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
John Murdoch
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. ·
Fred isn't talking about voting for "a libertarian". He's talking about voting for Governor Johnson. Johnson's run state agencies that did these jobs, which is about as good presidential experience as we've had in a long time.
Bush, in his youth, worked with at-risk kids (part of his motivation later for supporting NCLB), and Carter and Ford were oriented that way. I'm not sure it made them much better Presidents.
Governor Johnson did work with Richard Branson et. al., to support some private sector space stuff, much as one would expect any governor to do.
Jun '10
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. · 29 minutes ago
I agree, and this is a perfect illustration of incrementalism: you start with something popular, like medical pot, and work to legalize that. When it passes, and the sky doesn't fall, you move on to the next-most-popular target, perhaps treatment instead of jail for first-time possession convictions.
Fiscal incrementalism works the same way: you start with a big, expensive, unpopular program like Obamacare and try to repeal it. As Romney has pledged to do.
Trying to abolish popular programs like Social Security and Medicare is the political equivalent of immediate meth legalization. Both are surefire ways to lose elections.
The fact that Romney supports an incremental approach to fiscal reform does not make him a statist. It makes him a realist.
Apr '11
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
Guruforhire
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.
I've been talking about actual cuts that the actual Romney actually made; how could those be "lies"? And actual spending increases that Johnson made.
Romney dramatically cut spending against an 85% Democratic legislature. Also, in the Olympics, and in countless businesses. Why would you think now would be different, with a Ryan-led House and a likely Republican Senate?
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
Fred Cole
He’s “against the drug war from A to Z,” so I’ll assume that means meth users are not arrested for possession, producers are not arrested for producing, and the efforts to interdict Mexican meth are suspended. If he wants to regulate private meth product to ensure purity and safety, he’s a statist. If he wants to use zoning laws to keep a meth lab from operating next to a day care, he’s a statist.
He wants to reduce drug use through treatment and education - at the public expense, which means he’s a statist. (I doubt that taxes on meth would pay for the Therapeutic-Industrial Complex he envisions.) He cites the drop in youth smoking as a result of education, but most of that was funded by campaigns paid for by lawsuits against tobacco companies. He therefore supports the extraction by force of private money from private companies selling a legal product to fund a public behavior-modification program. He’s a statist.
And as a statist, there’s no difference between him and Obama.
Dec '10
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
I feel like I opened up a can of worms that may distract from the original post. Moderators: feel free to delete/move this reply as needed.
John, while you're correct that churches and orphanages are primarily the domain of the religious and the conservative, I believe that you're missing the larger point I was trying to make.
Private action needs not be limited to just religious institutions or to conservatives. There is a wealth of nonprofit institutions who tackle all sorts of social problems--many (and I would argue, the best ones) do it without federal funding.
I would also take issue with your statement that libertarians have no experience running these sort of institutions. There are dozens of libertarian nonprofit organizations, and hundreds of conservative/right-of-center nonprofits who are often staffed and run by libertarians.
Further, the business world yields several examples of libertarians in executive positions. Peter Thiel comes to mind.
Now look what you've done! You've made me defend libertarians! Haha.
Nov '11
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
James Lileks
He’s “against the drug war from A to Z,” so I’ll assume that means meth users are not arrested for possession, producers are not arrested for producing, and the efforts to interdict Mexican meth are suspended. If he wants to regulate private meth product to ensure purity and safety, he’s a statist. If he wants to use zoning laws to keep a meth lab from operating next to a day care, he’s a statist.
Tell me how that War on Drug is going. It's decades long and hasn't solved the problem. It's filled our jails and decimated our inner cities.
Drug prohibition doesn't work. It's a massive expenditure of funds, inhibits liberty, and no, not just the liberty of methheads (if there was ever a war with collateral damage, it's the War on Drugs), and has been an utter failure.
Let me say that again:
We've tried prohibition and it has been not just a failure, but an utter and total disaster.
Nov '11
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
10 cents: 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 their 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.
Excuse me, but do you need a law to tell you to wear a seatbelt? I don't. Would you teach your children to use a seatbelt? Of course you would.
Forgive me, but I don't need a law, backed by men with guns, to tell me to wear a seatbelt.
As for your comments about stop lights and speed limits, they are nonsensical. If you want to go there, if you had privately owned roads (and yes, they exist) obeying traffic lights and speed limits would be a condition that customers using those roads would choose to obey as a condition of using that road.
Sep '11
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
Michael Horn
I would also take issue with your statement that libertarians have no experience running these sort of institutions. There are dozens of libertarian nonprofit organizations, and hundreds of conservative/right-of-center nonprofits who are often staffed and run by libertarians.
Michael--
I think we're entirely on point. The point I'm making is that libertarians are terrific at noble theories of government. There are lots of libertarians running public policy think tanks. I'm not aware of any--anywhere--providing shelter for the mentally-retarded that have been pushed onto the streets; or teaching reading/math skills to the children of illiterate parents; or promoting foster care or adoption.
Libertarians tend to hand-wave those sorts of things--"the church and other private institutions can do the job." Yeah--says who? Because I'm not aware of a libertarian anywhere, including Gary Johnson, who has.
(By direct contrast, one can only admire what Focus on the Family has done for foster care and adoption in Colorado.)
Dec '10
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
I'm a libertarian (little "l"), but I can also do math.
The math says that the choice is going to be Romney or JugEars™, whether I like it or not, and it's going to be a very close thing.
Now, I could look at that and decide to vote libertarian or not vote at all, but either of those choices is a de facto vote for JugEars™ because the libertarian cause draws mostly from the Republican side of the electorate.
I would rather chance four years with a statist Romney than endure another four years with the UberStatist Obama (Digestor of Dogs™, Consumer of Corgies™, Taster of Terriers™, et al ).
Call me what you will, but the math don't lie.
Edited on April 20, 2012 at 12:11amSep '11
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
James Of England
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."
Fred's original post states flatly that there are libertarians (like him) and statists like Obama (and, apparently, me).
I think there are huge opportunities for dramatically changing the welfare state--welfare programs (broadly speaking) do a much better job providing for the employees of those programs than they do for their "clients."
I'd love to see a truly functional privatization of social services--particularly for those "in the system" permanently (the seriously-disabled). There are boatloads of conferences, trainings, seminars, consultants--and the ever-popular re-organization--to keep the bureaucrats warm and well-fed for generations.
But that requires leadership that sees government as having value. If you presume, a priori, that anything other than defense and the BATF are unconstitutional, your only option with public welfare is to let 'em all starve.
Apr '11
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
CoolHand: I'm a libertarian (little "l"), but I can also do math.
The math says that the choice is going to be Romney or JugEars™, whether I like it or not, and it's going to be a very close thing.
Now, I could look at that and decide to vote libertarian or not vote at all, but either of those choices is a defacto vote for JugEars™ because the libertarian cause draws mostly from the Republican side of the electorate.
I would rather chance four years with a statist Romney than endure another four years with the UberStatist Obama (Digestor of Dogs™, Consumer of Corgies™, Taster of Terriers™, et al ).
Call me what you will, but the math don't lie. · 2 minutes ago
On the math; it's really only half a vote for Obama. He'd get twice as much benefit if you voted for him as if you spoil your ballot. Assuming you vote meaningfully on the down ticket races, it's obviously better to vote Johnson than to stay home, whereas this is unclear if you're voting for Obama.
Apr '11
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
John Murdoch
James Of England
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."
Fred's original post states flatly that there are libertarians (like him) and statists like Obama (and, apparently, me).....
But that requires leadership that sees government as having value. If you presume,a priori, that anything other than defense and the BATF are unconstitutional, your only option with public welfare is to let 'em all starve. ·
I can see that reading if he hadn't been clear that Johnson was a libertarian (although, as he later states, not a hardcore libertarian). Johnson's isn't upset by much government action; he grew government by 41%, comparable to Obama. He cares about drugs, space policy, taxes (he wants a sales tax), and torture; much like a classic Kerry voting libertarian. Advocating for Johnson isn't advocating for letting 'em starve. If only.
Apr '11
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
I'll be honest. I haven't personally empathized with the Libertarian side of things since the Nineties, when Oregon was seeking to pass the "Death with Dignity" law through ballot measure. Libertarians fought for physician-assisted suicide, both on the ballot and later in court battles. And I freely admit they were being true to their principles when they did so.
However, when physician-assisted suicide became funded through the Oregon medical assistance program, the Libertarians said, "Well, gee, we never wanted that," and then ... nothing. It's still funded and sometimes even encouraged by Oregon's health program.
They'd complain about the many ways government was spending tax dollars and meddling in citizens' business, but they always seemed to prefer to fight their battles against social conservatism. Often it seemed as if they were willing to allow far more statism, because conservatism wasn’t libertarian enough. Maybe it’s just because I’ve always lived in fairly-to-mostly liberal states.
Sep '10
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
Fred Cole
.. if you had privately owned roads..
This is like the Godwin's Law of libertarian debates.
Dec '10
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
To seriously propose Gary Johnson as a viable candidate is just...
never mind.
Dec '10
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
John Murdoch:
The fedsmandatedthat 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?
This is an idiotic line of attack.
You really think that the color of a line on a road is something that needs to be put into federal law?
How do you get out of bed in the morning without a federal mandate to tell you what color socks and underoos to wear?
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
Fred: You didn’t address any the points in the post, so I’ll ask again: either Johnson believes the state should regulate meth, which makes him a statist who intervenes in people’s private choices WITH GUNS, or his supporters believe that someone who wouldn’t use zoning laws to prohibit a meth lab by an elementary school is a viable national candidate.
You wrote: "Tell me how that War on Drug is going. It's decades long and hasn't solved the problem. It's filled our jails and decimated our inner cities."
Well, saying the war is a failure because it put a lot of people in jail is a curious metric. The war on drugs didn’t decimate the inner cities. Drugs did. I don’t think it’s a good idea to increase the supply of drugs to the inner cities, let alone sell them to minorities in stores with government licenses, but of course Gov. Johnson is welcome to argue that such a policy would be wise, and received by inner-city communities as a sign of good faith.
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
BTW, I'm generally libertarian on social issues, but the realistic mechanics of drug legalization have always struck me as unworkable, and often worse than the status quo.
When it comes to pot, I couldn’t care less if people smoke it, and wouldn’t argue against legalization - as long as employers have the right to test for it and fire for its presence. But drug prohibition is mostly about coke, crack, and meth. You can say things would be better if they flowed freely, and that’s your call; just don’t tell me there would be fewer people on drugs. You'd get more. And as they all lose their livelihoods to addiction, you get more crime.
Again, you can say that the state can’t keep anyone from opening a crack house next door because private property rights trump zoning laws, but this does not translate into a majority in the Electoral College.
Dec '11
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
Fred Cole
Of course my argument was silly but that is the worry many people have. How much common sense do libertarians have? Will they throw the baby out with the bath water or act prudently? I have trouble understanding where libertarians balance rights with responsibility.
Weak attempt at humor.
How many libertarians does it take to change a light bulb?
It all depends if the government requires them to do it or not.
How many conservatives does it take to change a light bulb?
None, we are not into change.
How many liberals does it take to change a light bulb?
Millions because they can't just change the light bulb they have to build the alternative energy plant or make an environment impact statement and hold town halls and demonstrate how evil the light bulb companies are.
Thanks for the discussion.
Oct '11
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
I find the premise of this post insulting. Insulting to my intelligence. There is a difference between Romney and Obama. A big difference.