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:
Mar '11
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
tabula rasa
An imaginary "utopian" world. Something always goes wrong on the way to utopia. · 2 minutes ago
AH... but if something goes wrong the Libertarian can fix it by not doing anything!
Dec '11
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
R0bert Scott: We need to take a sober look at our options and ask one question: "What is the best possible alternative to the re-election of Obama?" It is Romney. For all his flaws, it is Romney.
To say that all Romney will do is to slow down the socialist drift in the country is to badly miss the point. Once we have slowed the socialist drift we can begin to focus on reversing it, which is a tall order. But we must first slow before we can reverse.
I cannot agree with those who want to take their balls, go home, and vote for Gary Johnson this November. A small improvement over Obama is nevertheless an improvement. Man up, folks. Vote smart. That means stop banging your high chairs and vote for Romney. · 7 minutes ago
The problem is that step 2 never happens and will never happen. As such the utilitarianist arguement is a lie.
Dec '11
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
Horace: I think libertarians flatter themselves to call their attempts at influence within the GOP a "civil war". One might call it an insurgency, but it's a weak one at best. Libertarians don't know how to persuade, organize, or win elections. If they did there would be more than a handful of libertarians holding office. There is not civil war going on. There are a tiny minority of idealists who don't understand human nature who like to spout chicken little-esque rants of gloom and doom, while spouting bromides about freedom. They're generally a whiny bunch of dogmatists who like to stamp their feet every couple years at election time and whose greatest political accomplishment is getting democrats elected in places where a republican should win, by running third party candidates who siphon off just enough republican votes to doom the voters to a few more years of liberalism. · 10 minutes ago
Edited 2 minutes ago
No, its the useless and feckless republican losers who get democrats elected.
So, how is that Whig party doing these days?
Edited on April 19, 2012 at 8:20pmJun '10
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
Fred: which side is Paul Ryan on? Is he a statist or a libertarian in your reckoning?
Mar '11
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
tabula rasa
Romney and Obama are not the same breed of cat.
Are you setting me up? Because now that Pseudodionysius has gone all dark and mysterious I'm really not sure I can keep up with the cat gags on my own....
Apr '11
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
Apparently you'd be amazed at the numbers of people who have survived being shot. To those survivors, their wounds not being fatal makes a very big difference indeed.
Fred Cole
Sorry, but I don't believe in magic, so I don't believe a statist like Mitt Romney will do what is needed.
The best predictor we have for future events is past performance.
You say GJ won't be able to do what's needed, a president has this amazing power called "the veto." And I know not a lot of us remember it because Obama and GWB sure didn't veto anything, but it exists and it's extremely powerful.
GWB vetoed things. Embryonic stem cell research was defeated, as was SCHIP expansion, all manner of Iraq stupidity, thimerosal quackery, and came close to defeating the terrible 2007 Farm bill. GWB wasn't pure good, but he wasn't pure evil, just like Johnson. Veto overrides exist, as both Johnson and Romney know. You can't seriously cut with vetoes alone.
Apr '11
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
Wildly simplistic. The idea that Romney (or for that matter any of the Republicans running this year) is ideologically equivalent to Barack Obama is patently ridiculous, unless you cast it within a context that is so extraordinarily broad that it places Ronald Reagan in the camp of the politically suspect. (It strikes me, now, as I write this that you might actually believe that...shudder.) Okay. Purely practical then. Assume Romney and Obama are the same. Obama is a lame duck. No political pressure from Libertarians or Tea Partiers will move him. He will do as he wishes because you have NO power over him. Romney would be seeking re-election. It is at least PLAUSIBLE, then, that he can be moved to "curb" his "statist" leanings. Remember how "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" didn't happen under Bush. Remember Harriet Miers. Remember the Tea Party sea-change after Obamacare. You will have NO EFFECTIVE POLITICAL VOICE during an Obama second term. None. This is axiomatic. The question is, are you a "if this boat isn't going to head my way, then I'm burning the boat, the hell with all of you" type. Just foolish.
Dec '11
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
James Of England
Apparently you'd be amazed at the numbers of people who have survived being shot. To those survivors, their wounds not being fatal makes a very big difference indeed.
I made a fatalist moral arguement.
But let us consider it further. Is there a moral difference between a 9mm and a .45acp if one still lives?
Apr '11
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
Allow me to be the first to say:
Okay. Now that's out of my system.
Seriously, for months we who wanted to vote for another candidate other than Romney watched as our various choices were marginalized and taken out of the race one by one until finally we were left with few choices; we were told that despite all our misgivings Romney really was conservative and we have to get behind him; we have been told our other choices weren't choices at all; and now it appears Romney will emerge victor. Now people are saying, "Wait, I think Romney might have Statist inclinations." Pardon me as I go beat my head against the wall ...
So why would I even bother with Romney now? Because despite its flaws, our two-party system is very republican, that is it fits the character of a republic. We do not split our votes into multitudinous groups but unite under two flags so that we know those we support may not entirely agree with us, they will agree more than those under the other flag.
...
Apr '11
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
When you look at the Nader vote in 2000, do you curse them for having expanded government, offering a real choice against the two peas in a pod moderate statists, etc. or do you chortle at them for their choice, which saw America with the strongest Constitutional gun rights in its history, no cap and trade or other serious Global Warming efforts, and all the other things that they care passionately about ground into dust by their stupid and self indulgent exercise of their adolescent passions?
Do you think you'd have meaningful Constitutional gun rights if Gore had appointed two justices instead of Roberts and Alito, or do you acknowledge that Thomas would have been a comical and pathetic figure in his dissents?
Apr '11
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
... Moreover, I know I'll disagree with Romney a lot, but I believe my voice will be heard far more readily under a Romney administration than under an Obama administration.
Apr '11
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
Guruforhire
James Of England
Apparently you'd be amazed at the numbers of people who have survived being shot. To those survivors, their wounds not being fatal makes a very big difference indeed.
I made a fatalist moral arguement.
But let us consider it further. Is there a moral difference between a 9mm and a .45acp if one still lives? · 0 minutes ago
Again, talk to some victims of bomb blasts and gun shots (I knew more of the former than the latter in Iraq). Yes, it makes an enormous difference how bad your wounds are. Surviving with or without a limb is a non-trivial difference.
Regardless of whether you accept this, your analogy suggested, as I understand it, that there was more of a difference between the big spending Governor Johnson and the budget cutting Governor Romney than between the even bigger spending Obama and the budget cutting Romney. Like, you implied, to my reading, that Governor Johnson wouldn't shoot you at all. Like, 0% tax rates?
May '10
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
I guess I am a statist- I actually like GW Bush. But Republican statists at least tend not to be redistributing collectivists. A major flaw on our side is the fact that absolutists refuse to acknowledge that there is any acceptable ground between Johnson/Paul and Obama.
This is not a no-government body politic, no matter how much you might wish that it were.
Mar '12
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
Just about as well as the Libertarian party.
Edited on April 19, 2012 at 8:41pmApr '11
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
Fred Cole
Palaeologus:Your response is "I'd consider voting for him, but he cannot win." If everyone who said that voted for him...
...he'd get 4% of the vote. · 27 minutes ago
PPP has him at 7%, that's with no money and no one knowing who he is. · 4 hours ago
a: People always support the losing third candidate more before the actual polls (see, for instance, Newt votes in races where Santorum was the clear ABR).
b: The question was
People not knowing who Johnson was was an advantage for Johnson. He appeared to be a libertarian candidate, rather than the grower of government that he really was. Generic opposition party candidates generally do better than real people.
c: Of course he won't get 7% in the general. Fred voting for him in New York is fine (although any money donated is similar to Obama donations). The only place he'll matter is in handing New Mexico to Obama on a silver platter. Governor Johnson's candidacy is a terrible, terrible, catastrophe.
Apr '11
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
Duane Oyen: I guess I am a statist- I actuallylike GW Bush. But Republican statists at least tend not to be redistributing collectivists. A major flaw on our side is the fact that absolutists refuse to acknowledge that there is any acceptable groundbetween Johnson/Paul and Obama.
This is not a no-government body politic, no matter how much you might wish that it were. · 3 minutes ago
Unlike Johnson, Paul has shown (rather than simply voiced) pretty consistent interest in cutting government. You'll note that he's regularly expressed comfort with the idea of a Romney Presidency. I'm guessing Fred thinks of this as being based in Paul's statism.
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
Gary Johnson’s foreign-policy page has six points; three concern military presence reduction, and three concern the rights of terrorist suspects. His drug policy reform page has 12 points. Romney’s website has eight pages on foreign policy, region by region, country by country.
One could almost infer something about the candidates' priorities from this, but I don't want to jump to conclusions.
Dec '11
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
James Of England
Guruforhire
James Of England
Apparently you'd be amazed at the numbers of people who have survived being shot. To those survivors, their wounds not being fatal makes a very big difference indeed.
I made a fatalist moral arguement.
But let us consider it further. Is there a moral difference between a 9mm and a .45acp if one still lives? · 0 minutes ago
Again, talk to some victims of bomb blasts and gun shots (I knew more of the former than the latter in Iraq). Yes, it makes an enormous difference how bad your wounds are. Surviving with or without a limb is a non-trivial difference.
You are making an absurd appeal to nonapplicable semantics. But anyway. No dead is dead, it is a boolean state. It doesnt matter what kills you, the velocity of the bullet, the size or grain thereof, you are dead.
I have no reason to believe that Romney is going to affect serious enough change to avert disaster, whether this is his intention or not.
Nov '11
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
James Lileks: Gary Johnson’s foreign-policy page has six points; three concern military presence reduction, and three concern the rights of terrorist suspects. His drug policy reform page has 12 points. Romney’s website has eight pages on foreign policy, region by region, country by country.
One could almost infer something about the candidates' priorities from this, but I don't want to jump to conclusions. · 1 minute ago
And, James, how many pages does Romney have on drug policy reform?
Oct '10
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
I may not like Romney, but I'm definitely on his side here. Hardcore libertarianism lacks a real, practical governing philosophy. Too much theory and too little practical experience.