The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
There is a civil war going on in the Republican Party. There are many ways to define the two sides (the establishment v. the anti-establishment, managerialists v. minarchists, communitarians v. individualists, big government types vs. small government types), but they ultimately break down into two: statists and libertarians.
Statists include people like Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum (sorry, but he is) and many others.
Libertarian types include people like Ron Paul and Rand Paul, as well as newcomers like Mike Lee and Justin Amash. (Four months ago I would’ve included Gary Johnson, but he’s been driven out of the Republican Party)
The statist types accept government as the means to fix ills in society. They may disagree about the details of tinkering with specific programs, but, in the end, they support the welfare-warfare state. Big government doing big things. And while they may mouth support of free markets, personal liberty, personal responsibility, fidelity to the Constitution and limited government, their positions on big government solving problems makes them the same as Barack Obama (who often uses rhetoric supporting those same principles). The libertarians, by contrast, actually believe all that stuff. They take it seriously.
These two positions exist on a continuum, but Rick Santorum and Ron Paul exist opposed. One need only read Rick Santorum’s comments about libertarians to understand that they are incompatible.
I am slow to realize things, so it was only this week that it struck me that this conflict (which flared up so visibly two years ago) is still alive and well. I knew it when I saw that Orrin Hatch, of all people, is facing a primary challenge. Now, I have no problem with Orrin Hatch per se, but he has a problem with libertarians and felt the need to lash out against them.
People fear self-identifying as libertarian; they think it synonymous with hedonism. Indeed, it is not. It's about leaving people alone, free of government molestation (with all its consequences), to pursue their own happiness (If your definition of the pursuit of happiness is the pursuit of hedonism, I would advise you to reexamine your life).
One can be a social conservative and be a libertarian. They are not incompatible. It just means you take free markets, personal liberty, personal responsibility, fidelity to the Constitution and limited government seriously.
Libertarianism has to do with state action. If you think it’s probably a bad idea for people to smoke pot every day, but don’t think there should be a law against everything that’s a bad idea, you're thinking along libertarian lines.
Mitt Romney is clearly in the big government camp (sorry, but he is), and in that way he is no different from President Obama. He may disagree on the margins, he may tinker with the specifics, he may manage the massive government apparatus better, but his is the same overall view: governments solve problems.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war and every one needs to realize that and take a side.
Some of you who believe in limited government may think that Mitt Romney is the answer, because Barack Obama must be stopped.
I reject this. I see no virtue in replacing one statist with a slightly different one.
You say "Yes, but we have no choice. You go to war with the Romney you have."
Bunk. This is a sales pitch, used every four years by statists of both sides, and its widespread acceptance is a sign of its effectiveness, not its truth.
The first presidential election I was aware enough to pay attention to was in 1992. That year we saw a third party candidate step in and become a major contender (And don't fool yourself -- Ross Perot was seriously in the running until he sabotaged himself.) He reached a high enough level in the polls that he was allowed into the presidential debates. He was a serious candidate.
This year there is no eccentric billionaire, but we do have Gary Johnson poised to capture the Libertarian Party nomination. He is not a nobody, some random crank or a lowly congressman. He was the successful two-term governor of New Mexico.
He tried to run as a Republican, but he was excluded from debates based on polls where his name did not appear. So he jumped ship and is now running as a Libertarian.
Your response may be, "I'd consider voting for him, but he cannot win." But if everyone who said that voted for him...
We have a choice in this election: statism or freedom. Pick a side.
- Comment (175)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (7)
Comments:
Nov '11
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
Instugator
I have been working with our local tea party over the last several years and one thing I am most proud of for them is that they reject the notion of a third party candidate.
I'm not wedded to the LP. They're just not big enough, but I'm not going to vote for a statist. That's just what it comes down to.
It's true the LP doesn't have other candidates in other offices, they don't need to, as long as there's room for them in the Republican Party.
Nov '11
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
Instugator
Fred Cole
Instugator
A vote for Gary Johnson is a vote for Obama - good luck with that.
The mark of an amazing marketing slogan is one that people repeat without realizing what it is.
You have just repeated the single most effective marketing slogan ever created by any statist. · 19 minutes ago
Just because it is effective, doesn't mean it isn't true.
Look at it another way:
A vote for Obama is a vote for a statist. A vote for Romney is a vote for a statist.
Oct '10
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
Fred Cole
1) .... but the republic withstood 1968, it can and will withstand four more years of Barack Obama. ...
2) It cannot possibly be the case that every election is that dire and that every opponent in every election from the other party is that Hitlerian.
Fred, for your first point the questions is not whether the republic will survive another four years of Obama, but what kind of Rebublic will it be? Obama has shown a willingness to exercise Hugo Chavez-like powers... for instance the non-recess appointments, the EPA diktats on coal fired plants etc. These actions become precedents for future administrations.
He's also likely to appoint one or two more justices to the Supreme Court. Farewell to the 5/4 conservative majority.
And he's unlikely to voluntarily reduce spending unless forced by Congress.
As to point two, of course all elections outcomes are not dire. But some are.. the British elected Labour's Clement Atlee in 1945, and it was transformative in ways unforseen and generally bad. And Obama sees himself as transformative.
Nov '11
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
And one more thing:
I reject that a significant third party would guarentee an Obama victory. For one thing, Gary Johnson would peel off democrats from Obama.
For another, there were three presidential elections int he 20th century with an incumbent president and a significant third party candidate: TR in 1912, Anderson 1980 and Perot 1992. (I'm not including 1948, as it was a 4-way race.)
In each case, the incumbent lost.
Nov '11
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
Limestone Cowboy
Fred, for your first point the questions is not whether the republic will survive another four years of Obama, but what kind of Rebublic will it be? Obama has shown a willingness to exercise Hugo Chavez-like powers... for instance the non-recess appointments, the EPAdiktats on coal fired plants etc. These actions become precedents for future administrations.
He's also likely to appoint one or two more justices to the Supreme Court.Farewell to the 5/4 conservative majority.
And he's unlikely to voluntarily reduce spending unless forced by Congress.
And I'll point to the record of George W. Bush: Statist.
Worse, almost, in a way, because at least when a Democrat is in the White House, Republicans pretend to care about small government.
Jun '10
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
There are many ways to define the two sides: .... Statists and libertarians.
Stupid Premise. This is the Libertarian line and this is a minor skirmish with people who might not even vote Republican.
Sep '11
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
Moving the conversation back from Gary Johnson vs. Anyone Less Pure of Heart and Motive:
Is child welfare unconstitutional? What is the libertarian position on orphans, or abandoned children? Is it constitutional to encourage foster care?
My sister is a special ed teacher in Maryland. A number of her students do not live with parent--typically because the mother is in prison, and no other responsible person has come forward.
These sugar plums aren't just poor, from really bad homes, and black--they're also mentally- and/or physically-disabled. So the courthouse corridors aren't exactly filled with people lining up to be foster parents, let alone adopt.
The parent/felons are usually wards of the federal government--insomuch as they committed their crimes in Washington, DC, and reside in DC's prison system. So they would appear to be a federal burden--even though they now reside in Maryland.
What, pray, is the libertarian constitutional position on this?
The problem I have with libertarians is that they're really good at political theory. And tend to have zero--zip, zero, nada--actual hands-on experience with the poor, the destitute, the disabled, the left-behind.
Edited on April 19, 2012 at 5:52pmAug '10
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
Fred Cole
Instugator
Fred Cole
Instugator
A vote for Gary Johnson is a vote for Obama - good luck with that.
The mark of an amazing marketing slogan is one that people repeat without realizing what it is.
You have just repeated the single most effective marketing slogan ever created by any statist. · 19 minutes ago
Just because it is effective, doesn't mean it isn't true.
Look at it another way:
A vote for Obama is a vote for a statist. A vote for Romney is a vote for a statist. · 5 minutes ago
Your metric doesn't discriminate between the two, therefore it is useless in choosing between them.
Since you have staked your morality to your position, I see no choice for you but to do what you say. God Bless.
I merely point out what the choice looks like when it is exercised - indistinguishable from a vote for Obama.
If you truly believe that the same quantity of voters will defect from Obama as from Romney - I disagree. Democrats are statist by nature. Republicans have a bigger tent. More will defect from the Rs than the Ds simple math.
Edited on April 19, 2012 at 5:56pmNov '11
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
John Murdoch: Moving the conversation back from Gary Johnson vs. Anyone Less Pure of Heart and Motive:
Is child welfare unconstitutional? [snip] tend to have zero--zip, zero, nada--actual hands-on experience with the poor, the destitute, the disabled, the left-behind. · 4 minutes ago
Edited 3 minutes ago
Is it a federal matter?
Dec '11
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
I would propose that they got what they wanted in Obama.....
Personally, I realized that I am never going to get what I want by not voting for it. This is why conservative utilitarianism is a suckers game. There is always another democrat to vote against. Nobody is going to put the democrats to the guillotine, so there is always a utilitarianist arguement, resulting in no substantive change. YMMV
Edited on April 19, 2012 at 6:09pmOct '10
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
Fred Cole
And I'll point to the record of George W. Bush: Statist.
Fred, I wasn't all that happy with Bush either for all sorts of reason which you and I probably share.
But are you seriously saying that in political terms
George Bush = Obama ?! Really? Wow. ............
Maybe I'm missing something but
Thanks for pointing out my oversights. Its all clear now. All statists are alike.
Apr '11
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
Fred Cole
A president has enormous powers. For one thing, a President Johnson could veto things (including spending bills!).
And then a Democrat Congress stripped Nixon and all future Presidents of the power of Sequestration. And do I have to remind you of how the Republican members of Congress scattered when Speaker Gingrich "shut down the government?" Or how the Republicans were punished for doing so by the voters in the next election?
You mean like Justice David Souter and "Helicopter Ben" Bernanke?
The simple fact is that Salvation, if it is to come at all, will originate in the State Houses and be led by the Governors. Washington will not reform itself because it cannot reform itself.
Nov '11
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
Limestone Cowboy
Thanks for pointing out my oversights. Its all clear now. All statists are alike. · 0 minutes ago
Do we really need to do this?
Graph.
Jul '10
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
Fred Cole: And one more thing:
I reject that a significant third party would guarentee an Obama victory. For one thing, Gary Johnson would peel off democrats from Obama.
From the poll you cited earlier:
Fred Cole
Limestone Cowboy
Thanks for pointing out my oversights. Its all clear now. All statists are alike. · 0 minutes ago
Do we really need to do this?
Graph. · 4 minutes ago
That graph is nothing but partisan hackery Fred. It attributes all spending in FY 09 to Bush, because he had submitted the budget. Thus, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (aka "the Stim") was hung around his neck.
Sep '11
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
Fred Cole
John Murdoch: Moving the conversation back from Gary Johnson vs. Anyone Less Pure of Heart and Motive:
Is child welfare unconstitutional? [snip] tend to have zero--zip, zero, nada--actual hands-on experience with the poor, the destitute, the disabled, the left-behind.
Is it a federal matter?
Yes. The District of Columbia is a federal district. The children were rendered orphans by the D.C. Courts--their parents are wards of the D.C. prison system.
The federal government, through the Dept. of Justice, supports foster families that take these kids in.
Wouldn't the "libertarian" position be that Prince George's County, where my sister works; or the state of Maryland, who supervise foster care; should push back against the tyranny of the federal government for foisting these welfare cases off onto the county taxpayers?
Isn't this a Gadsden Flag kind of situation? Trampling on the liberties of free citizens of Maryland?
Who provides for these kids? Or is the libertarian position on the subject identical with the position of Planned Parenthood and the Association for Medical Ethics?
Nov '11
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
John Murdoch
Fred Cole
Is it a federal matter?
Yes. The District of Columbia is a federal district. The children were rendered orphans by the D.C. Courts--their parents are wards of the D.C. prison system.
What did they go to prison for?
Sep '11
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
And since we're on the subject of libertarian policies, let's discuss another example of one of those commie-pinko-statist Rethuglicans: Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Is the Interstate Defense and Highway Act, which created the Highway Trust Fund and filled it with the proceeds of a federal gasoline tax, constitutional?
Is the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), which defines national standards for roads, traffic signals, pavement marking, and so forth, constitutional?
Specifically--in the 1970s the FHWA adopted the publication of the Manual for the Use of Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), taking over from the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) and the American Public Works Association (APWA). With new federal authority, FHWA forced the Commonwealth of Massachusetts into compliance on a long list of issues where Massachusetts road and highways were deficient. All the way down to the color of the line on the left-hand side of a divided highway. (Massachusetts is still the least-compliant state in the union.)
The feds mandated that Massachusetts paint the stripe on the left-hand side of a divided highway yellow, but paint the stripe on the right-hand side white. Constitutional? Or Statist Tyranny?
(In other words, Live Free, or Drive?)
Sep '11
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
Fred Cole
John Murdoch
Fred Cole
Is it a federal matter?
Yes. The District of Columbia is a federal district. The children were rendered orphans by the D.C. Courts--their parents are wards of the D.C. prison system.
What did they go to prison for? · 2 minutes ago
Fred--
My sister is a special ed teacher, not a parole officer. I have no idea what the mothers (let's be candid) went to prison for.
And why would it matter? Even if you want to turn this into a discussion about legalizing drugs, that wouldn't change the circumstance. Poor people who are involved in crime--even drug crime--aren't victims of tyranny. They're rational economic actors who consider the limited skills they have at legitimate employment, and figure that they're better off with crime. Right up till they get caught--and imprisoned.
But just so we're clear--we're talking about poor, black, mentally- and/or physically-disabled children who have heretofore been raised by dangerous felons. Making them even less attractive to a foster family.
Is government support of foster care constitutional?
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
May I offer Andrew Breitbart's words from Feb. 10, 2012 at CPAC: "I will march behind whoever our candidate is because if we don't, we lose. There are two paths: one is America, the other one is Occupy.""Anyone that is willing to stand next to me to fight the progressive left I will be in that bunker, and if you're not in that bunker because you're not satisfied with this candidate, more than shame on you, you're on the other side."
Oct '10
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
...Barack Obama would certainly win. And he will if just enough of you jump ship on Romney. I haven't read comments yet, but I'm sure many members have made this point better than I can.