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
Not sure what you mean by "moral" difference, but there's a big difference in actually being shot by big and small bullets. Here's an interesting WW2 training video that show this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5hGWEEOINc
Apr '12
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
Reading the evasions and sophistries of certain arguments leveled against Mr. Lileks, Instutgator, and James of England (as well as other worthies) for the temerity to argue with fully indoctrinated Paulbots reminds me of a post by Adam Yoshida on the American Thinker entitled "Ron Paul and the Dictatorship of the Libertariat" linked below (I hope):
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/ron_paul_and_the_dictatorship_of_the_libertariat.html
It also reminds me of Saul Alinsky's thirteenth rule:
"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it."
In this case the target is Romney, frozen in his Massachusetts days, equated with BHO (a fearsome potential outcome for the 2012 campaign), and polarized as a one-size-fits-all statist. Well done Paulbots.!
And please, prior to accusing me of being a neo-con (wink, wink because I know what you mean) take a moment to consider the argument propounded by Mr. Lileks regarding the legalization of a thing and then its regulation. And if you are to say that the market will sort it all out, you must provide reasoning that addresses counterexamples to the wonders of Portugal, namely Amsterdam.
Edited on April 20, 2012 at 10:23amApr '12
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
My unfortunate vituperative tone is directed at the sophists, not the dialecticians.
It must be understood that the deprecation of attempts to reason together is offensive and ultimately deeming to one's own argument.
Shouting down civility can work with a pliant news team at an OWS rally, but not here.
So shed the Paulbotic skins and let us reason together.
Aug '10
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
Wholeheartedly concur.
Santorum lost me three days prior to the Louisiana primary when he made the exact same assertion (that Romney = Obama).
If he really believed it, then he was foolish and I shouldn't trust him with my vote.
If he said it out of partisan political maneuvering then he insults my intelligence.
In either case, I went for Romney and I enthusiastically support him now.
Dec '10
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
Well, James, your honesty and dedication to informing us all is evident. Romney is lucky to have you making calls and comments on his behalf.
I'm serious about agreeing with Guru on the impending (economic) doom and even a President Romney's inability to avoid it, though. It could very well undo the Republican party if it's on his watch. But, it's still better to vote for Romney rather than enter the crises under the totalitarian temptations of Barack Obama. So, I am sincere in saying, God bless Governor Romney and I'm praying for him and his family. He's (we're) going to need it.
Dec '11
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
James certainly is a certainly a respectable advocate.
The republican party is going to join the ashes of its mother pheonix the whig party, and from its ashes something new will arise. Its just a matter of time before all the "less bad" water under the bridge breaks down the "fear wall" dam. The republican party never came to terms with being a real governing party, and is just a bucket for people who dont like what the democrats are up too. That isnt enough for an increasingly large number of people.
This entire thread is proof of this point. They have no purpose to their existence other than not being a democrat.
Edited on April 20, 2012 at 4:30pmFeb '12
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
On the whole, I agree, Fred. I will vote for a candidate with conservative principles. I will not vote for a statist, whether Republican or Democrat.
Thanks for the post.
Feb '12
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
Instugator
Wholeheartedly concur.
Santorum lost me three days prior to the Louisiana primary when he made the exact same assertion (that Romney = Obama).
If he really believed it, then he was foolish and I shouldn't trust him with my vote.
If he said it out of partisan political maneuvering then he insults my intelligence.
In either case, I went for Romney and I enthusiastically support him now. · 3 hours ago
Some of us agreed with Santorum. In general, it is worse for the Republican Party to endorse a statist candidate than it is to lose to the Democratic statist candidate. The GOP shouldn't accept Democratic premises. If it does, it loses the war to win a single battle.
Apr '11
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
Leporello: On the whole, I agree, Fred. I will vote for a candidate with conservative principles. I will not vote for a statist, whether Republican or Democrat.
Thanks for the post. · 2 hours ago
Do you think that big spending Gary Johnson is the candidate with conservative principles? If so, which honest platform position of his do you believe to be more conservative than Mitt's? Is it a single issue healthcare vote, with Johnson being a conservative paragon by having never looked at healthcare policy?
Apr '11
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
Western Chauvinist: Well, James, your honesty and dedication to informing us all is evident. Romney is lucky to have you making calls and comments on his behalf.
I'm serious about agreeing with Guru on the impending (economic) doom and even a President Romney's inability to avoid it, though. It could very well undo the Republican party if it's on his watch. But, it's still better to vote for Romney rather than enter the crises under the totalitarian temptations of Barack Obama. So, I am sincere in saying, God bless Governor Romney and I'm praying for him and his family. He's (we're) going to need it. ·
Well, if that's your hope, you may be in luck. You won't hear all that much of it on the right, but the Laffer curve is just a special instance of general Keynesian principles. Whether someone has more money in their pocket because the government gives them a handout or a tax cut, they reinvest or spend that money and increase revenue. Spending cuts, like tax hikes, batter the economy. If Mitt's surgery works to save the patient, it'll still hurt like crazy.
May '11
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
Yes, there is a civil war going on. Yes, Romney has statist leanings, as do many in the GOP.
None of that matters.
The thing is, we do have a choice in this election, but it's not between statism or freedom. Not yet. In 2012, the choice is between Romney and Obama. That's it--those are the choices. We can refuse to accept that and insist it's marketing--but it's not. Gary Johnson will not win in 2012. He will not come close. He will win zero electoral votes. And if enough people vote for him despite that, Obama really WILL win. This is a sales pitch used by the GOP, but it's effective in part because it's the cold, awful truth.
And the reason we hear that every election is the most important in our lifetime is that as long as government is the size it is, the next election is ALWAYS the most important. Every national loss costs ground that we may never recover.
Winning a war requires picking your battles. Libertarianism can live to fight another day within an empowered Republican party, or it can die on the beach in November.
May '11
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
Not only are libertarianism and social conservatism compatible, they are dependent. The framers assumed that for limited government to work you had to have a "virtuous citizenry". Libertarianism ONLY works when the social fabric of the society is strong enough to support a free people.
Jun '10
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
Alright, I got lost. Are we still impugning each others' character? I'd like to get back into that, if there's still time.
Jul '10
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
Sympathetic though I am to the sentiment, "He's disqualified for the job by the fact that he wants it" is not an electoral or a governing strategy. Somebody is going to win the presidential election. By definition, yes, he will be a statist because he is a politician, and "we" (speaking collectively) elect our politicians to DO stuff.
On this, Rob Long has it exactly right: there just is no majority constituency yet for politicians who want to shrink the real size of the federal government. We have to create the constituency; we the people have to, as Milton Friedman put it, make it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing.
One vote, for one "anti-statist", in one federal election at a time is a formula for failure.
Nov '11
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
Depends on the type of social conservatism you're talking about. If it's responsible citizens acting on their own, that's fine. If it's statist social conservatives, for example Rick Santorum, expanding government in the name of virtue and morality, then that's not fine.