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:
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
Finally: we’ve had a rash of horrible incidents up here in Minnesota, where people have bought “legal” analogues to various drugs off the internet, and either died from the effects or gotten everyone else at the party hideously sick. The hard libertarian position, as I understand it, would oppose their prohibition and / or regulation; let the market work it out.
I say if someone’s selling lethal poison under the guise of an all-natural herbal smokeable, and people die, they should be held personally responsible. If that makes me a statist, fine.
Nov '11
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
Is zoning a federal issue for you? Because it's really not for me.
Apr '11
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
Fred Cole
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 doyou 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.
Both of these are beside the point. New Mexico still has seat-belt laws. The only governors that resisted this in the 80s/ 90s were Sununu and Judd Gregg, both of whom are endlessly attacked as liberals or moderates on Ricochet, but both of whom were more effective libertarians than the kinda liberal Johnson.
Nov '11
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
Libertarians would have done well to have backed Palin and begged her to run. Conservative Republican with strong libertarian leaning.
May '10
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
A war requires at least two sides that want a fight. This has (maybe) one such side. That's more akin to exhibitionism than warfare.
Nov '11
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
James Lileks: Finally: we’ve had a rash of horrible incidents up here in Minnesota, where people have bought “legal” analogues to various drugs off the internet, and either died from the effects or gotten everyone else at the party hideously sick. The hard libertarian position, as I understand it, would oppose their prohibition and / or regulation; let the market work it out.
I say if someone’s selling lethal poison under the guise of an all-natural herbal smokeable, and people die, they should be held personally responsible. If that makes me a statist, fine. · 1 hour ago
The only reason those unsafe substitutes exist is because of prohibition!
Look, man, prohibition means that the hard stuff is less safe because you don't know the source or the quality. It means addicts have more difficulty getting help. It means people with addictions go to jail instead of getting help.
Nov '11
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
OF COURSE the market would work it out. That's how markets work! Look at the medicinal marijuana industry (and industry is the right word, it's booming!) in California, good actors over time have pushed bad actors out of the market. Quality has improved because consumers have choices and sellers are building brands and businesses, so they have an incentive to provide a quality product, as opposed to the street corner dealers who are fly by night.
They self regulate and self test because its in their interest to provide a better product.
OF COURSE the market would work it out, that's what markets do!
Nov '11
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
Mark Belling Fan
Fred Cole
.. if you had privately owned roads..
This is like the Godwin's Law of libertarian debates. · 2 hours ago
That was amazing.
Dec '11
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
Fred Cole
James Lileks: Finally: we’ve had a rash of horrible incidents up here in Minnesota, where people have bought “legal” analogues to various drugs off the internet, and either died from the effects or gotten everyone else at the party hideously sick. The hard libertarian position, as I understand it, would oppose their prohibition and / or regulation; let the market work it out.
I say if someone’s selling lethal poison under the guise of an all-natural herbal smokeable, and people die, they should be held personally responsible. If that makes me a statist, fine. · 1 hour ago
The only reason those unsafe substitutes exist is because of prohibition!
Look, man, prohibition means that the hard stuff is less safe because you don't know the source or the quality. It means addicts have more difficulty getting help. It means people with addictions go to jail instead of getting help. · 4 minutes ago
Alcohol prohibition did result in some pretty toxic stuff hitting the streets.
Jan '11
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
I thought that the founding of the United States was a confederation of individual sovereign states.
Jan '11
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
I'll gladly accept another person's bromides on liberty rather than someone else hinting at his/her disdain for the topic. Especially when so human nature seemingly produces so many who possess a proclivity to force their desires onto others and who suffer from envy.
Jan '12
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
LowcountryJoe
I thought that the founding of the United States was a confederation of individual sovereign states. · 20 minutes ago
A neat quibble. Press it to your delight. All those years from 1782 (or 1776) to 1789 don't figure much in national law today, and the confederation was never a free marketplace, with some states acting as little mechantilist republics. Some of them even had established churches. Real libertarian stuff, that.
Edited on April 20, 2012 at 2:52amJan '11
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
Noesis Noeseos
LowcountryJoe
I thought that the founding of the United States was a confederation of individual sovereign states. · 20 minutes ago
A neat quibble. Press it to your delight. All those years from 1782 (or 1776) to 1789 don't figure much in national law today, and the confederation was never a free marketplace, with some states acting as little mechantilist republics. Some of them even had established churches. Real libertarian stuff, that.
Great points but press it to my delight, I shall. Article IV of that initial agreement did allow for a marketplace of sorts -- a market for the manner and style one wished to be governed.
As I become more aware of politics and history, my appreciation for local governance [and the consequential push/pull factors that would have emerged by sticking to local policy-making] grows in preference to the edicts that come down from an overly-centralized nanny state located in the District of Columbia.
Apr '11
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
LowcountryJoe
I'll gladly accept another person's bromides on liberty rather than someone else hinting at his/her disdain for the topic. Especially when so human nature seemingly produces so many who possess a proclivity to force their desires onto others and who suffer from envy. · 33 minutes ago
It's important to have bromides on liberty, but it's more important to have the substance. Bromides on liberty, like Paul's bromides on Free Trade, are not terribly appealing when they come from people who, in practice, fight against it. They may even be worse than disdain for it from those who defend it.
Apr '11
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
Fred Cole
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. · 3 minutes ago
Do you know of a jurisdiction that has had success with an alternative meth policy?
Regardless, people who view drugs as the primary crisis we face (while providing no route from here to a prohibition free society), lose some authority when they say that we have to make serious changes to fix the economy. To the extent that we need to make serious changes to fix the economy, we need to focus on them. Useless verbiage about public education on the non-harmful nature of pot is a distraction from useful verbiage on the harmful nature of debt.
Jun '11
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
The ONLY reason why I am voting for Mitt instead of Gary Johnson is that Ginsberg and Scalia are getting pretty old, and Mitt will put a conservative justice on the bench. Don't kid yourself, the MOST important issue in this next election is the composition of the Supreme Court. The economy is a close second.
Apr '11
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
LowcountryJoe
Great points butpress it to my delight, I shall. Article IV of that initial agreementdidallow for a marketplace of sorts -- a market for the manner and style one wished to be governed.
As I become more aware of politics and history, my appreciation for local governance [and the consequential push/pull factors that would have emerged by sticking to local policy-making] grows in preference to the edicts that come down from an overly-centralized nanny state located in the District of Columbia. · 9 minutes ago
I agree; I'd like to note that, drugs aside, the only federalist policy that Johnson recommends is a cut down version of Mitt's plans to farm federal programs out to the states. It's a good policy, but it'd be nice to have the extreme third party taking up a stronger position than the Republicans on it. Or maybe even talking a little about it for a little more than a sentence. He could even copy and paste some material from the Paul campaign, which embodies a far more mature and thoughtful form of libertarianism.
Jan '11
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
James Of England
LowcountryJoe
I'll gladly accept another person's bromides on liberty rather than someone else hinting at his/her disdain for the topic. Especially when so human nature seemingly produces so many who possess a proclivity to force their desires onto others and who suffer from envy. · 33 minutes ago
It's important to have bromides on liberty, but it's more important to have the substance. Bromides on liberty, like Paul's bromides on Free Trade, are not terribly appealing when they come from people who, in practice, fight against it. They may even be worse than disdain for it from those who defend it. · 24 minutes ago
Yes! And I think that you've correctly identified just one of Paul's inconsistencies -- the one about international trade.
Nov '11
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
James Of England
Do you know of a jurisdiction that has had success with an alternative meth policy?
Yeah, the nation of Portugal.
Freedom works. It's funny like that.
Jan '12
Re: The Republican Civil War: Pick a Side
LowcountryJoe
Noesis Noeseos
LowcountryJoe
Great points butpress it to my delight, I shall. Article IV of that initial agreementdidallow for a marketplace of sorts -- a market for the manner and style one wished to be governed.
As I become more aware of politics and history, my appreciation for local governance [and the consequential push/pull factors that would have emerged by sticking to local policy-making] grows in preference to the edicts that come down from an overly-centralized nanny state located in the District of Columbia. · 30 minutes ago
To write of a marketplace of governance is to stretch an analogy, but the principle of subsidiarity is sound conservative thinking--when it can be safely applied. The history of the confederated states also contained conflicts over claims to western territory. The map shows some that involved New York. The argument with New Hampshire sometimes resulted in armed conflict. Eventually the majorities in all the states agreed that a stronger central government was necessary to resolve such disagreements.
I am not certain just how much Romney is amenable to the notion of subsidiarity, but I am sure significantly more so than Obama.