Continuing Crack-up

The Decembrist has a nice roundup and some good remarks on a spate of recent pieces on the implosion of American conservatism. Said "implosion" seems above all to be about the marginalization (and dissatisfaction) of libertarian-ish consertvatives within the GOP. Should Bush lose in November, some internal shuffling seems likely. And if he wins? That could, in a sense, be more interesting, because I'm not sure what happens then. I should probably start by reading the rest of the aforementioned articles…

Comments

[thoreau]

If Bush wins, then 2 battles will immediately ensue within the GOP:

1) A bunch of GOP Senators and Governors will start preening in New Hampshire and Iowa.

2) A handful of people will propose amending the Constitution to remove the limit of 2 terms. That idea will be dismissed by the crowd of Senators and Governors descending on New Hampshire and Iowa.

Come to think of it, even if Bush loses those Senators and Governors will still swarm all over Iowa and New Hampshire. But if he wins they'll be accompanied by a bunch of Democratic Senators and Governors.

[Ken Shultz]

...as I was saying Joe L.:

"Should Bush lose in November, some internal shuffling seems likely."

Mr. Sanchez is suggesting here that the libertarian side of the Republican Party is likely to get a boost if Bush loses, not if he wins. There is no reason for anything to change if Bush wins. If Kerry wins because libertarian leaning Republicans voted for Badnarik, so be it. We can suffer four years under President Kerry with Congress tilted against him better than we can manage another election cycle with the Republicans stiff-arming the libertarians.

...Indeed, I'm not entirely convinced that even if Kerry were to get some of his domestic agenda through Congress, it would be much worse than another four years with a Presidency whose primary constituency thinks that foreign policy should be a function of prophecy.

[Lowdog]

Rob, what are you talking about?

[Ruthless]

And William F. Buckley has retired.
Taken together, this is great news.
Where's gaius marius?

Anarchy is good.
Pro-government types, conservative and liberal, have tried to make anarchy into a bogeyman.

Anarchy is the first day of the rest of our "collective" lives.

Bring it the flip on!

[huskermet]

If Bush wins, nothing happens (i.e. more of the same type of government disliked by both liberals and conservatives)

If Bush loses, there will indeed be a shakeup in the Republican party. Because liberals will outlaw it.

[Jason Bourne]

Do you hear the people sing? 🙂

[Jim Walsh]

The authoritarian, social conservatives in the GOP have made it all too clear that they have no intent of even meeting the libertarians halfway. So much for the "big umbrella" metaphor, and so much for my involvement with the Stupider-Than-Ever Party.

[MayDay72]

The traditional "conservative" Republican elements will certainly blame a Bush loss on libertarians...I can already see Jonah Goldberg's post-election story...

But the old media and left-wing politicians will spin a Bush defeat as a national refutation on "extreme right-wing conservatism"...Including libertarian economic ideals (smaller/less intrusive central government)...Even though Bush was hardly an practitioner of libertarian/conservative economic ideals...

[joe]

gaius,

Let's not forget the brilliance of defending a sovereign nation with "a well regulated militia."

Ah, idealists.

[Ruthless]

joe and gaius,
Let bygones be bygones. Let's talk about the future: anarchy!

[M. Simon]

I think the Republicans have one prophecy right.

They predict Islam is at war withthe world.

A war it started 1400 years ago.

Seems like a pretty good prophecy if you consider where 90% of the current wars and genocides are taking place.

Of course the Prophecy bit only seems to bother libs if it is the Christians in America who are doing the crystal ball bit.

So I ask you. Given the current state of the world would you as a libertarian be better off under the rule of christians or islamics?

Or is it 1938 all over again and peace at any price? For a while.

[M. Simon]

The ideal libertarian state.

1. Everyone is at peace
2. No one will try to get up a gang to take advantage of the weak.

Where do you find a place where such people are 100% of the population and who are not ruled by gangsters?

[Liberty Lover]

Ah, conservatives concluded that the audience more small government is, well, small. Ramesh Ponnerru (excuse the spelling) wrote a piece in National Review in 1999 (before NRO) on the state of conservatism in which he concluded as much.

If we are ever allowed to control some portion of our Social Security money it will be for some pragmatic reason such as the program's financial condition demands it. Will it ever be because a majority of the American people want to enjoy more control over their economic future?

After I wrote the above paragraph I started to think a bit more. So what is (are) the problem(s) anyway? Seriously. Its fun and easy to throw criticisms from the sidelines. Even tinpot dictators criticize the Federal government.

Is it because Republicans don't sell the benefits of liberty? Or are they are not interested in giving up control? Or do the American people like the services government provides?

[MayDay72]

M. Simon:

Sheesh! Are you trolling or looking for enlightenment? You have the worlds' libraries at your fingertips...So I will assume that you are simply asking for someone to point you in the right direction rather that trying to create a straw man to knock down...Since anarcho-capitalist societies (both theoretical and historical) are a fairly complex subject to fully explain and debate using this forum...

So...read the book, visit the dude, and converse with the masses...