Conservatism

America Needs a Liberal Party

True defenders of real liberalism need to take the word back from progressives and conservatives.

|

Bring back real liberalism
Delstudio/Dreamstime.com

America needs a new political party, one opposed to isolationism, protectionism, nativism, authoritarianism, and ecologism — but which also supports free enterprise, constitutional government, human equality, liberty, dignity, and the defensive alliance of all nations committed to such ideals.

Some might call such a party "conservative," and indeed, many of those who call themselves conservatives today would find themselves in agreement with its tenets. But these are the ideas of classical liberalism; they are the ideas that made the free world free, in as much as it is free. They have been misbranded by their "progressive" opponents as "conservative" — a word associated with "servility" and the service of privilege — in order to make them seem reactionary. It's time for the true defenders of real liberalism to take their proud title back.

America needs a new Liberal Party because both major parties have abandoned liberalism. Neither adequately supports international free trade or the defense of the West — the two pillars of the liberal world order since 1945. Both lack commitment to constitutionally limited government, separation of powers, free enterprise, human equality, and liberty under the law. Each supports its own Malthusian antihuman collectivist ideology: for Democrats, it is ecologism, for Republicans, it is nativism.

Ecologism — the advocacy of state-administered collective sacrifice for the putative benefit of nature — is so obviously anti-liberal, reactionary, and indeed, anti-human, that I will leave it to the would-be liberals of the left to figure out how they ever got roped into adopting it as part of their core ideology. As a result, the party that once proudly proclaimed itself the defender of the poor now centers its program on ultra-regressive sales taxes of fuel and electricity, while boasting of its ability to throw entire industries and their workers on the scrap heap. Furthermore, ecologism serves as a justification for the expansion of the powers of the state to intrude into every aspect of public, commercial, and private life — reinforcing monopolies, impairing initiative, and destroying opportunities at every turn.

Nativism, on the other hand, is the ideology that brought the Trumpist Trojan horse into the conservative citadel. A mirror image of the Democrats' environmental Malthusianism, it asserts that rather than natural resources, it is human opportunities that are in limited supply. It is not a conservative ideology, because it is anti-free enterprise and anti-Judeo Christian. Our nation's founding creed is that of inalienable rights granted to men created equal by God. How can a movement which explicitly denies that faith be considered conservative, or even American? In fact it isn't conservative at all. It is alt-right. But what is the alt-right really?

In his classic 1944 work, The Road to Serfdom, Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek, then living in exile in England, shocked readers with his diagnosis of Nazism. National Socialism, he argued, was not the opposite of social democracy — many of whose adherents could be found fighting in the ranks of the Allies — but its evolutionary extension. All Hitler had done, said Hayek, was to grasp that racism is required for socialism, because to mobilize the passion necessary to achieve the full collectivist agenda, it is necessary to invoke the tribal instinct. Thus, contrary to Marx, the ultimate development of socialism is not stateless international brotherhood, but various forms of rabid tribal nationalism. Similarly, tribalism leads to socialism.

Not to put too fine a point on the matter, tribalism — or "identarianism," if you will — is not a conservative ideology; it is collectivist ideology. It is the oldest, most powerful, lethal, and most degrading collectivist ideology, because it is based on primeval animal instinct. By using xenophobic agitation to mobilize mob support for a program of socialistic policy, unlimited government, and strongman rule, the international alt-right has embraced a political methodology clearly identified seven decades ago in The Road to Serfdom.

Running up taxes on fuel, electricity, and fuel for the putative purpose of stopping climate change is an alternative version of human sacrifice for weather control. Excluding immigrants for the putative purpose of making jobs available is merely an alternative version of the counterfactual case for population control — to wit that we supposedly would all be better off if there were fewer people (in fact, we weren't). Neither is a liberal, moral, rational, or practical position. On the contrary, increasing human numbers, freedoms, and living standards accelerates the rate of invention, and thus humanity's ability to deal with any problem. That's the liberal, moral, rational, and practical program for advancing the human condition. It's also the winning political answer to both the brown and green anti-humanists. Immigrants and free enterprise, together, are what made America great — and they both need each other.

To see clearly what the Liberal Party needs to oppose, it is useful to examine what freedom's most dedicated enemies are for. Aleksandr Dugin is one of the principal philosophical theoreticians of totalitarianism internationally, and his publications are regularly featured in such American identitarian outlets as Radix (Dugin's English language translator is the wife of American alt-right leader and Radix publisher Richard Spencer). While he greatly admires Nazism, Dugin's "Fourth Political Theory" seeks to transcend traditional Nordic racism's self-limited market appeal by proposing multi-centered tribal fascism, and allying it with other anti-liberal ideologies including communism — but also ecologism in a new synthesis to counter the liberal ideas of individualism, intrinsic rights, and universal human dignity. It is the raising of "blood and soil" over "all men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights;" of animal instinct over human reason; of the id over the superego; of greed and lust over justice and love. This is the metaphysics of tyranny.

James Madison said, "If men were angels, government would be unnecessary." The corollary to this is that if men were beasts, freedom would be unacceptable. Dugin understands this. So like Circe, he seeks to use the sorceries of tribal and ecologic anti-humanism not merely to weaken and break up the Western alliance, but to turn men into unreasoning beasts, the better to end the specter of liberty everywhere.

This is the enemy we now face. Encouraged, supported, and in some cases directed by the Kremlin, the green, red, and brown rainbow alliance of tyranny is on the march across much of the globe. In Europe, the socialists and environmentalists mismanaging the European Union are discrediting the dream of a united Europe, providing the opening for Moscow-backed tribalist parties to break up and take over the continent. This effort is being further helped by a concerted campaign of economic sabotage by the green and red parties whose anti-fracking initiatives are making sure that Europe remains dangerously dependent on Russian natural gas, and by the armed forces of Russia and its Iranian and Syrian allies, whose ethnic cleansing campaigns are stampeding millions of refugees into Europe to rapidly accelerate the rise to power of the Kremlin's brown fifth column.

America should be opposing this offensive against the free world with might and main, but under the mis-leadership of the partisan careerists who dominate both major parties it is not doing so. On the contrary, with the near unanimous support of the Democrats in Congress, the Obama administration helped to fund Iran's brutal offensive in Syria to the tune of 100 billion dollars released in accord with the terms of its nuclear deal, and failed to effectively assist Syrian rebel forces fighting the Iran-Assad-Russia alliance on the ground. Not only that, the Obama administration opened the door to overt aggression by failing to honor America's treaty commitment to defend the territorial integrity of Ukraine, and by reducing U.S. Army troop strength in Europe to 30,000 men, an amount less than one-tenth that of its late Cold War strength and smaller than the New York City Police Department.

Until recently the Republicans chose to criticize the Democrats for their foreign policy weakness, but the new Trump administration promises to be even worse. While the Obama administration offered only feeble help for the Syrian rebels, Trump has said he supports the Assad-Iran-Russia war effort. While Obama limited the U.S response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine to ineffective economic sanctions, Trump has offered justification for Putin's attack. Furthermore, notwithstanding his U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley's Samantha Power-like grand verbal denunciations of Putin's aggression, Trump has dismissed criticisms of the Russian strongman's murderous regime across the board. While Obama cut American military power in Europe to mere tripwire levels, Trump has offered to render even that symbolic level of support to Europe's defense moot, by stating that he sees no reason to be bound by the NATO treaty's requirement to come to member states' aid should any come under attack.

Under such circumstances, it is hardly surprising that the Kremlin chose to interfere in the American election with both covert and overt actions to assist the rise of Donald Trump. What is disheartening, however, is the degree to which the Republican Party has rallied to deny or dismiss this intervention in America's internal affairs, an outrage which verges on an act of war against the U.S. homeland itself. And while the Democrats are currently making much of Trump's Putinophilia, an honest recollection of their own behavior prior to the Trump candidacy makes it difficult to take their newfound ardor in the defense of the West seriously. That said, we now have a president whose self-interest apparently requires him to suppress or silence the nation's intelligence agencies that have brought to light the enemy conspiracy on his behalf, and a majority party — in as much as it remains a party — bound to support him in this endeavor.

This is a five-alarm fire. America needs a new party, one that will — in the present emergency — bravely rise to the defense of the republic and the grand alliance of the free nations which it leads. It needs a party of economic sanity, which will not destroy the basis of our livelihood through either a combination of trade war and immigration restriction, or top-down suppression of business. It needs a party of humanity, which rejects tribalism, not only for the harm it inflicts upon its targets but for the moral and intellectual degradation it infests within the minds and hearts of its converts. It needs a party of liberty, one which will defend not only the borders of freedom, but the ideas and institutions that make freedom possible.

In short, America needs a Liberal Party. Scattered, the forces of liberalism are weak. Together, we may yet prevail.

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.

183 responses to “America Needs a Liberal Party

  1. America needs a new political party, one opposed to isolationism, protectionism, nativism, authoritarianism, and ecologism ? but which also supports free enterprise, constitutional government, human equality, liberty, dignity, and the defensive alliance of all nations committed to such ideals.

    Ouch for the Libertarian Party.

    We also need a new word for classic liberalism.

    1. “The Nice People Party”

      1. “The Anti-Asshole Party”

        1. Wait, I can’t join? Mrs. Animal says I’m an asshole.

    2. The new term for classical liberalism is neo-liberalism. Wrap your head around that. And then try to figure out what neo-traditionalism means.

      1. is neo-liberalism

        For some reason, in politics every “neo-” sucks.

        But in the arts it’s great; Neo-classical and Neo-romantic, etc.

        I look forward to neo-brutalism.

        1. “Post” is even worse, especially in art. Post modern. Yuck.

          1. How about Pieter Post? Frans Post? Marten Post?

        2. How about Bruto-nihilism? Bluto-nihilism?

      2. I’m surprised it’s not post-liberal, like post-modern or how the last president was to usher in a post-racial era.

        1. I think “post” would imply that liberalism is over, which isn’t really the right message.

    3. Whig? Bull Moose? Constitution? Independence? A political party by any other name would smell just the same (my apologies a Rose).

    4. Srsly. Woodchipper for Zubrin

    5. Ouch for the Libertarian Party.

      Now that’s pithy.

      I’m sure the author is simply discounting the Libertarian Party as been too marginal and feckless to effect any change. His real target is the GOP, supposedly hijacked by Trump. Everyone sees this, right? The article is another way to say: I don’t like Trump.

      And it’s also nice to see the “five-alarm fire” threat level has been invoked not after decades of government expansion per se, but specifically after Trump’s ascendancy. If Clinton had won, would the same urgency be on display? Hell, we had Obama for two terms. If that wasn’t a five-alarm scenario, it’s hard to see what would be.

    6. As a LP activist, this guys has hurt me in the feelz.

    7. As a LP activist, this guys has hurt me in the feelz.

    8. I quit the Republican Party when it looked like Trump was gaining speed. But no way in hell am I going back to the LP! The Libertarian Party has no interest in actually winning an election. The get their best candidate ever running on their ticket, and then spend the entire campaign season bitching that he wasn’t a purist, that he might actually appeal to someone beyond the boundaries of the choir. The party has no theory of governance, no actual policy positions other than “burn it all down”, at best they promise to vote “no” to everything, at worse they promise to take away social security from your grandma, saying it’s okay because now she can have legal heroin.

      Jeepers H Cripes! I’ve seen seen LP candidates argue that it should be legal to own nuclear bombs!

      The U.S. indeed needs a new Liberal Party, or at least a Libertarian Lite Party.

  2. America needs a new Liberal Party because both major parties have abandoned liberalism. Neither adequately supports international free trade or the defense of the West ? the two pillars of the liberal world order since 1945. Both lack commitment to constitutionally limited government, separation of powers, free enterprise, human equality, and liberty under the law.

    With the exception of military alliances, you’ve more or less described the LP. If a part that calls itself Libertarian can’t get its act together, what makes you think a party that calls itself Liberal is going to fair any better?

    The fundamental problem is not that we lack a political party for the throngs of liberty-loving Americans. The problem is that the throngs don’t exist – there just aren’t that many people that primarily value individual liberty. The ones that do are either too few to make a difference or not serious about governing. But even if you had serious libertarians in government they wouldn’t last without a base of support.

    Change has to come from the ground up. Politics will reflect that, eventually. But change from the bottom up is really damn difficult to motivate and even more difficult to direct. I don’t know what the best solution is, but I’m pretty confident it doesn’t start with a new party.

    1. The problem with the Libertarian Party is that it is called the Libertarian Party. Libertarian means heartless greed and Ayn Rand.

      1. Which is ironic, as Rand despised the libertarians of her era.

        1. No one knows that, or cares, except libertarians and objectivists. These types of distinctions are understandably lost on nearly everyone. Which I think is telling, because if libertarianism actually had some appeal for enough people, they might put the effort into learning more about it.

          1. Most people don’t care to put in the effort to learn anything. It’s not just a politics issue.

          2. These types of distinctions are understandably lost on nearly everyone.

            And libertarians haven’t been helping.

            I blame the “greed is good” slogan from the Reagan era. People associate that with libertarianism, and it goes downhill from there. Because greed isn’t good. I didn’t used to be, but I’m increasingly the flavor of libertarian that believes that if you want to not have an overbearing regulatory state, then stop being jerks. Don’t like speech laws? Stop using slurs. Don’t want socialism? Pay your employees well, treat them well, and don’t act like they are your personal turnip to wring blood from, and maybe they won’t turn around and view you the same way come voting time. Keeping things in the realm of the voluntary means acting responsibly. Look at the Uber CEO controversies. The guy’s a dick running a company full of douche-bros. And because they were the most visible champions of de-regulation in the last few years, that’s what people associate with libertarians.

            I feel like substantial number of my generation took “greed is good” way out of context, as permission instead of criticism.

            1. Keeping things in the realm of the voluntary means acting responsibly

              Very well put. To say it another way, just because you can doesn’t mean that you should. Even if you don’t particularly care about being nice, it’s just rational self interest to be nice anyway. Piiss enough people off, no amount of law or Constitution or precedent is going to stop them from just deciding to come after you.

              1. We never would’ve had prohibition if drunks weren’t such jerks. & then alcohol prohib’n paved the way for prohib’ns of non-medical use of lots of drugs even if their users weren’t notably jerks. If drunks were nice, chances are good narcotics wouldn’t be under such controls.

            2. Yeah! Why can’t people just do what they are supposed to? Why do the MAKE us punish them? I mean, just pay your employees a fair wage! And stop using slurs!

              A couple of, oh, teeny tiny minor issues, though:

              Who decides what is a fair wage?
              Who decides what is a slur and what is not?

              1. You don’t need anybody to decide those things. All you need is for people to be fair & nice without wondering what the boundaries of fair & nice are. If you have to ask, you’re not.

            3. Using racial slurs doesn’t justify speech laws.

              And that’s all very nice, but look at the Koch bros: they support criminal justice reform, freer immigration, oppose hiring discrimination against applicants with criminal records. And yet, progressives hate them more than Limbaugh. Being nice doesn’t seem to help.

              In the end, this is like a Christian saying they’ll stop supporting blasphemy laws when people stop insulting their religion.

              1. Slurs don’t justify speech laws, but lead to them anyway. And as to the Kochs, the problem is, it’s too late. We need to go back a few centuries & keep people from having been jerks then.

                1. Slurs don’t justify speech laws, but lead to them anyway.

                  Guaranteed, next time dems are in power they will spend a lot more political capital on getting German-style speech laws passed. Goodbye free speech, not because of a few skirmishes on the margins of liberal campuses, but because troll armies who supposedly don’t mean what they say couldn’t grow the fuck up.

                  We all know courts are not always reliably pro free speech.

                  1. They’d get promptly destroyed in the SCOTUS, followed by a massive loss in congress 2 years later.

              2. Using racial slurs doesn’t justify speech laws.

                No, but using them unnecessarily just gives them ammunition. Mark my words, next time dems are in power we’re going to get German-style laws about it. Because the fucking trolls just can’t bear to grow the fuck up.

                But the point, and this also addresses the Koch bros. comment, is that it sends a signal that libertarians are not on the side of minorities and women. We can talk all we want about liberty for all, but as long as we seem intent on being as non-inclusive as possible with our speech, they will see it from an angle that we only care about freedom for white males, reality be damned. It’s not hard to prove that libertarian policies will help them, but they won’t listen as long as we keep poking them in the eye.

                1. is that it sends a signal that libertarians are not on the side of minorities and women

                  Because libertarians aren’t, they aren’t on anyone’s ‘side’. Libertarianism defends anyone against aggression, and doesn’t care about what ‘side’ it should be on. Worrying about this only validates identity politics.

                  1. Worrying about this only validates identity politics.

                    It doesn’t have to be, it’s more personal than that. When they see people using certain language, they take it personally. If we were more accepting *on a personal level*, they might actually listen to what we have to offer. As it is, they see people saying “tranny’s ick me out, but they can have the same rights”, they aren’t going to get to the second part before tuning out.

                    1. As it is, they see people saying “tranny’s ick me out, but they can have the same rights”

                      Honestly, that seems like a bit of a strawman.

                      In any case, I don’t see how that gets to the original point. We could talk about the best ways to get people over to libertarianisim, but trying to portray libertarianism as on any identity groups ‘side’ is fatal. Sure, being honest about the radical anti-tribalism of libertarian theory may put some people off, but you can’t ignore it.

                    2. but trying to portray libertarianism as on any identity groups ‘side’ is fatal

                      We don’t necessarily have to be on anyone’s *side*, but we *could* at least try not to actively put them off of our ideas by making them feel personally unwelcome.

                      seems like a bit of a straw man.

                      Not sure if it’s a strawman, when people were basically saying that on the trans thread a couple of days ago.

                    3. Thank you, Marty Feldman’s Eyes, this is one of the best comment strings I’ve seen in a good long while.

        2. Rand despised everyone who did not agree with everything Rand said.

          1. For the record:

            Above all, do not join the wrong ideological groups or movements, in order to “do something.” By “ideological” (in this context), I mean groups or movements proclaiming some vaguely generalized, undefined (and, usually, contradictory) political goals. (E.g., the Conservative Party, which subordinates reason to faith, and substitutes theocracy for capitalism; or the “libertarian” hippies, who subordinate reason to whims, and substitute anarchism for capitalism.) To join such groups means to reverse the philosophical hierarchy and to sell out fundamental principles for the sake of some superficial political action which is bound to fail. It means that you help the defeat of your ideas and the victory of your enemies.

            http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexi…..rians.html

        3. Which is ironic, as Rand despised the libertarians of her era.

          So it’s not ironic. It’s inaccurate. Rand certainly did despise libertarians. However she conflated them with anarchists, of which libertarian-ism has its fair share. Most importantly, though, she railed against their anti-intellectual, anti-ideological stance. To her libertarians were driven by “superficial political action” divorced from a coherent philosophy.

          She was, and is, mostly right about that. Few libertarians could enunciate a coherent philosophical position even if you–ahem–put a gun to their heads. They’ve taken the political distillation of classical liberalism and run with it, never bothering to wonder where those politics came from in the first place.

          And so you end up with the likes of Nick Gillespie–a pretty big fish in the small libertarian pond–advocating for a state financial “safety net”. And there you have it.

      2. “Libertarian” means taking social security away from your grandma.
        “Libertarian” means legalizing heroin.

    2. In theory the Libertarian Party stands for this. In practice it stands for single payer healthcare (two of its Senate candidates were pushing this), forced association (Gary Johnson), and gun control (Bill Weld).

      1. By this logic, the Democratic Party is the party of coal because of Joe Manchin. Johnson isn’t/wasn’t perfect but I still agree with him on probably 90% of his policies. I would have gladly taken that. Weld was a bad choice. Mistakes happen.

        1. And the two Senate candidates that supported single-payer healthcare in Virginia and New Hampshire? They’re not indicative of a fundamental problem?

          You can write off Johnson’s apostasies as an aberration if he were the only example.

          1. There is a fundamental problem with the LP but a lack of purity tests isn’t one of them.

            1. I think the problem isn’t so much ‘purity tests’ as it is allowing people to run in their party while dismissing vast swaths of its platform

          2. Who are the two Senate candidates?

          3. Actually, I think the “fundamental problem” is that Libertarians/libertarians have so few political candidates that they have to count them, and not Libertarian elected representatives.

            What one person says or does isn’t nearly as important when you have more then one.

      2. Weld is better than Ron Paul on gun rights. At least Weld agrees with McDonald vs Chicago. Paul would let any gun control up to the states.

    3. “”The problem is that the throngs don’t exist – there just aren’t that many people that primarily value individual liberty.”

      There is some truth to this, but a great deal of that is that there isn’t anyone selling the idea. Both major political parties have been selling “We’ll give you free stuff” as hard as they can. Yet it is my impression that when somebody comes along and sells something different, they often get a lot of votes. Trump primarily sold security and prosperity, and Hillary (who, admittedly, had a bunch of problems) lost, against all expectations.

      The problem with the Libertarian brand is that it has been conflated with nuts , and its followers tend to get caught up in losing propositions (come on, Reason, drop the ‘open borders’ for a little. It’s getting old.).

    4. The problem is that the throngs don’t exist – there just aren’t that many people that primarily value individual liberty.

      it’s only anecdotal evidence, but a lot of my interactions confirm that. People are okay with liberty when it suits them but have no problem with the heavy hand of govt toward activity they dislike.

      1. ^^^^THIS^^^^

      2. yep. I friend everyone i have ever met in person who i have questioned is 100% okay using the government to force their beliefs on others. It is depressing nature of humanity.

      3. True, but it’s important to remember that people are conditioned to look to government for answers and action. I’m not saying we can create the Marxian Libertarian Man, but of course most people you meet are going to think it’s OK to employ the heavy hand of govt for this or that. They’ve been taught that’s proper, taught that’s how it is, and that is how it is. The tool exists, and it’s been used for millennia, so why not continue using it? For Good, of course.

    5. Exactly right. Couldn’t agree with you more.

    6. Liberal parties tend to morph into something else over time. Seems it’s hard to sustain an -ism over a long period, so parties wind up as coalitions of log rollers, no long term ideology.

    7. The exception you mention is a pretty big exception.

      Also not that Zubrin wasn’t calling for libertarianism. For example he is a strong supporter of government involvement in space exploration, and in encouraging alternatives to oil-derived vehicle fuel.

  3. OT: Joe Lunardi’s hairpiece is one of the best parts about March Madness.

    1. Is it time for March Madness already?

    2. I am still in a February mindset.

  4. “””” international free trade or the defense of the West””””

    So the Neo-Lib, Neo Con party

    1. The Neo Party: take the red pill!

      1. I see what you did there.

  5. Shouldn’t liberalism include a vehement defense of individual rights (the whole basis of the Enlightenment)? The only reason to ‘defend the West’ is if that civilization stands for Liberalism (ergo individual rights) and, frankly, Europe is pretty shitty when it comes to free speech, freedom of association, the right to personal defense, free markets etc. And they’re heading in the wrong direction.

    As much as Reason and their fellow travelers, have tried to wittle down Liberalism to just meaning open immigration and free trade, these are modern ideas separate from what Liberalism means. Ricardo wrote about trade in the 1800s and his ideas weren’t even widely accepted until after World War II.

    1. “””””have tried to wittle down Liberalism to just meaning open immigration and free trade””””

      And open immigration includes taxpayers paying for the immigrants and free trade including the largest owner of industry in the world, the Communist Party of China

  6. America needs a new political party, one opposed to isolationism, protectionism, nativism, authoritarianism, and ecologism ? but which also supports free enterprise, human equality, liberty, dignity…

    That’s it, I’M OUT. Not a GOD DAMNED PENNY. You guys need to get your shit together NOW. This is one of the saddest things I’ve ever SEEN. How is it possible that things went so wrong so quickly? Heads need to ROLL at this point. Don’t take my word for it; wait until the monthly ANALYTICS.

    1. Please, more random capitalization.

      1. It’s in the original. Most of it.
        https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_6773598

    2. One man’s ‘isolationism’ is actually ‘non-interventionism’. But, nice sarcasm.

    3. Not sure if serious.

      1. He’s not serious. The only way he’ll write-off Reason is if they declared that the government shouldn’t pay for abortions or if they declared that Elon Musk isn’t an innovative entrepreneur, but just a rent-seeker

        1. The Reason comment system doesn’t let you click to see what a comment is in response to. So I can’t tell whom you are referring to by the word “he”, but if you meant Zubrin, he’s a pro-lifer and has spoken at pro-life fundraising events.

    4. The fact that the author is calling for a new party, while libertarians already have one, kinda assuages my concern for the details of his proposal. Some of it sound ok. Get the other parties on it.

    5. What did it for you…the dignity?

  7. True defenders of real liberalism need to take the word back from progressives and conservatives.

    Good luck with that; they have owned that word for more than a century, not just in the US but also in Europe.

    Of course, unlike the US, in Europe, they largely discarded the term “liberal” altogether and just call themselves “socialists” and “conservative Christians”, except for occasionally using the quaint but deeply misleading term of “liberal democracy”; even when referring to their “social techocracies”, the more common terms are “social democracy” and “Christian nation”.

    1. The term conservative Christians is never used in European politics. Where does one develop ideas with this level of incorrectnes.

      1. Where? From growing up and living there for a couple of decades.

        You, however, just outed yourself as an ignorant American ideologue.

  8. And EggMcMuffin shall be the standard-bearer for this interventionist Cuck Party.

    1. Are you wearing a torpedo bra?

    2. Pretty much. This is basically what McMuffin was running on.

      1. Hitchcock talked a lot about the use of the McMuffin as a plot device in movies.

        1. How could it be made to stay hot throughout the movie?

  9. What you need to know about Michelle Obama! First Lady of the United States from 2009 to 2017
    read MORE at http://www.lawsonjamesblog.com…..helle.html

    1. Why should I give a sit about MO?!

      1. Wookie lives matter!

  10. Meh, it’s not so much that liberalism was abandoned, but that it had poor foundations which basically demand activist government. We do need a “classical liberal” party – of course, why else are many of us here reading this? – but it’ll need more solid ideological core to avoid so easily turning to the state for solutions. And even then, you’ve got practical politics and fallible people mucking things up.

  11. I am using it now & it’s awesome! I’ve signed up for my account and have been bringing in fat paychecks. For real, my first week I made ?350 and the 2nd week I doubled it & then it kinda snowballed to ?150 a day! just folllow the course.. they will help you out

    ================> http://MaxNet80.com

  12. It’s hilarious that you people are rejecting “libertarian” and attempting to steal “liberal” back from people like me. Understandable I suppose given the cultish connotation of the former, but it’s a bit of a fixation lately, as if what you call yourselves is of utmost importance. Not that marketing isn’t important, but maybe consider that the problem is the underlying policies. What’s stale isn’t the term you use, it’s the lame, pro-capital (anti-labor), anti-environment, anti-poor, quasi-white-supremacist (support the West!) horseshit that you slap a bumper sticker that says “freedom” on. Republicans have been trying with this shit for decades, and it’s not only their lack of any moral core that has prevented them from realizing this program. People are simply not the atomistic beings your philosophy assumes they are. It’s utterly faulty from its first premises. I thought Ms. Rand always told you to check those.

    1. Huh? Can you repeat that?

    2. You’re no liberal, Tony. Prog through and through.

      1. Only morons fixate on terminology. Call me whatever you want. It’s no doubt in service of appealing to a lizard-brain reaction to a word instead of a coherent understanding of policy positions.

        1. I took a stroll through the refugee camp and one of the refugees said, “Tony is at peak classic Tony,” so I came back to look and I must say I am underwhelmed.

          1. Peak Tony is a myth.

          2. Dan is obsessed, lol.

        2. Oh, policy positions. Now that makes sense. Principles don’t matter, only “positions.” Riiiiiiight

        3. Only morons fixate on terminology.

          Like lawyers? Look, words mean things and how they are used are more important than you seem to realize.

        4. You’re opposed into individual freedom; very much illiberal.

          The reason we object to you calling yourself a liberal is because it’s etymologically incorrect. Liberal is derived from the Latin word for freedom.

          Also, no one here is anti labor or anti environment. Most of us want to let laborers and investors make their own choices without government interference. Not wanting to ban Judaism doesn’t make you a Jew and not wanting to give Jews special treatment doesn’t make you anti-Semitic.

          You’re just deliberately being a moron these days. I’m still not sure you’re not a troll account and the real Tony isnt still in a three month long heroin induced stupor.

          1. I’m more in favor of individual freedom than anyone here save perhaps the other lefties who hang around.

            You’re for a theoretical individual freedom that in practice is only available to a tiny minority who are both lucky and who had lucky parents.

            I’m for actual freedom for actual people.

            1. One has to wonder how someone can justify voting for blatant Constitution hating Democrats while claiming to believe in freedom for the people.

    3. “steal “liberal” back from people like me”

      Just leave it to Tony to accidentally tell the truth about things. Of course, he doesn’t get what he just did there.

    4. pro-capital (anti-labor)

      I think that little snippet right there is all we need to understand about Tony.

    5. It’s hilarious that you people are rejecting “libertarian” and attempting to steal “liberal” back from people like me.

      Steal back? So you admit the term has been stolen by people who aren’t actually liberal?

    6. Not that marketing isn’t important, but maybe consider that the problem is the underlying policies.

      Right. People want their free shit taken from someone by force so that’s what they vote for. It’s pretty simple.

      1. Succinct and to the point: today’s virtue signalers are nothing but a bunch of stealers hiding behind the mantle of social justice to justify their criminal activity and avarice. In a nutshell they are about free shit others have to pay for..

        1. We’ve already been through this. If you favor any government at all, i.e., property protection, you are in favor of stealing from others as you define it.

          The only way you people ever weasel your way out of this plain bald truth is by claiming that God is on your side or some variation of that.

    7. Your bigotry is tasty, but your bitterness is delicious.

    8. Tony, you are about as Liberal as Stalin. And less than a tenth as charming.

    9. You leftists stole liberal. ( Hell, why not? You’re all about stealing other people’s stuff anyway. )

      Calling yourselves progressive is still inaccurate, of course, but we’ll go with that just to be polite.

    10. You’re not liberal Tony. You’re a progressive. The progressive movement has been a virus ravaging through our Western heritage destroying everything in its path like a plague. They’re intellectual louts and thugs with an anti-human posture that ranges from eugenics (which includes things like min. wage), hyper-environmentalism all the way to the unhinged stupidity we see on campuses. ALL PROGRESSIVE.

      A scourge.

      The only people keeping what’s left of liberalism in its classical sense and essence ARE libertarians and conservatives.

      Folks like you are just violence. There is no distinction to be made between socialists and progressives or Marxists for that matter anymore but semantics. You all pull for the same doctrines that run contrary to human nature. You are violence against the human spirit.

    11. You’re not a liberal, Tony. You’re a hard-core bootlicker.

      -jcr

  13. For some time but now, especially as of Trump’s election, the Republican Party has been moving towards that part of the political spectrum held by Christian Democratic parties. That is on the right on cultural, social, and moral issues (i.e. social conservatism), and in the center with respect to economic issues – the german social market economy ‘Soziale Marktwirtschaft’. That is combining aspects of a free market capitalist economics but with fair trade and a welfare state, to support a vaguely nativist community.

  14. Huh. I thought there was already a classical liberal party. I guess that one isn’t far enough left to be really inclusive.

    1. You thought wrong.

  15. I would say the case for Nativism infesting Conservatives is much weaker than Ecologism infesting the Left. Progs have been neck deep in expert control via technocratic bureaucracy and gov by fiat (historicism) since the movement began over a hundred years ago, Ecologism is just the latest excuse.

    1. No, it’s about equal. Both sides are equally obsessed with idiocy.

  16. *Identitarianism, not identarianism

  17. America needs a new political party, one opposed to isolationism, protectionism, nativism, authoritarianism, and ecologism ? but which also supports free enterprise, constitutional government, human equality, liberty, dignity, and the defensive alliance of all nations committed to such ideals.

    Such a party wouldn’t be liberal. Liberalism isn’t about bringing about human equality or dignity, it’s about letting adults make their own choices and live with the consequences.

    This is a five-alarm fire. America needs a new party, one that will ? in the present emergency ? bravely rise to the defense of the republic and the grand alliance of the free nations which it leads.

    Liberals don’t “lead grand alliances of free nations”. And what “free nations” are you talking about anyway? The stagnant, statist, authoritarian states of Europe?

    America already has the party that you want; it’s called the “Democrats”, and they even call themselves “liberal”. Go vote for them if that’s what you like, but stop pretending to be a liberal or libertarian.

    1. Such a party wouldn’t be liberal. Liberalism isn’t about bringing about human equality or dignity, it’s about letting adults make their own choices and live with the consequences..

      Isn’t the whole idea of letting people make their own choices based on the idea of human equality and dignity? I mean, if you take the idea of innate inequality to its logical conclusion, you end up with authoritarian rule (either by monarchs or technocrats). Without human equality, the case for laissez-faire politics just falls apart.

      Historically, most liberal thinkers and movements relied on the “human equality” slogan to demolish the old feudal order and overthrow the absolute monarchies in the Old World. Hell, the Declaration of Independence even starts with a claim on human equality: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.

      1. Isn’t the whole idea of letting people make their own choices based on the idea of human equality and dignity?

        Classical liberalism and the Constitution are based on the idea of equality under the law.

        Modern liberals have perverted that into the notion that the state should attempt to ensure equality of outcome and protect people from having other people say derogatory things about them.

    2. The Democrats support free trade and individual rights?

      1. No, they don’t. Neither does Zubrin. That’s why the Democrats are the right party for him.

  18. but which also supports free enterprise, constitutional government, human equality, liberty, dignity, and the defensive alliance of all nations committed to such ideals.

    It’s called neo-liberalism. Get with the times.

  19. How about we take our Libertarian and/or Classical Liberal positions into both major parties and pull the Statist Republican’s and Statist Democrats back towards the limited federal government which we defined in the U.S. Constitution? It seems to me he argues against his own Liberal positions by arguing for expansion of federal powers to intervene in Europe? Here’s a thought. Maybe instead of the Libertarian Party putting up Statist politicians for office that they wait until the major parties have a candidate and then endorse the more Libertarian of the two? By being a swing vote they might just get some of the policies into practice.

    1. I see what you’re saying here, but the only real way the LP gets any exposure at all is to run presidential candidates. Whereas any idiot should know that your Governor and state legislators are a WAY more important than any presidential race is, as it relates to your own life, that stuff isn’t sexy. It’s not on the 24 hour news networks, no one is hashtagging about it, and virtue signaling about it is very low mileage.

      The average ass hole cares about the presidential race, therefore the LP runs a presidential candidate.

      And besides, who would they have endorsed this past election? The Constitution-hating, war-mongering shill? Or the illiterate ghost of FDR? That really only leaves them with Egg McMuffin.

      I mean, we all knew who Reason would have endorsed… I personally wouldn’t have voted.

  20. Is it time to start posting recipes yet?

    1. Well said..

      1. I made veal & pork sausage today. Isn’t that fascinating?

        1. Is that what you call it when your roommates spit roast you?

    2. Why not. Made this yesterday for lunch. Randomly selected spices, turned out fantastic.

      Mahi Mahi fish tacos

      sprinkle filets with:
      olive oil spray
      mustard powder
      tumeric
      paprika
      salt
      pepper
      topped with rosemary

      in oven 20 minutes at 400

      Serve in tortilla with chopped spinach chimichurri (chopped spinach, tomato, squeezed lime juice, salt)

      Kinda winged it and was pleasantly surprised.

      1. Hmmm… Sounds interesting. Anything you would have changed?

        1. I don’t want to come off as arrogant (I was as surprised as anyone it was edible), but not really. YMMV according to taste of course. I was a little worried that those were too many different flavors, but they all blended together in a nice almost blackened crust on top.

          1. Awesome, thanks for sharing! Yeah, only reason I ask that was because I experiment alot too and I always seem to think of something that would add next time when I’m eating even if just something for crunch or texture.

  21. America needs a new Liberal Party because both major parties have abandoned liberalism

    …while getting broad support from the electorate. Who’s going to make up this new Liberal Party? By “make up”, I mean not just leaders, but rank & file.

    1. No one, because it begins with children’s education. Adult partisans, with few exceptions, are incapable of change. It’s a cultural problem that cannot be solved in months or years, but decades.

  22. Jesus what an incoherent mess. So the worst thing about Obama is he didn’t take us into war with Russia and the worst thing about Trump is he’s even less likely to? In defense of Classical Liberalism? Don’t think I’ll be subscribing to this guy’s newsletter.

    1. I disagree with Zubrin on some important issues, especially immigration, but your stupid strawman-pounding is intellectually dishonest and a waste of time. As you know if you’re not insane, nobody is actually calling for war with Russia.

  23. We should withdrawal from NATO and GTFO and STFO of the ME.

  24. And I love how the PJ nedia article reports on what some alt-righter says:

    “It doesn’t mean they hate Mexicans, but they don’t want this country to turn into Mexico.”

    And then ignores it and says no you’re a racist. I could do that with anything. Reason says its for free minds and free markets but what it really wants is to bring back slavery. I have no doubt their are actual racist in that movement but that was quite disingenuous.

  25. I might be more enthusiastic about classical liberalism, if it weren’t for the fact that everywhere it’s ever been implemented it’s ended up morphing into some form social democracy or progressivism, sooner rather than later. Libertarianism was supposedly a return to classical liberalism, but these days most libertarian columnists would be just as at home at Vox as at Reason.

    1. Hence the reason I come here less and less…

      Seriously, they still post Shakia’s drivel.

    2. I might be more enthusiastic about classical liberalism, if it weren’t for the fact that everywhere it’s ever been implemented it’s ended up morphing into some form social democracy or progressivism, sooner rather than later.

      This is exactly what Robert Anton Wilson said in response to a question as to why he preferred to be an anarchist as opposed to a libertarian.

      1. Yeah, that’s pretty much the alternative.

  26. Family Feud ushers in a new Dark Age? Will the world follow Steve Harvey into the abyss? Think about that. Who doesn’t love Family Feud? The top answer: no one. Now don’t you feel smart, you got the ‘right’ answer! You’re so smart! Let’s try another question and another one and another one. Wow this is fun! We know all the right answers. And this is increasingly what passes for knowledge in our world and the savy control freaks understand and manipulate the phenomenon to achieve their goals. So what I’m saying is if you want to reach people with your message you have to make it easy to understand and it’s probably a good idea to get your ‘answers’ featured on Family Feud.

  27. The article was at least interesting until he tried to blame everything on Russia.

    /derp

    1. Yeah, I hate Putin too but massive Russian conspiracy derp.

    2. I was going to say this. I agree with its overall tone and premise but was disappointed he went ‘Russian interference’ while linking to a Vice article from 2016.

      There’s been quite a bit of information since then that points to the opposite. There’s still zero evidence.

      What we are starting to see more and more is just how deep did Obama’s malfeasance run?

  28. If the Boston Tea Party and Objectivist Party have shown us anything it’s that we need further segmentation among Libertarians if we are going to accomplish any electoral success.

  29. Trump has offered to render even that symbolic level of support to Europe’s defense moot, by stating that he sees no reason to be bound by the NATO treaty’s requirement to come to member states’ aid should any come under attack.

    That’s because he doesn’t take their commitments seriously. And in at least some cases, he’s right to be skeptical about that.

  30. Wake up morons, Americans have resoundingly rejected Liberalism. Had Free Trade and Open Borders been a priority, they could have voted for the Libertarian Party. Instead they overwhelmingly chose otherwise.

    1. So democracy is the problem it would seem?

      1. No, innumeracy.

        More Americans preferred Hillary
        Conservatives lost seats in Congress.

      2. Americans get the government they vote for. You have a better idea?

  31. This thread clearly needs more Hihn to keep mary and tony company.

  32. Not only that, the Obama administration opened the door to overt aggression by failing to honor America’s treaty commitment to defend the territorial integrity of Ukraine

    Which treaty was this?

    1. The one in which what the black guy did or did not do made him responsible for whatever comes next.

      The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances

      1. That is not a treaty, that’s why its not called a treaty

        Clinton signed it and his authority at most only lasted until he was no longer president

        Unless it is a law or treaty passed by Congress and signed by the President it has no force on future US Administrations

  33. Trump has offered to render even that symbolic level of support to Europe’s defense moot, by stating that he sees no reason to be bound by the NATO treaty’s requirement to come to member states’ aid should any come under attack.

    If they don’t bother to live up to their treaty obligations. That’s just a tiny detail worth mentioning. Maybe.

    1. This. Why should the us come to their aid if they dont bother to meet their obligation in firet place?

      Also who are they worried about attacking? Russia? They are a gas station economy…no way in shape for invasions. Europe relies on natural gas from russia so one would think if the euros thought russia was a threat they would not be dependent on russia for energy needs and would find alternatives. If russia does invade they would be screwed since their energy would be cut off

    2. Why are you people looking for excuses to break up one of history’s most successful peace pacts? It’s a little scary you know.

  34. Poor G-MORE?. Reduced to trolling now.

  35. Is that you Marco?

    1. Well a couple of his links were National Review which is neo-con central. Fuck those Pax Americana warmongers.

  36. Sign me up. But I still want clean air and clean water, and wolves and grizzlies.

  37. Sorry, Dr. Zubrin. You can’t have it both ways. [Classical] Liberalism and warfare-ism cannot coexist.

    The warfare state, the welfare state, and nationalism all feed each other, which opens the door for the nut-cases in the environmental and progressive movements.

    Drop the lust for the warfare and you might be on to something. Too bad there’s not something like a libertarian party like this of some sort.

  38. America needs liberals. The party is irrelevant.

    Heck, I’ll settle for social liberals. Pillage and loot all you want on the fiscal side. Borrow and spend, tax and spend, whatever.

  39. I am making $89/hour telecommuting. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is acquiring $10 thousand a month by working on the web, that was truly shocking for me, she prescribed me to attempt it. simply give it a shot on the accompanying site.

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_ http://www.moneytime10.com

  40. Silly article. I mean, no shit America would be better off without the two-party system.

    But it’s not even that most people completely reject the ideas of classic liberalism or libertarianism. Where I live and work (Eastern-West Virginia/Western Maryland), the Democrats in my age range tend to be your typical Bernie-loving statist, but the 30 and up crowd ain’t the standard screeching leftist you see on TV. They tend to be moderate: pro-gun rights, tired of teet suckers not wanting to work, etc.

    But not a damn one of them wanted to listen to me about voting 3rd party. They gave me the standard “wasting your vote” speech, and didn’t want to listen to how they were the ones wasting their vote on an establishment Soros-bot by voting Democrat in a non-swing state. “We HAVE to defeat Donald Trump!!”. Lol.

    Same goes for the younger conservatives, who tend to be more socially liberal/moderate than the old hillbillies. They all let the FAKE NEWS of their choice vilify the other side so badly that they’re afraid to come off their straight party ticket.

    So yeah, between the MSM and the debate committees, the LP is fucked. At this point we can only hope for Amash to run in 2020. If the open primary state lefties are smart (they’re not), they’ll all vote for him and Donald won’t even be a factor.

    1. The article is correct in theory but as you point out in practice…that’s another story.

      The classical liberal impulse is non-existent.

      It has to be sold again. Maybe it’s starting with the emergence of people like Massie, Amash and of course Paul. The more they stick around, the more people will listen, the more they listen, the more they may like what they hear and this *could* lead to more people in the ranks.

      I’ve grown less concerned by the current crop of people and more about setting the agenda for posterity.

    2. What the old hillibillies get that you and the “younger conservatives” you mention don’t is that you can’t have liberty in the face of social chaos and family breakdown.

      Feral uncultured males raised without fathers commit so much crime they destroy wealth and shrivel trade, creating massive demand for more welfare in a vicious circle. Similarly they create demand for gun control from the Left and heavy-handed law enforcement and draconian sentences from the Right.

  41. ” or the defense of the West”

    Are we advocating more military adventurism here?

    Also, how does this work with free movement of people from places that don’t support western ideals? muslim immigration in Europe is about to destroy the west there (or else result in large scale ethnic/religious violence)

  42. Is Israel a nazi-state because they don’t tear down their walls, abolish their borders and let in everyone, regardless if anonymous or even proven illegal or even when committing violent crimes in Israel?

    If the muslims war against the rest of the world is not won, nothing else matters. Since 1400 years they have turned the southern half of the Roman Empire to the most violent and poorest place in the world. There seems to be something with the arab bedouin life style of their stone age which doesn’t work well if one has a look at the results.

    And forget about free trade with China. Trade deals between governments are not free trade. Since China totally refuses free trade, the US should invemnt any trade policy against China which the US profits the most from. All other governments do that very selfishly without your libertarian ideals. The US must play the game they play. Like the new secretary of Defense said: “The US can never make peace with anyone. We can only convince the enemy to choose to make peace with us.”

    1. Fuck em all to death!

  43. Robert Zubrin hasn’t heard of neoconservativism? or libertarianism? Or maybe he has, but doesn’t like the labels. I personally like to use the word “freedom”. However, nationalist populists and nativists have latched on to that label with parties named “Freedom Party”. There may be no good labels left that don’t have some historical baggage.

  44. To help further the goal of starting a Liberal Party, a Liberal Party group has been started on Facebook. If you agree, join us!
    Here’s the link. I’ve divided it in half with a space right before “permalink” to overcome the 50 character limit on word length.
    https://www.facebook.com/groups/1324847270870071/ permalink/1324850057536459/

  45. I’ve said it before, but the Libertarian Party is probably a no go forever. As mentioned above the word “libertarian” has too many associations in people’s minds, and they’re not good to many. Furthermore the LP has until recently pushed a fairly “strong” libertarian idea of government.

    Most people are libertarians… The thing is most people are MILD libertarians. What I mean is they believe in small(er) government in general, but not minarchist or anarchist levels. Likewise people are fine with being non-judgmental of other people in the social sphere, to a point. Gay marriage is fine, but maybe not having a 15 year old biological male (who thinks he is a girl) showing with their 14 year old daughter in school showers. Weed = fine, crack = not fine. That’s just how people are. Principles are fine and well to them until the rubber hits the road and they realize what the principles mean at the very extreme ends.

    What we need from a practical perspective is a libartarian-ish party. One that advocates moving in the direction of freedom, but perhaps drawing “reasonable” lines on how far they propose to go. Making incremental moves towards more freedom is the only thing that will ever make people realize that freedom does not equal chaos. Once weed is legal nationally, and the world doesn’t end, maybe the discussion can begin on cocaine or whatever.

    1. If it were up to me I would essentially sell it as “This is the principle we’re espousing, and these are the reasons why that is a good principle, and here is what I propose to do that should keep everybody happy by taking that principle to a reasonable level most people can accept. I realize it’s too far for 10-20% of you, and not far enough for 10-20% of you, but 60-80% of you think it’s about right.” Sell it like that and such a party would clearly win many elections. The LP has been a combination of TOO principled, and in Gary not principled enough but still too strong on actual policy. I think a re-branding from libertarian is needed to get people to listen, but it would be underpinned by libertarian principles, just applied in mild fashion at first, and more extreme as people realized it was a good thing.

      It’s the way the leftists have been winning, and the only way freedom can ever come back is incrementalism based on the sound underlying principles. How/why nobody has been smart enough to realize this and actually implement is insane. I feel like as the older social conservatives die it is possible, if not likely, that the Republican party may naturally transition this direction… But nothing in this world is for sure.

      The Republicans have too much baggage themselves though, so I don’t know if a different part name (Centrist Party! LOL) or something might not do better anyway.

  46. The Liberal party in America is the Libertarian Party, originally called the New Liberals–and also increasingly abroad. See http://www.libertarian-international.org and http://www.IALP.com

  47. “The Nice People Party”
    ———————————————-
    Drake Quotes
    Short Inspirational Quotes

  48. Excellent website, excellent post as well!
    I genuinely love how it is simple on my eyes and the data
    are well written.I’m wondering how I could be notified if a new post has been made.
    I’ve subscribed to your RSS which should do the trick!

    http://www.programshall.com/do…..-for-free/

    http://www.programshall.com/ph…..photoshop/

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.