter of principle.

    Gay marriage - who cares. Gays are a near non-existent minority here in the suburb. Marijuana, that's a no no. Let the "experiment" play out in CO and WA. We are all fearful for our children, and all those potential under the influence drivers out there, which we'll have no way of testing.

    Lesson here = Mom hates freedom.

  • GILMORE||

    by the way = that last line there gave me a flashback to I think 2004 or 2008 when a discussion about 'liberty as an electoral divider' came up.... with Donderoooooo if I recall. And he - or someone else - pointed out that one of the real oppositions to a 'liberty' focused campaign was the fundamental problem most Wimmin have with it as a central concept.

    My memory is fuzzy, but I do recall the point in its broadest (PUN!) form.

    Chicks on both TEAM RED & BLUE? = CONTROL FREAKS.

    Fact.

    We on team nothing? we gets all the *flexible* ones... bow chicka bow wow waaaaaah

  • John||

    Yes, suburban moms are a menace. Bush won in 04 primarily because he convinced them Gore was going to sell out to the terrorists.

    Good luck convincing them to end the drug war. That would require them admitting that maybe they bear some responsibility keeping their snowflakes off the devil weed.

  • GILMORE||

    "No thinking woman wants to cede control of her body to the government, it's a matter of principle."

    BUT BAN GUNS AND WEED

    Its a matter of .... oh shut up you *men*

  • ||

    Logic is a form of mansplaining microaggression.

  • Overt||

    I think that a lot of men on forums like this fail to appreciate just how orthogonal women are to these discussions.

    For most of the time I knew her, my wife was a die hard libertarian. Now with kids, she is a champion of the drug war.

    Look at the shift of this country towards prohibition-style regulation and the growth of welfare. Now layer that with the institution of womens suffrage. Coincidence?

  • cavalier973||

    Bush won in 04 primarily because he convinced them Gore was going to sell out to the terrorists.

    That's astonishing. They really didn't know Kerry was Bush's opponent in '04?

  • Robert||

    But the talk show guys for yrs. have been saying that as people grow up, marry, & have kids, they do become less socially tolerant.

  • SIV||

    Hard-partying coke whores get married and then worry their precious little snowflake will try reefer like mommy did at his age.

  • Brandybuck||

    The GOP may now have a blue mohawk guy, but the true sign they have changed is when they finally get their own Sumerian Libertarian.

  • iEagleHammer||

    Such a wonderfully cordial discussion section. I think for good measure I'm going to end this post with "Go fuck yourself."

    I was a "young conservative" 5 or 6 years ago, Now the GOP disgusts me. My awaking, so to speak, was hearing Republicans criticize Obama for things that Bush did too, and they claimed bush didn't do these things! Like Stimulus for instance, or foreign policy decisions. How about increasing the welfare state? One of the best guys to highlight this hypocrisy was Ron Paul. I don't think he originally made the comment about starting brushfires of the mind, but he did a good job of actually doing it.

    To me it all came down to intellectual honesty. You can't be a Republican and criticize Obamas policies unless you are (a) brainwashed, or (b) intellectually dishonest. I guess stupid/uniformed could also be a fair reason. It was a wonderful moment when I realized that both sides just spew pure bullshit. It helped open my mind on other issues too, like realizing that the GOPs anti immigration stance is ridiculously racist... but now they are stuck in it because their previous positions made all of the illegals support the Dems.

    Anyway, Go fuck yourself.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Bush murderdroned people?

    Tried to nationalize 1/6th of the economy?

    Broke bankruptcy laws to pay off union donors?

    Said - not only "if you're not with us, your against us" but also claimed the ability to rewrite any legislation anytime he felt simply by stating it publicly?

    Failed to pass a budget in 7 years?

    Openly threatened businesses and press with punishment for writing articles weary of new WH programs/laws?

    SLD: No fan of Bush - Patriot Act, Part D, TARP... meh... but sick of this false equivalency: "Bush did the same thing" when it's obvious Obama tripled down.

  • Michael Hihn||

    You can't be a Republican and criticize Obamas policies unless you are (a) brainwashed, or (b) intellectually dishonest

    I'm no Republican, and you just exposed your shameful bigotry. You were a "young conservative" AFTER the Bush debacles were known? That means you've been a fucking moron for 13 years. Thanks for sharing that!

  • cavalier973||

    The GOP's Gen Y Problem: Young Republicans Alienated by Party's Social Conservatism

    How is that the GOP's problem? Young people get their heads right sooner or later.

  • cavalier973||

    Headline: "The Libertarian Party's Gen Y Problem: Young Libertarians keep getting directed to focus on the GOP by such libertarian outfits as Reason.com"

  • Michael Hihn||

    And faux libertarians like Ron and Ran Paul. Rick Santorums with spending cuts.

  • Richard Rider||

    For 35 years, I was a Libertarian Party activist and candidate. Three years ago I reregistered GOP (which apparently makes me an automatic member of the Republican Party). I also am still a member of the LP via dues payments, but am no longer active in the party.

    Hence I'm what I call a "prickly Republican." And I'm rather active in some GOP party matters -- certainly issues. But I don't hide my preference for drug legalization, etc. I'm well known locally as a long time Libertarian who concentrates on fiscal issues, so I'm welcomed and tolerated -- even by most social conservatives.

    My point is that one CAN work within the GOP for personal freedoms. As the article points out, younger Republicans are often surprisingly fertile ground for planting the seeds of freedom. Many are semi-libertarians already.

    We are not EVER going to have our ideal libertarian society, but it's important to get the Freedom train moving in the right direction. The alternative is unacceptable.

    BTW, I'm NOT suggesting that my choice is the best choice for all. Who knows what works best? -- and what scenario is best to work within. Best we attack on ALL fronts -- including the LP still taking point on issues many are reluctant to push on.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Good to see you again, Richard. It has been a tumultuous 35 years.

    But attacking ALL fronts is what doomed the Party -- despite a libertarian majority all those 35 years (fiscally conservative and socially liberal)

    The problem none dare admit: the libertarian "brand" is TOXIC, as proven by the 2005 Cato/Zogby poll. (if properly analyzed)

    On issues alone, 59% self-describe as fiscally conservative and socially liberal. When they add, "also called libertarian", it drops to 44%. If "libertarian" alone, 13%.

    We win on issues, lose on labels. Lesson #1.

    Who knows what works best? -

    Easy enough to find out. Remember when libertarians still knew to always be pro-liberty but never anti-government? When did we start specializing in anti-gubmint rants to our own choir?

    You've been a candidate. Have you been elected? Talk to those of us who have been. Dump the fucking stupid notion of a libertarian society. We've been defending tribal libertarianism instead of liberty -- alienating our own majority. Lesson #2

    We now chase "independents" -- 30% of which are marxist/socialist and/or New Dealers -- instead of our own majority. Libertarian politics COULD save America ... if there was such a thing.

    Create two columns on a sheet of paper. Label them Libertarian Society and Free Society. Start writing. You'll see it. Lesson #3

    Pogo nailed it. "We have seen the enemy and it is us."

  • Michael Hihn||

    Ummm, is Reason FINALLY admitting that extreme social conservatives -- like Ron and Rand Paul -- are a threat to liberty!! And to libertarianism itself?

  • trutherator||

    Reason magazine makes too much emphasis on being "modern liberals" in matters of "social conservative" issues, rather than being truly libertarian.

    Statists want you to argue about what kind of marriage the state will recognize. Demanding government persmission for how you define your relationships is a political power platform item, NOT a libertarian item!

    Gay marriage has no business at all in a discussion of political philosophy, Stop looking to government rulings and votings on "gay marriage". Anybody can have a genuine or a sham "marriage". (One guy once said he "married" his horse!)

    And stop pretending that opposition to the abortifacient drugs that come with the label of "contraceptive" is anything but a defense of the LIBERTARIAN rights of the defenseless babies in the womb to be free from aggression.

    PLEASE NOTE GUYS: AYN RAND'S HYSTERICAL HATE OF ALL THINGS "GOD" IS NOT! A LIBERTARIAN POSITION. Especially in the defense of the natural rights of individuals. It is an un-reason-able (devoid of "reason") to deprecate the contribution of Christianity to the fights for freedom. And from the 20th century, we see that atheist regimes are more brutal in their violation of the rights of man.

    Educate yourselves in the stands for freedom by Bible-believing Christians (like myself) who are able to see that anarcho-capitalist philosophy is actually a Biblical doctrine. (Matthew 17:25-26, 1 Samuel 8:7, and others).

    (Copied from my blog www.trutherator.wordpress.com)

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement