United Liberty
An Open Letter to GOP Primary Voters From a Libertarian
Wed, 02/08/2012 - 12:08pm | posted by Nate Nelson
Dear Republican primary voters and caucusgoers:
Yesterday, some of you in Colorado, Minnesota, and Missouri delivered stunning victories for former Senator Rick Santorum (R-Penn.) in the race for the GOP presidential nomination. You may have thought in caucusing and voting for Santorum that you were dealing a blow to the big government establishment. Unfortunately, you weren’t. Santorum is and has always been a card-carrying member of the Beltway GOP. Santorum’s record in the U.S. Senate reveals consistent opposition to the principles of limited government, fiscal restraint, and individual liberty. That’s why libertarians can’t support him now or in the general election and why you shouldn’t either.
Rick Santorum has consistently voted in favor of big government, budget-busting programs. He has slammed former Governor Mitt Romney (R-Mass.) for signing RomneyCare into law, but RomneyCare and ObamaCare are hardly the first examples of big government intervention in the health care market. Another recent example was the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 establishing the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit. While libertarians and limited government conservatives were busy arguing for the reduction of government health care entitlements, former President George W. Bush was busy expanding them — and Rick Santorum was happy to vote in favor of Medicare Part D along with other big government establishment Republicans in the U.S. Senate.
Many libertarians and limited government conservatives have targeted federal education policy as one area that should see significant reduction. Some have even suggested that the Department of Education should be abolished and most if not all of its functions eliminated. But reducing the role of the federal government in American children’s education wasn’t on Rick Santorum’s agenda in the U.S. Senate. Santorum voted for the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, described by the Associated Press as “a symbol to many of federal overreach and Congress’ inability to fix something that’s clearly flawed.” Nothing says big government GOP establishment like voting for an expansion of federal education policy backed by Bush and coauthored by the late Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.).
Santorum has also been a consistent opponent of individual liberty. Although some do not, many Republican primary voters may agree with Santorum’s proposals to amend the constitution to prohibit abortion and same-sex marriage. But what about birth control? In October 2011, Santorum went on the record about “the dangers of contraception in this country,” arguing that birth control is “a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.” These far outside the mainstream views may be excusable if they were just his personal opinions, but they’re not. Santorum told ABC News’ Jake Tapper late last year that he opposed Griswold v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court decision that overturned state bans on discussing birth control with and providing it to married couples. President Santorum would favor letting states dictate what legally married heterosexual couples can and can’t do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. How’s that for big government?
In April 2011, Rick Santorum said that he was “Tea Party before there was a Tea Party.” It looks like caucusgoers and primary voters in Iowa, Colorado, Minnesota, and Missouri believed him. But future caucusgoers and primary voters shouldn’t be fooled; Rick Santorum has made a litany of proposals that are questionable at best from a constitutionalist point of view. He wants to use taxpayer dollars to support adoptions; “to incentivize the states to promote parental choice and quality educational options”; to create a public-private partnership between the Department of Health and Human Services and private organizations “for the purpose of strengthening marriages, families, and fatherhood”; to reinstate “2008-level funding for the Community Based Abstinence Education Program”; and “to advance adult stem cell research.”
Those may all be worthy goals, but a Tea Party activist might well ask: Where does the constitution give the federal government the authority to undertake these tasks? Santorum’s proposals paint a picture of a candidate who isn’t so much opposed to big government but merely opposed to the aims of big government under a Democratic administration. Tea Party activists claim to believe that the size of government should be reduced. Rick Santorum, on the other hand, seems to believe that big government is fine as long as he’s the guy controlling it.
Now, more conservative caucusgoers and primary voters might be saying to themselves: Why should I listen to this guy? He’s a libertarian, not a conservative. That’s true, but you don’t have to take my word for it. In January, leading conservative blogger Erick Erickson, the editor-in-chief of RedState.com, also made the case that Santorum is “a big government conservative.” He brought up many of the same points I’ve mentioned and a few that I haven’t. If you’re a conservative and can’t trust Erick Erickson, who can you trust?
If you’re a Republican caucusgoer or primary voter interested in beating President Obama in November, you should know that you’ll need every vote you can muster. The truth of the matter is that you will need libertarians, including supporters of Congressman Ron Paul (R-Tex.). Yet at this very moment former two-term Governor Gary Johnson (R-N.M.) is seeking the Libertarian Party’s nomination. What I’m saying, and not very subtly, is that we libertarians have other options and I can assure you, dear Republican caucusgoers and primary voters, that we will pursue those other options this November if you nominate big government conservative Rick Santorum. He is the line we will not cross in the name of compromise. Consider yourselves warned.
Uh huh. Sure it will. Because the liberal message is doing so well out there, is it? You see the country swaying to the left, do you?
SNIP: You can join us and make sure the conservative movement is more of an open tent, or you can go against us and you will see peole even more socially conservative than Santorum.
All I can do is shake my head after reading that statement. If we nominate Santorum and he loses- which he will, so-cons will be relegated to the back of the bus along with the tea party.
As a so-com I do NOT want Santorum. The man is a control freak. He will lose the election and the so-cons will be blamed for the loss. If you want to set the so-con movement back twenty years then nominating Santorum is the way to go
I don’t doubt that you will eventually vote for Obama’s Republican opponent in the election if it is going to be at all close in your area. The stakes are just too high, and Obama’s policies are dismally authoritarian.
I have to agree with the 10:29 anonymous - what alternative Republican are your suggesting? Seems to me they all have crippling disadvantages, but they are all far better (read: less dangerous) than Obama.
While Santorum is a social conservative, I would argue he’s better for Libertarians than Obama. And perhaps Romney since Romney is really for some kind of Government controlled health system. Even Newt has defended the individual mandate when it was in a Republican-based plan.
Since I doubt Santorum will put much energy into his social conservative plan, and since he brings more conviction to the question of shrinking government, it seems plausible to me that he would be a better candidate than Romney.
Ron Paul appeals greatly to a small segment of the electorate but scares the rest of them half to death, so I don’t see him as taking off. Absent Paul, who can you vote for?
I’m a Floridian who voted for Newt on the basic premise that he would at least be human and have more imagination than Romney. But with Newt stymied I’m not sure if I wouldn’t vote for Santorum if the election was held today.
D
David H. Dennis: “I don’t doubt that you will eventually vote for Obama’s Republican opponent in the election if it is going to be at all close in your area. The stakes are just too high, and Obama’s policies are dismally authoritarian.”
You should doubt it. Read my lips (or fingers, as the case may be): I will not ever cast a vote for Rick Santorum. Never. Under any circumstances. If the stakes are too high, Republican primary voters should have the consideration to nominate somebody whom libertarians can actually support.
“I have to agree with the 10:29 anonymous - what alternative Republican are your suggesting?”
I have made the case that libertarians should support Romney because Paul can’t win the nomination. I’m willing to compromise with conservatives and other Republican voters, but as I said Rick Santorum is the line I cannot and will not cross — and you better believe there are many libertarians who agree with me on that.
“Since I doubt Santorum will put much energy into his social conservative plan, and since he brings more conviction to the question of shrinking government, it seems plausible to me that he would be a better candidate than Romney.”
You doubt he’ll put much energy into his social conservative plan? Have you been paying attention? Santorum’s whole career and this whole campaign have included a huge emphasis on social issues. His agenda is a social agenda; the rest is just gravy for him. More conviction to the question of shrinking government? Look at his record! I’ll acknowledge that he has seemed very passionate about shrinking government on the campaign trail. But have you considered the possibility that he’s lying? I think, in light of his big government record, that’s at least a possibility if not a probability.
While republicans should occasionally check their ideas against Libertarianism, L’s have close to a monopoly on electoral cluelessness.
For example, the attack on Medicare part D is ignorant. Yes, it is an expansion of government. But guess what - when you get old, you will find the insurance companies are not interested in helping you unless you are lucky enough to have perfect health. So, you get stuck on Medicare (less than 5% of health insurance is individual private insurance today - and that’s among people of all ages!). Since drugs are a larger and larger cost, not having a drug benefit in Medicare is stupid. So if you want to attack part D, you should admit that you are attacking Medicare itself (L’s hate it, of course). Good luck getting far in the real world with that argument. BTW, part D, from GW Bush, at least uses the free market within the government domain, which is causing it to cost a lot less than forecast (how many government programs can say that)?
You also assume that others share your L views on social issues. Wrong!
Santorum seems to have drifted off the reservation - this So-Con would hate to have him as the Republican choice - but let’s be clear: it’s him or Romney or Obama. Any Libertarian who fails to vote for the Republican nominee is simply a fool, or a libertine rather than libertarian.
So I guess the question is: since you don’t like Santorum, what do you want us to do?
Has it occurred to anyone yet the mandate Obama will walk away with if Santorum’s name is on the ticket?
If you were as disgusted as I was watching Reid and Pelosi weasel the PPACA into law, do you doubt their intention to seal the deal with control of both houses, a sympathetic Supreme Court, and the momentum of an Obama landslide?
Scott555 is 100% right.
SChaser: “You also assume that others share your L views on social issues. Wrong!”
No I don’t. But I do assume that if others want our votes, they’ll at least take our preferences and views under consideration.
Regarding your ode to government health care, let me pose this question to you: Since health care is a larger and larger cost, and since it at least uses the free market within the government domain, why don’t you support RomneyCare and ObamaCare? Your argument for Medicare Part D is an argument for all government health care programs, including RomneyCare and ObamaCare.
“Since health care is a larger and larger cost, and since it at least uses the free market within the government domain, why don’t you support RomneyCare and ObamaCare? Your argument for Medicare Part D is an argument for all government health care programs, including RomneyCare and ObamaCare.”
I support part D because it is a fix to an existing program.
ObamaCare is a gigantic increase in government intervention, not only into paying for health care, but in setting rules (such as forcing Catholics to pay for birth control).
The US health care payments system is severely broken. Why should your health insurance be tied to your employment? But, it is unless you are fortunate enough to both have perfect health, the money to buy your own insurance (even though your employer may make you buy theirs also), the luck to choose an insurance company that will be good for the rest of your life, and never miss a monthly payment, then you are at significant risk of not being able to have medical insurance.
So, while health insurance is not a right, it is certainly of huge importance and is something that the market has done a terrible job of providing, and its only getting worse.
Because of all of this, there will be a continued public demand for government intervention, whether we like it or not. Romneycare was, at its root, a reasonable approach to solving the problem of decoupling insurance from employment and health history. However, it was loaded down with mandates pushed by pressure groups (just like Obamacare), and did not have a high enough penalty for not having insurance (but at least, since the penalty was at a state level, it was not unconstitutional, unlike Obamacare).
If you have a better solution to insurance, I’d love to hear it. As one who was locked into a job due to pre-existing conditions, I know first hand how screwed up our current system is.
A vote for anyone in November but the GOP nominee is a vote for potentially four more Supreme Court Justices just like Ginsberg or Sotomayor, not to mention many lower court judges. It is a vote for continuing graft and crony capitalism. It is a vote for a corrupt DoJ who will willingly and eagerly trample your rights. It is a vote to give up your firearms, or at least the ammunition that make them more than interesting paperweights. It is a vote for the unrestricted expansion of the welfare state.
The fiercely independent libertarian says, “Let us allow the system to fail, so that we may rebuild it according to the vision of the Founders.” Yet, a vote for anyone but the GOP nominee, with all of his flaws, virtually ensures that there will be nothing left to rebuild, and not freedom under which rebuilding will be tolerated.
By all means, vote your conscience in the primaries. But come November, you either vote GOP or vote Obama.
Soylent Red: “By all means, vote your conscience in the primaries. But come November, you either vote GOP or vote Obama.”
And I repeat: If you want libertarian and libertarian-leaning votes, don’t nominate a candidate whom we can’t support. Conservatives don’t get to choose whichever candidate they like and then expect us to follow their orders to vote for him. If Republican primary voters nominate Santorum, I won’t vote for him — and neither will many other libertarians and libertarian-leaning independents. It’s that simple.
Does it really matter whether we get Obama or Santorum (or Mitt or Newt)? All of them are supporters of big government. The only debate is which part of government they want to make bigger. No Democrat or Republican has ever made anything smaller. The best they can do is reduce the rate of increase and that’s not going to resolve anything other than how long it might be before the house of cards comes crashing down.
Paul is the only game changer in the Republican race. If he doesn’t get the nomination the best we can hope for is to prepare for 2016. To me that means voting Libertarian and that looks like it means voting for Gary Johnson. He probably can’t win but a strong showing in the polls (which will get him into the debates) and in November might at least open a few eyes. The nice thing about Johnson is that he will more clearly draw from both right and left and it will thus be very difficult to pin the “spoiler” label on him regardless of who wins.
A parting shot on the abortion issue just because I can’t resist. Do you think we could enforce laws against murder if there wasn’t an overwhelming consensus that murder was wrong? Well that’s where we’re at today with regard to abortion. There simply isn’t that kind of consensus about when a fetus becomes a human. By all means those who think that moment occurs sometime before birth should continue to press their case. But as Ron Paul himself has said, the change in moral sentiment must come before changes in the law. The drug war has proven that as long as people want drugs, there will be drugs. And as long as women want abortions there will be abortions. The only question is how safe they will be.
Since when does the truth require “consensus”? Unborn babies are living human beings. This is not religious speculation or a popular myth, it is scientific fact. It doesn’t matter, to the truth, whether libertarians “think” it’s true.
Second point on your “parting shot” paragraph. Roe v Wade is not “law”. It is an absurd legal finding that makes no serious reference to the Constitution and its sole effect is to invalidate states’ discretion on making laws about abortion. Big-L Libertarians should be militantly in favor of overturning Roe v Wade on 10th amendment grounds. That they are not, means they are actually “libertines” rather than little-L libertarians. (Their support for taxpayer-funded gay-marriage-legitimization-certification programs is another case in point.)
June:
The last paragraph of your post was spot-on. To me, abortion is little more than legalized murder; however, I am painfully aware that my opinion is not shared by the majority. Abortion will always be with us in some form or other until the hearts and minds of the American people undergo a radical change… and I don’t see that happening anytime soon.
IMO, any one who votes for Santorum, thinking he will outlaw abortions is delusional. The only thing Santorum will give us is four more years of Obama.
The genuine difficulty facing conservatives, libertarians, other GOP’ers and indeed the entire nation is simply this: Paul is the only candidate running for the GOP nomination who is not ‘business as usual’ and all that implies and it is precisely that ‘business as usual’ approach, that ‘practical conversatism’, which has helped to produce the economic and social problems that we face. More of the same will get the country into an horrific condition in fairly short order. If we do not start voting for someone who “isn’t electable” and soon, we will not have much of an economy left and the social and political consequences of that are too many to post here. We have to find someone who isn’t another party hack and elect her or him and a bunch of his or her friends to both houses of Congres and get the clean-up started.
I like Paul’s fiscal platform.
Unfortunately, his foreign policy is a disqualifier. Its as if his “legalize weed” advisors were stoned out of their minds when they wrote his foreign policy plank.
Paul may be more right on fiscal policies than some conservatives, or not - I’m not sure.
But one thing for sure - he is a total fool on foreign affairs. He has allowed his ideology to blind him to facts, such as Iran’s quest for a nuke, or the root causes of Islamist terrorism.
Ron Paul would make Obama look really, really good on foreign policy, which is really frightening.
Furthermore, if his ideology can so blind him on foreign policy, what does it say about his critical thinking abilities.
Paul is the candidate of fools. Period.
Candidate of fools? Wow, so the many thoughtful, politically sophisticated, experienced, worldly, and intelligent people supporting Ron Paul — with far better arguments than the ones you toss out like dud cherry bombs — are actually fools! Thanks! My nearly half century of serious study in economics, political philosophy, history, psychology, anthropology, and ethics is of no use against such powerful insights as yours. You, Anon, are a silly, silly person.
So, uhm … Who would “the libertarians” have liked Republicans to have voted for in the caucuses? Mitt Obamneycare? Newt “came up with the original healthcare mandate” Gingrich? Or is this the part where you say something like “the only candidate everyone can unite around is Ron Paul?”
Because if that’s where this is headed, then you are sorely mistaken. A heck of a lot of conservatives, and even libertarian-leaning ones like I, would rather choke on their own vomit than vote for Ron Paul. You think you can get him elected with two thirds of the country laughing at him?
As always with the “Anyone As Long As It’s Romney” crowd, the obvious question not only goes unanswered, it goes unasked.
If you have the gall to structure your essay as an implied threat, surely you should at least provide an alternative. Who is that alternative? Ron Paul isn’t so embarrassing that you can’t even speak his name, is he?
Of course, the answer isn’t Ron Paul, which is why the question isn’t asked.
Actually, Anonymous, I’ve argued that libertarians should support Romney because Paul can’t win the nomination. Try reading some of my previous posts.
Dang, I can’t get away from you and your silliness.
Ron Paul polls as strongly against Obama as anyone. I am not certain if his ultimate aim is really the nomination or platform influence, but the farther he goes, the better.
Ron Paul’s not an embarrassment. Santorum is WAY beyond an embarrassment, and to my mind would be equally as bad as Prez, AND PERHAPS EVEN WORSE, than Obama. Why? He’s as arrogant as The Big O, despite purporting to represent a religion dedicated to love, service, and humility. Then again, it’s all a thought experiment, since Santorum cannot possibly win an election in America 2012.
Anyone who tells a woman impregnated by her rapist that she must bear the child (“Make the best of it,” the pompous ass says) is doomed. A minority of Republicans supports an abortion ban — check any poll you like. Combined with his anti-immigrant stance, overarching paternalism, and religious zealotry, Santorum as a candidate is hopeless. I will never, ever cast a vote for that man, period. And, no, you can’t blame an election result you don’t like on anyone but yourselves — you, the G-O-Peabrains who are talking yourselves into electoral suicide.
All of you fellow libertarians may use “G-O-Peabrain” any time you want, since I want to popularize it anyway. I was going to write an e-mail to Nate Nelson, telling him I am glad I found this site, but I will make it a public declaration. I am adding this site to my daily reading list, and promoting it to my friends and professional contacts in media, business, politics, entertainment, music, publishing, and high-tech. Good work, Nate.
What’s the libertarian position on the legality of murdering children to get revenge on their parents’ crimes?
You want conservatives to take the opinions of libertarians seriously? Okay, here’s a suggestion: Stop pushing a man who hobnobs with Alex Jones and a gaggle of white supremacists. If all you have to offer us is Ron Paul then you have nothing to offer.
I like Paul and I like how he is slowly infiltrating the GOP. Yes, he has made a Faustian Bargain with the Romney people, but I suspect it will help him in the long run, long after Obama has beaten Romney into the ground.
I’m a Palin supporter. Sad to say, there’s not much here except Ron Paul and the thin gruel of Big Government Bushie Republicanism.
Yes, I’ll vote for the nominee, but if it’s Romney, don’t expect him to beat Obama.
Obama 2013 Jan: Thanks to Gary Johnson and principled libertarians’ uncompromising stand, … I promise you I’ll appoint a few more Supreme Court justices to interpret and overhaul the outdated 18th century document the Constitution of the United States …
Gary Johnson increased Education budget helping to further empower Public School Unions yet NM education is worse than ever:
http://www.riograndefoundation.org/content/reforms-not-more-money-needed…
His immigration policy in a nutshell “Open the border; flood of Mexicans would become taxpayers”
http://www.ontheissues.org/Gary_Johnson.htm
The problem with Gary Johnson’s proposal that a “flood of Mexicans would become taxpayers” is that the flood will become non-taxpaying government dependents due to the fact that the jobs they’ll fill are predominately low-wage.
As it is 48% of Americans do not pay a Federal Income tax, flooding the market with “Mexicans” may help big corporations however it will not decrease the size of Big Government. And it certainly will create an even greater tax burden upon the other 52% who do pay a Federal Income Tax.
Gary Johnson is also a Environmental Greenie nut and we in NM have have spent the last several years undoing much of the Greenies uber-regulation suffocating economic advancement.
I agree Santorum is fiscally Big Government however Gary Johnson is not the great Libertarian. June 5th is NM primary-there may not be a choice by then-I don’t like any of the candidates preferred that Sarah Palin had entered the race-but if I had to choose I’d choose Newt on the basis that he will put Obama on the defensive-make Obama sweat and at one point he had some history of defending Constitutional sanity
Just clarifying one point. Johnson also endorses a consumption tax in place of an income tax, which WOULD tax illegal immigrants unless they were allowed to go back to Mexico to make all their purchases. While there are issues with a consumption tax, it would eliminate the 48% you mentioned.
You actually believe the Federal Government will magically end Federal Income Tax?
It is impossible for Utopian dreams to operate in reality.
Big Government would love that Consumption Tax. Consumption Tax, don’t even think about that crazy idea.
That said; first Stop the Spending so there is no need for burdensome taxation. And reduce burdensome regulation particularily the economic pollution named Environmental Protection Agency.
No, I don’t think the income tax is going anywhere in my lifetime.
I was only pointing out that Gary Johnson is being consistent in his argument about illegal immigrants becoming tax payers when paired with his entire platform (which includes replacing the income tax with a consumption tax). I wasn’t arguing that I actually believed any of that would happen. I’ll be shocked if Johnson reaches 3% nationally come November.
And the only way “Big Government” would love a consumption tax is if they wrote in loopholes for all their fat cat donors so they didn’t get nailed with a 20% tax on the luxury yacht they plan to purchase. Otherwise, the income tax serves them quite well.
Susan, I don’t think you’re really understanding my point. Johnson may have his flaws, but if libertarians vote for him it will be more about the Republican nominee than it will be about Johnson. If I vote for him, for example, it will simply be because I have nobody else to vote for.
To all those who ridicule libertarians for throwing away their votes, and in a way supporting Obama, I’ll not so humbly disagree.
It is the idea of voting for “one of the horses that can win” that prevents there from ever being a viable 3rd party in our system. Yes, odds are exceedingly high that a Libertarian candidate (or Ron Paul) will NOT win this election. However, to get on a level playing field requires garnering enough votes. Things like ballot access and that travesty known as matching funds require a party to get a percentage of the votes.
The 2 party system is archaic and dates back to when information about candidates came to your town on horseback. There is no sane reason for a modern society to be limited to choosing between hunter green and forest green as the only 2 color options. We need Red and Blue and Yellow and Purple added to the mix.
So, if you’re a voter dissatisfied with only having a choice between a giant douche and a turd sandwich, it’s your responsibility to open the door to bring in a third or a fourth or a fifth option into the race.
I could not disagree more. The US has had more than two parties at times, refuting your historical argument. The two party system evolved naturally. If you follow the politics of other countries with multiple parties, you will see that our system is usually quite a bit better.
Any vote not for the Republican is a vote for Obama, whether you like it or not. So you need to decide whether to vote for or against Obama. Or, I suppose, you can throw your vote away.
Beyond that, libertarians will never become a third party because they are out of touch. Libertarians are the mirror image of Marxists - both ignore human nature and live in a utopian fantasy. Ron Paul illustrates this clearly (as did Ayn Rand). Neither Marxists nor Libertarians are any good at forming coalitions, and our system is set up to favor coalitions, which means…. compromise.
The best choice for a lover of liberty is as a liber-con in the Republican party (c.f. Barry Goldwater). The best choice for a libertarian is to find an ideology that actually works.
If you are referring to the Whig party, I would consider that more an evolution of a very young political system from the fragmentation of the original 2 parties. We could argue in a way that would bore many people, but yes, I am familiar with the political party history of the US.
And it is also debatable about our political system being “quite a bit better” than multi-party systems of western europe, as third parties are able to gain concessions based on coalitions (which believe it or not, libertarian party candidates are capable of joining)
Finally, you should give libertarians the same courtesy as is given to democrats and republicans. There is a spectrum there as well. Not everyone is “marxist” and believes Ron Paul is a god. I think he is an extremist right wing libertarian, while I am more of a moderate left leaning libertarian. The same way there are moderate republicans and far right republicans and neo cons and tea party republicans, etc.
I want my party to succeed as much as you want yours to win the next election. It is an election in a representative republic, not a horse race.
SNIP: Neither Marxists nor Libertarians are any good at forming coalitions, and our system is set up to favor coalitions, which means…. compromise.
They want Paul but they will accept Romney and maybe even Gingrich… what do you call that if not a compromise?
Listen, when the party nominates a moderate, like Dole or Bush 1 or Bush 2 or McCain, we conservatives put the primary behind us and try to win. The moderates, on the other hand, endorse the Democrat or refuse to endorse (Scozzafava, Castle in 2010) when they lose primaries. We want to win, and we need a conservative to win. Our turn, and like it. (filter won’t take links; protein wisdom)
Libertarians aren’t moderates. And I’m not endorsing the Democrat. It has been “your turn” for decades and you’ve blown it every time. Now it’s our turn.
I take comfort in the rash of anti-libertarian sentiment. I think it means we’re finally gaining ground. The time to set aside so-con pet projects is long past.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record - let’s put out the fire in the kitchen first, then we can debate how to best address the leaky roof.
“The 2 party system is archaic and dates back to when information about candidates came to your town on horseback.
Agree. Why then haven’t Liberatarians spent the last thirty years doing the hard work of building a viable party rather than spending all that time piggy-backing on the Conservative movement?
Libertarians talk LOUDLY about your DEMANDS (thuggish and bullying in manner) but never take the time to persuade anyone why Libertarianisms is more than simply Liberalism with No Taxation.
Let’s see. Hold my nose and vote for a big gov’t Republican who won’t change a thing about crippling debt or invasive gov’t, and who won’t be seriously opposed by the R’s in congress. Or, vote my consience, possibly wind up with Obama again, and have a Repub. Senate and House block 95% of his agenda.
Six of one, ….
“Let’s see. Hold my nose and vote for a big gov’t Republican who won’t change a thing about crippling debt or invasive gov’t, and who won’t be seriously opposed by the R’s in congress. Or, vote my consience, possibly wind up with Obama again, and have a Repub. Senate and House block 95% of his agenda.”
The Republican might not do a thing about it, but he is a lot less likely to make it worse than Obama will. You could start by looking at the Supreme Court - if Obama is President, we will get a leftist Supreme Court even if the Republicans control congress. That’s how it works. And unless we get someone with the balls to take back some of the power the Supreme Court has been grabbing, that leftist Supreme Court will twist “liberty’ into “affirmative rights” - you know, like you have the “right” to this or that benefit, extorted from the taxpayers or employers.
Beyond that, you might want to consider what the world will look like after 4 more years of Obama… how many nukes will be pointed at us from unstable and nutty regimes? That hopey, chengey stuff has been working great in the Middle East, in case you haven’t noticed - you know… Islamist dominated Turkey, Islamist dominated Egypt, MANPAD missiles loose from Libya’s arsenal, Iran more powerful (especially as a result of the precipitous withdrawal from Iraq), etc.
Big government is a big problem, but it isn’t the only problem in this dangerous world.
My conscience tells me to go towards the best of the *possible* outcomes, not make some idiotic statement of conscience by throwing my vote away.
Anonymous: Excellent point.
Libertarians DO have a third choice… electing a strong - NOT liberal - Congress (yeah, I know it doesn’t make sense) willing to take Obama to the wood shed. Along with Holder and the other circus minions. Preferably a wood shed with iron bars - NOT of the beverage variety.
Between Santorum, Paul, Gingrich, and Romney…I believe Santorum is the best pick. I’m not even what you would call a conservative. And, I’m an atheist. But the man seems the most genuine of the 3 that have a chance of being elected (Paul stands no chance due to his hugely unpopular foreign policy).
It’s easy to write articles criticizing any of these men. It is true that they are far from perfect. So what? The GOP is down to 4 men. One of them will be the nominee. That Santorum voted AGAINST the bailouts, is rational, level-headed, with govt experience, obviously loves his country and believes in American exceptionalism, believes in maintaining a strong defense, is enough for me. He seems to be a man who votes his conscience. Ron Paul would be my first choice, but he has no chance. Therefore, Santorum is the only man left who I believe is honourable.
In the primary you vote your conscience. In the general election you vote for the candidate that will do less harm to the country and the Constitution.
That’s just the way it is.
And what I’m saying, m, is that with Obama and Santorum, it’s a wash. I don’t know who will do the least harm to the country and the constitution. I think amending bigotry, prohibition of reproductive choice, and restriction of free speech into the constitution would do quite a bit of damage to it. I think Medicare Part D and No Child Left Behind have done a lot of damage to the country. I think reinstating Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell would do damage to our military. I think redirecting unnecessary federal spending to one’s own agenda rather than reducing or eliminating it, as Santorum again and again proposes, is not going to do anything to put us on the path toward limited government and fiscal sanity.
In the American system, coalitions are formed among individual voters, election by election, and not among political parties, as would be the case in a parliamentary system. Additionally, our structure of government more or less produces a two-party system.
The way to have a winning voter coalition is to have each component thereof defer to their coalition-mates in their respective areas of greatest concern. Everybody gets something; nobody gets everything. There is no single “party line” dictated by a “vanguard” The other guys think that way.
You want economic liberty? Good. Others put the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in first place, still others the right to life. For yet others, a vigorous and assertive foreign policy is paramount. Where your treasure is, there shall your heart be also. .
If we cannot come together on the issues, we all lose.
Were I appointing the Next President, it would be Santorum. Alas, the Constitution does not give me that power, so the Republican nomination should go to the best A.B.O. candidate we can find.
Under no circumstances should any conservative of either libertarian of traditionalist disposition contemplate the treason of handing our country up to the other side. The Supreme Court, and with it every important issue before the country, is in play. Gun rights, the holocaust of the unborn, free exercise of religion, racial quotas, border-jumping—do we really want to give all this up?
I’m willing to compromise, Lou, but Santorum is too much. You say that “the way to have a winning voter coalition is to have each component thereof defer to their coalition-mates in their respective areas of greatest concern.” With Santorum, there is no deferring to libertarians. From our perspective, he’s been terrible on fiscal and economic issues, terrible on foreign policy, terrible on individual liberty, and terrible on social issues. I’m willing to talk about compromise in regard to Romney or even perhaps Gingrich. But not Santorum.
Followed the link here from HotAir. It’s glaringly obvious that one of the main sources of your problem is that you are for big-government (practically fascist) positions on what you call “individual liberty” issues, and you are unfairly calling Santorum a liberal because he takes the libertarian position on those issues.
The right to life is more important than some imagined right to murder another. It is also more important than some slave owner’s right to property. (Which position would you have taken on that issue in 1859, I wonder? Don’t answer… we know.) Even the sublime and magnificent Ron Paul agrees with Santorum that no one’s “right to choose” goes so far as to allow them to murder another person.
A vast government social-engineering program to spend taxpayer funds promoting, rewarding, legitimizing, and certifying a bizarre sexual perversion for no other reason than the liberal elite wish it to be so, is not a libertarian position. Opposing big-government social engineering is the libertarian position, and it is Santorum’s.
So are you really a libertarian? You seem more like a cafeteria-style independent who wants to be given credit for picking and choosing whatever “feels right” to him without investing in serious philosophy.
joeclark77: “It’s glaringly obvious that one of the main sources of your problem is that you are for big-government (practically fascist) positions on what you call “individual liberty” issues, and you are unfairly calling Santorum a liberal because he takes the libertarian position on those issues.”
Umm, what? Santorum doesn’t take the libertarian position on any of the issues I mentioned. There’s nothing libertarian about Medicare Part D, No Child Left Behind, banning birth control, amending the constitution to prohibit abortion and same-sex marriage, or redirecting federal funds to your own social agenda rather than reducing or eliminating those funds.
You are ridiculous.
Post new comment