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:
Apr '11
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
Guruforhire
James Of England
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. · 2 minutes ago
You're using an analogy to say that, similarly to a greater wound not being very different to a lesser wound, more government isn't very different to less government. The analogy doesn't work on either side.
An additional flaw is that in order to work, it requires Governor Johnson to be "no government" when his actual record is of considerably growing government. I don't know how big a bullet you want to analogize to Johnson, but it should be between the two.
Dec '10
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
Fred Cole
I'm sorry, but the republic withstood 1968, it can and will withstand four more years of Barack Obama. And Mitt Romney isn't that different.
I'd like for the Republic to do more than "withstand" another 1968, and frankly, I don't think the Republic CAN withstand another 1968.
It's odd that I can agree with libertarians on so many issues, but still have a general distaste for them. The original post is a great example of why I feel that way.
The tendency of libertarians, Paul-bots, Randians, and the rest of them to cry and bemoan the "statist" Republicans and conservatives is extremely off-putting.
The only goal of this election is to beat Obama. Look down your nose at us "statist" rubes all you want but if Obama narrowly wins b/c of a 3rd party candidate, I hope you remember this post.
Nov '11
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
That's the thing. Gary Johnson isn't a hardcore libertarian. (Trust me, I know. I am hardcore!)
But take a look at his record.
Nov '11
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
Michael Horn
The tendency of libertarians, Paul-bots, Randians, and the rest of them to cry and bemoan the "statist" Republicans and conservatives is extremely off-putting.
The only goal of this election is to beat Obama. Look down your nose at us "statist" rubes all you want but if Obama narrowly wins b/c of a 3rd party candidate, I hope you remember this post. · 5 minutes ago
You mean actually call statists statists?
If Romney loses to Obama it'll be because Romney is Romney. I never bought that Nader cost Gore the election. Gore lost bc he was Gore. If he were a better candidate he would've won.
If Romney loses it's because he's Romney.
Dec '11
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
Sorry James I had to delete the quotes. It was getting too long.
I am saying that the size of the wound that kills you is morally inconsequential. There is no chance of survival in my metaphor, nor do I believe that Romney intends to do enough to avert disaster, and even if he did I do not think he will be able too.
You can't elect people nobody believes in this close to an event horizon.
That said I cant think of anybody better equipped to find the brightside of national bankruptcy and disaster. Maybe he can sell off the country for scrap and patent troll europe.
Dec '10
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
Fred Cole
You mean actually call statists statists?
If Romney loses to Obama it'll be because Romney is Romney. I never bought that Nader cost Gore the election. Gore lost bc he was Gore. If he were a better candidate he would've won.
If Romney loses it's because he's Romney. · 3 minutes ago
Every candidate has flaws--lord knows that Romney does. Is he perfect? No.
Is he better than Obama? Yes. A thousand times yes.
I think the term "statist" has been watered down. To equate Romney and Obama as the same thing is just wrong. Will the government shrink drastically under Romney? Probably not.
Will it grow drastically under another 4 years of Obama? You bet it will.
As someone mentioned earlier in the thread, the way to advance small government ideals isn't through the White House. Until the people are educated, and until they WANT small government, we're going to have to deal with Romney.
Edited on April 19, 2012 at 9:12pmRe: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
Fred: Romney's site has no pages on drug policy reforms, and since most people aren't clamoring for de facto meth legalization, that's probably not going to hurt him.
Apr '11
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
I live in an area where Obama will almost certainly win by a wide margin so I'll probably vote for Johnson. I like to listen to libertarians but most of them have no practical experience running things. Johnson is one of the few that seems to be a capable executive.
If I lived in a competitive jurisdiction I would vote for Romney just because I don't think we can afford another 4 years of BHO.
Apr '11
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
Fred Cole
That's the thing. Gary Johnson isn't a hardcore libertarian. (Trust me, I know. Iam hardcore!)
But take a look at his record. · 2 minutes ago
He doesn't have the virtues of a hardcore libertarian; he massively expanded spending, for instance. He does have the vices, though; he's prone to daydreaming and spends his time dealing with issues of primarily philosophical interest. You think a bill to legalize pot is going to pass Congress? Vetoing can't change things like that. He brags about "advocating" comprehensive tax reform, not achieving it.
His drug legalization plan isn't a plan. There's no discussion of how to achieve it except to persuade the American public that it should happen; it's a classroom discussion document, not a manifesto for government. His planned presidency is modeled on the film Dave, not on Harding or any other actual slasher of government.
Apr '11
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
Guruforhire: Sorry James I had to delete the quotes. It was getting too long.
I am saying that the size of the wound that kills you is morally inconsequential. There is no chance of survival in my metaphor, nor do I believe that Romney intends to do enough to avert disaster, and even if he did I do not think he will be able too.
You can't elect people nobody believes in this close to an event horizon.
That said I cant think of anybody better equipped to find the brightside of national bankruptcy and disaster. Maybe he can sell off the country for scrap and patent troll europe. · 15 minutes ago
If you assume a zero chance of survival either way, then you're right, but that's an absurd assumption, as your analogy makes clear.
You use the idea to suggest voting for Johnson, who was worse on the signature crisis of the day (government spending). If it's certain that Romney would kill us all, how on earth could you believe that Johnson would not likewise annihilate America?
The logic only works if the supreme crisis facing America is one of drug prohibition and terrorist torturing.
Nov '11
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
Why talk about meth when we can talk about pot legalization, which there is public support for. Barring that, maybe the federal government could back off from harassing non-violent medicinal pot users.
Dec '10
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
We have just this one chance. Whether Romney is a big government guy or not, if he doesn't take an axe to many of the extraneous departments and cut spending by a very large amount, the Republican party will go the way of the Whigs.
We'll be lucky to avoid a viable third party candidate this go-round. If Romney drops the ball, we won't avoid one next time.
Sep '11
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
Fred,
Since you haven't yet responded to other questions about how libertarians might actually govern, perhaps I'm just not asking questions that are interesting enough.
How about federal and/or state government support for children's hospitals? Constitutional, or not? How 'bout laws against public intoxication?
One of the benefits of the Industrial Revolution was a dramatic decrease in the price of gin. Public drunkenness soared--and cities faced a booming problem: foundling children. Born of unwed mothers (assumed to be prostitutes and/or drunkards) they were left at the doorsteps of wealthy families--whether as an accusation against the man of the house, or simply a hope that the family would take the baby in.
Well-meaning citizens banded together to save these children--creating Foundling hospitals. The modern-day children's hospitals (e.g. Children's Hospital of Philadelphia) are their successors.
Alas, their costs for care have outstripped their ability to fundraise among the community. In part because, as in the case of CHOP, the hospitals are located in poor neighborhoods.
They get government support--federal and state funds to provide health care for children.
Constitutional, or not?
Dec '10
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
John Murdoch: Fred,
Alas, their costs for care have outstripped their ability to fundraise among the community. In part because, as in the case of CHOP, the hospitals are located in poor neighborhoods.
They get government support--federal and state funds to provide health care for children.
Constitutional, or not? · 2 minutes ago
It's certainly constitutional--the constitution doesn't prohibit such activity--but I think the better question is "does the government need to address this?"
Not to derail the conversation, but the problem you spoke of above can be alleviated by the private sector. Churches, orphanages, and other private institutions can take care of those children.
While I'm not sure the correct response is to say that "government shouldn't have ANY influence" in that sphere, in general, I feel that a "less is more" approach will work.
This is all part of a larger argument about private action and philanthropy acting both as buffers against government growth, and as support for civil society.
But this is a post for another day.
Dec '11
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
Sorry coming in mid conversation.
When fighting a war it is best to be on the non-libertarian side. Wars are fought with people who partially give up their rights and follow orders. To win there must be structure. This is probably unfair but libertarians see government as the "Great Satan". They would idealistically drive without seat belts on both sides of the road and stop signs, traffic lights and speed limits would be a waste of money. For safety sake we need government.
You point out that Obama and Romney are similar. Percentages matter. How bad is bad. There is a difference between two overweight people. One may eat too much and be five pounds overweight and the other be 200 pounds overweight. To say that both are equally bad misses the point.
A huge difference between Obama and Romney is the Republican party is not the Democratic party. Some Libertarian ideas are welcome. We are figuratively overweight and we are the "Eat Less and be Healthier" party. Democrats are the "Every one gets a scooter because they can't walk" party.
Edited on April 20, 2012 at 1:26amApr '11
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
Michael Horn
John Murdoch: Fred,
Alas, their costs for care have outstripped their ability to fundraise among the community. In part because, as in the case of CHOP, the hospitals are located in poor neighborhoods.
They get government support--federal and state funds to provide health care for children.
Constitutional, or not? ·
It's certainly constitutional--the constitution doesn't prohibit such activity--but I think the better question is "does the government need to address this?"
Not to derail the conversation, but the problem you spoke of above can be alleviated by the private sector....
That is an interesting topic, but it's not about Governor Johnson. His campaign site does say that he'd cut (he suggests he'd cut government by 40% in year one), but issues no example of how he'd cut by more than 2-3% except "common-sense cost savings to place Medicare on a path toward long-term solvency." As governor, he had a platform to speak, and used it to support the GOP in Congress, and to talk about pot. He's shown no interest in demolishing the welfare state, and proposes much smaller reforms there than Romney does.
Sep '11
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
Michael Horn
[Children's hospitals] get government support--federal and state funds to provide health care for children.
Constitutional, or not?
Not to derail the conversation, but the problem you spoke of above can be alleviated by the private sector. Churches, orphanages, and other private institutions can take care of those children.
Ah...churches, orphanages, and "other private institutions." Those would seem to be the preserve of the socially-conservative, no?
Could you, or Fred, name a libertarian with any significant experience running an orphanage, foster-care program, or other similar private institution? How about programs for teen mothers? Or programs for inner-city kids with semi-literate parents?
[Crickets]
As I wrote earlier, every libertarian I've ever met has a zillion terrific theories about how government should function. And zero, zippety-zero practical experience dealing with precisely the population that the libertarians just wish would go away.
Apr '11
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
Fred Cole
Why talk about meth when we can talk about pot legalization, which there is public support for. Barring that, maybe the federal government could back off from harassing non-violent medicinal pot users. · 24 minutes ago
Who is this "we" you're talking about?
I'm much more disturbed by Johnson's lack of interest in spending than his views on meth, but you can't honestly claim that he's not talking about decriminalizing it. He devotes more words to that than he does to education reform, despite education reform being one of his few successes in government (like Romney, he fought for school choice; his results weren't as impressive, but it's still an achievement).
May '10
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
Strictly speaking, the choice is between socialism and managerialism. Neither of these ideologies finds anything objectionable in the administrative state, but thy are not the same. Socialism is about redistribution, while managerialism is about efficiency.
If I am going to live under the tyranny of the administrative state, I would rather be more prosperous than less. Managerialists are also to a certain extent persuadable with arguments about effectiveness, while no socialist can change his mind without undergoing a religious conversion.
We have only these two choices because the great mass of Americans are not libertarian. This is nothing new; Toqueville brilliantly identified the peril posed by the atomized citizen in Democracy in America, and predicted the ratchet of increasing regulations and entitlements we have witnessed. Only the Constitution stood in the way, but the Progressives deliberately undermined it, and FDR and the New Deal Supreme Court set off the charges they laid beneath its foundations. No American living today can recall life without the income tax and direct election of senators, and few lived under a breathing and robust Commerce Clause. To today's Americans, liberty is an alarming and subversive notion. We're lucky they may elect Romney.
Dec '11
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
James Of England
Let me put aside my belief that Romney(and the vast majority of republicans) is a liar and is only telling you what you want to hear:
No, Johnson may be worse, but he would probably be more successful, as a libertarian mandate is a heck of a lot different than a not-obama mandate.
Do you seriously think Romney the least persuasive candidate ever, is going to get 9+ democrats to cut major entitlement programs? Or shut down the government in the face of their intransigence, and be able to make sure it looks like the democrats fault? Romney? Really?
No, most likely in the face of intransigence, he will crumble broker a tax hike to offset non-existent spending cuts like republicans do every 10 years, and declare peace in our time.