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:
Dec '11
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
I am voting for gary johnson.
I have my disputes with libertarians, especially ron paul who makes and had made for decades the error that the things that are unwise are unconstitutional. The very libertarian version of a moralist fallacy.
I also give some amount of deference to the self-determinative rights to organize and outlaw bad ideas in local contexts. Nobody wants to live in an unmoderated chatroom, and would like to take their grandmother to church without being flashed, and send their kids to school without people waving their penises at the bus stop. We do know that permission for antisocial behavior results in the social people also becomming antisocial. There does in fact have to be some enforcement of social norms, or there will be unhappiness. On the other hand forcing people to comply with social norms that are wildly divergent from their own results in an equally large unhappiness problem. I use the metaphor of roommates and neighbors. The amish and the oneida colony can coexist, both enforcing their cultural norms within their own communities.
Jul '10
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
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.
Aug '10
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
Sorry Fred, but I have to disagree with you here. Your admirable concern with the proper role of government and your value of libertarianism are laudable - I agree with you.
But when you make the equation Santorum = Romney = Obama I have to disagree. Statements like this show your equivalence.
Fred Cole: 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...
I see no virtue in replacing one statist with a slightly different one.
(emphasis added)
When you say things like this, you equate $T deficits with $B deficits (both are bad, but one is much, much worse.)
Add to that the impossible list of libertarian demands (the sorts of which will require revolution to achieve) and they just pipe dreams. Even if Gary Johnson wins, even in a landslide, he cannot affect the level of change libertarians demand.
Although, you will achieve libertarian utopia when society collapses due to debt - so your vote for Johnson may achieve the goal you seek. Best of luck.
Edited on April 19, 2012 at 4:15pmDec '11
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
There is no moral difference between being shot with a big bullet or a small bullet. Dead is dead is dead.
Oct '10
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
Personally I'm a small government federalist, and would love to see a much more libertarian governance than we are likely to get from Romney or Santorum.
But libertarians always seem to want to start at the top.
I think that those of us with Libertarian leanings should look at this posting by Dan Hanson. http://ricochet.com/member-feed/An-Important-Election-in-Alberta-this-Monday
You start locally. There's no use for Libertarians attempting to elect a President without first nominating Libertarians for state legislatures, governorships, and Congress and winning in significant numbers. A president elected without strong support in Congress is a lame duck on the day he's sworn in.
If libertarians can't make that demonstration, then a voter for Gary Johnson may just as well vote Obama. The effect will be much the same.
For those who say there's only minor differences between Obama and Romney in political philosophy.... that's sheer lunacy. Just look at Obama's hyper-profligate spending , political supporters and allies, his appointees, his inclinations to use executive and administrative power to bypass Congress.
Get real.. Romney at his worst will be an improvement.
Edited on April 19, 2012 at 5:04pmAug '10
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
Because the moral problem is with being shot, not the means of being shot. However, you stand a much better chance of surviving the small bullet than the large one (which is why the market teems with healthy sized rounds - market forces at work!)
Like I said, the changes libertarians demand will require revolution or collapse to achieve.
Y'all would be better off to pick a single outcome (maybe getting the food police away from children's lemonade stands) and working toward that.
A vote for Gary Johnson is a vote for Obama - good luck with that.
(edit, I agree with Limestone Cowboy's other points too.)
Edited on April 19, 2012 at 4:34pmNov '11
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
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.
Nov '11
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
Instugator:
But when you make the equation Santorum = Romney = Obama I have to disagree. Statements like this show your equivalence.
[snip]
When you say things like this, you equate $T deficits with $B deficits (both are bad, but one is much, much worse.)
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.
And Gary Johnson isn't afraid of using it. As governor he vetoed more bills than his 49 contemporaries combined.
Nov '11
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
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.
Jul '10
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. · 1 minute ago
Did you read the release notes that came with the poll Fred?
He's never gonna have any money, and no one will know his name in November, either.
Mar '12
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
You don't change the culture nor win hearts and minds through elections. Elections reflect where the culture is. So you must first educate, persuade and change how people think before you can win an election. In the meantime you need to avert disaster. That is unless you think letting everything burn down is your best shot at gaining power, letting a crisis erupt so you can take advantage of it.
But rebuilding from the ashes is quite a risky way to implement your value system. Especially since in the midst of crisis people seek security and stability. Appeals to personal responsibility and freedom ring pretty hollow when your country and economy are in the midst of chaos. Those types of conditions are exactly the ones that statists and the radical left usually thrive in.
Apr '11
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
Just for the sake of argument, suppose Ron Paul or Gary Johnson was elected President...what then?
Could either repeal Obamacare? No, it's a duly enacted law so, absent it being declared unconstitutional in toto, repealing all or part must first be done by both houses of Congress.
Could either balance the budget? No, all spending bills originate in the House.
Could either "Create real jobs?" Don't make me laugh.
It's fun to fantasize about what one could do if only one were King. But let's not forget there's a reason why, outside the ranks of the militantly childish, Ron Paul and Gary Johnson only poll in single digits.
Come November you may choose whatever flavor you like, so long as its vanilla.
Dec '11
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
Horace: You don't change the culture nor win hearts and minds through elections. Elections reflect where the culture is. So you must first educate, persuade and change how people think before you can win an election. In the meantime you need to avert disaster. That is unless you think letting everything burn down is your best shot at gaining power, letting a crisis erupt so you can take advantage of it.
But rebuilding from the ashes is quite a risky way to implement your value system. Especially since in the midst of crisis people seek security and stability. Appeals to personal responsibility and freedom ring pretty hollow when your country and economy are in the midst of chaos. Those types of conditions are exactly the ones that statists and the radical left usually thrive in. · 7 minutes ago
Its going to burn down under mitt romney as well. So, who cares?
Jul '11
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
I'm with Ted Nugent here. I could be dead or in jail in an Obama second term if he stacks the court and the second amendment is trashed. That event would end any chance for your libertarian system shining through compared to a Romney. One can argue Bush inspired more libertarian switches than Obama but I am certain Obama will end any chance of freedom here short of civil war and not the ideological variety you're discussing.
Jul '11
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
It is not going to burn under Romney gurforhire, he's just part of a statist mentality rather than an active advancer. The issues discussed above will keep the fire smoldering under Romney whereas Obama is throwing gas on them.
Dec '11
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
Yes it will, because Romney isnt going to change enough, and even if he wanted too, which he doesnt, he wouldnt have enough of a political mandate to actually do so. The Romney candidacy is an exercise in existential pointlessness.
Failure and collapse in slower motion (best case) is still failure and collapse.
Edited on April 19, 2012 at 5:18pmNov '11
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
This is the other piece of marketing. Every four years it benefits both parties electorally and financially to paint every presidential election as the most important in history, or at least in our lifetimes.
Every four years I hear "This is the most important election of our lifetime."
Both sides say it. The other thing they do is they always paint the other party's nominee as worse than Hitler.
Republicans say
"If [Obama/Kerry/Gore/Clinton/Dukakis/Carter] is elected, it'll be the end of [liberty/the republic/the Constitution/our civil liberties/the world]."
Democrats say
"If [Romney/McCain/Bush/Dole/Bush/Reagan] is elected, it'll be the end of [liberty/the republic/the Constitution/our civil liberties/the world]."
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.
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.
Nov '11
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
Herkybird: Just for the sake of argument, suppose Ron Paul or Gary Johnson was elected President...what then?
Could either repeal Obamacare? No, it's a duly enacted law so, absent it being declared unconstitutional in toto, repealing all or part must first be done by both houses of Congress.
Could either balance the budget? No, all spending bills originate in the House.
Could either "Create real jobs?" Don't make me laugh.
A president has enormous powers. For one thing, a President Johnson could veto things (including spending bills!). Considering the record of our last Republican president, that'd be a great start.
He also has the power to judges and bureaucrats (or not appoint them!). A president has enormous discretion on how regulations are enacted and enforced. A president has enormous discretion in how allocated funds are actually spend.
And as for "creating jobs," everyone reading this knows the private sector creates jobs, not politicians. As gov, Johnson had the best job creation record among Republican presidential contenders this year, BUT, unlike every politician, he was willing to actually say that the private sector creates jobs, not politicians.
Aug '10
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
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.
Herkybird said it better than I did. Even if he is elected, what can he do? The veto can be effective, but it can also be overridden (and will be if it is overused).
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. They recognize that the history is against them and they recognize that votes for the third party has been a vote for the progressives (the Bull Moose run gave us the eugenics of Wilson - the Perot run gave us Clinton)
So, please, assuage your conscience and vote GJ if that is where you are led.
Recognize, though, a vote for Johnson is a vote for Obama.
Jul '11
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
Ive heard the same thing about importance every four years. I never thought it was anything but hyperbole. Now I'm the one saying it and I never will after this election and that would include a future libertarian candidate with a real chance of winning. Romney is a statist. Obama is as close to Satan with a smile as could be. They are not equal and only one in 25 will agree with you and furthermore, like the now irrelevant Green's of Nader, if Gary Johnson voters cost this election I think you'll see the end of your party. I'd stick around to say I told you so but I'll be gone if zero is placed in again.