Counseling for the Troubled Marriage

For those of you who won't be able to make tonight's debate on the fate of the libertarian conservative "marriage," it's worth checking out the debate that's been going on between Ryan Sager of the NY Post (who I finally met last week after working in various places immediately following him…) and National Review's Ramesh Ponnuru.

It starts with this TechCentralStation column by Ryan. Ramesh replied here at The Corner, with a rebuttal by Ryan and a second take from Ramesh.

I think Ryan's right on at least two counts here: First, that Bush's appeal to a big chunk of swing voters rests almost entirely on his greater perceived credibility on national security issues, and second, that in the long term, as older voters are replaced with todays teens and twentysomethings, anti-gay politicking is going to face some serious diminishing returns and potentially become a net liability. But I think Ryan does then fall into the pundit's fallacy, because if you really look at what's behind his first point, you find that it undermines the conclusion that what Republicans need to do is become more generically libertarian friendly. What the national security–voters are only reluctantly stomaching is, in many cases, Bush's more libertarian-ish domestic policy proposals. I'm too lazy to dig up links, but I'm pretty sure that on issue-by-issue polls, people basically like getting lots of free stuff. So I'm not wholly convinced yet that we're quite as vital a constituency as Ryan thinks, much as I might like it to be the case, but he's promised a third round, so stay tuned.

Comments

[Jason Ligon]

We are completely inconsequential as a group. Luckily, so are actual liberals and, though it may not look that way at the moment social conservatives.

Political power for libertarians is the same as political power for anyone else these days. You have to hang your hat on an issue that is owned by a coalition that, in its totality, is NOT inconsequential. Ideologies are not voting blocs to speak of. The most powerful people are not conservatives, liberals, or (Ha!) libertarians. The most powerful people are old people.

[Gary Gunnels]

I am loving some of the statements from CPAC that Sager details:

"The idea of giving any job to any willing worker is absolutely unacceptable," Schlafly said. American workers won't and shouldn't work for the wages Mexicans and other Latin American immigrants are willing to accept, she said, and companies should be forced to pay them more.

All of this met with wild applause from the audience.

And posters like BillyRay say Conservatives and Libertarians have something in common.

[thoreau]

So, Gary, if I read you right, at a meeting of hard-core conservatives there was wild applause for price controls? But since those price controls were cloaked in the language of nationalism I guess it's OK.

That says just about everything I need to know about the conservative movement today. I'm not saying we should all vote for Dems, but it just reinforces the satisfaction that I get from voting LP. If even the hard-core right-wingers are in favor of price controls (as long as it's defended with flag-waving) then there's no hope for the right in its current condition.

[thoreau]

Stevo-

Good point. They probably don't speak for the whole conservative movement.

But I do wonder if they speak for the current leadership.

[Gary Gunnels]

Stevo Darkly,

This was a statement by Phylis Schlafly. If she doesn't represent the current incarnation of conservatives who the hell does?

thoreau,

Actually, they are wage controls, but that's hardly an improvement.

[thoreau]

Actually, they are wage controls, but that's hardly an improvement.

Not to get too semantic here, but wages are the price of labor.

[Gary Gunnels]

thoreau,

True, but in political jargon, they are wage controls.

[Gary Gunnels]

thoreau,

Anyway, the point is that the Schlafly type of conservative is so beyond the pale that any "meet up" with them is simply out of the question. Shit, we might as well be lining up with the Wobblies if that's our option.

[thoreau]

Well, Gary, obviously I was speaking in economic jargon, not political jargon, just like any good libertarian ;->

And any good libertarian could tell you that the best conservatives are the ones with the strongest hatred for liberals, so Schlafly is exactly what we need! ;->

[uaeroht]

Since the president evidently thinks the opposite of Schlafly on the issue, I don't think I'd venture a guess at a conservative consensus on it.

[Stevo Darkly]

I was going to say, Phylis Schlafly is an old has-been, and I don't think hardly anyone cares what she says anymore. She "speaks for the conservative movement" in about the same sense that Jimmy Carter is the voice of today's left-liberals.

By the way, I deliberately used "price controls" instead of "wage controls" without even noticing that Thoreau already did the same thing. Same thing, even when the thing being sold is labor. This needs to be pointed out more often. It baffles me that many people who rage against nominal "monopolies" have no problem with unions (labor monopolies).

[Akira MacKenzie]

Phylis Schlafly? That old bat is still alive?

[TJ Jackson]

If the Libertarians believe that the homosexual agenda and accelerating illegal alien immigration is a winning issue they should leave the Republicans and form their own parry. Remind me again how many Libertarians have been elected as Libertarians?

[Gary Gunnels]

Ahh yes, the homosexual agenda...

Wake at 7:30 AM

Tennis at 8:00 AM

Breakfast at 8:45 AM

Shower at 9:15 AM

...

Next you'll start channeling BillyRay's authoritarian outlook on political participation for groups he dislikes.

As to immigration, maybe if we rationalized and liberalized our immigration laws we wouldn't have cause to call it "illegal."

Remind me again how many Libertarians have been elected as Libertarians?

Remind me again why your are making a fallacious argument from popularity?

[thoreau]

Schlafly herself is irrelevant. But if at a gathering of loyal GOP activists somebody can draw applause for wage controls, there's something deeply wrong in the activist base of the GOP. When a speaker says something loony it's an anecdote, but when she draws applause from a large audience it's a statistic.

[clarityiniowa]

Hmmm, you don't suppose they're going to exhume Nixon?

[Gary Gunnels]

clarityiniowa,

Its part of the secret Republican re-animation projection!

[clarityiniowa]

That explains it! I saw something scuttling down the street last night. Must've been Bob Dole's right arm.

[Gary Gunnels]

clarityiniowa,

Just wait until Strom Thurmond returns! He'll solve all our "problems." 🙂

[clarityiniowa]

Brings a whole new meaning to the term "paleoconservative."

[Andrew]

thoreau

Is this really the first time you noticed that a lot of American conservatives are nativists (as are ALL leftists)? You didn't notice it when I talked about it? You didn't notice that the "paleos" who get a lot of credit around here because of their isolationist take on Iraq are especially ardent about it? Where have YOU been?

But...you will be relieved to know, an American who is pretty important in the American conservative movement is pretty go-ahead on immigration reform - and best of all, his views are fairly important...since he happens to be President.

[Gary Gunnels]

Andrew,

The President doesn't pass legislation, he enforces it.