United Liberty

Republicans are still debating the so-called “isolationist” sentiment among their presidential field. We know how warmongers like Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), the GOP’s presidential nominee in 2008, feel about those that oppose military intervention in Libya, and there is certainly a large contingent in the GOP that support his views.

But there are some that are fighting back against McCain’s demagoguery. In his most recent column, David Harsanyi takes McCain and other neo-cons to task over use of the misapplication of the isolationist label:

Sure, some on the far right and swaths of the protectionist, union-driven left oppose international trade agreements and endlessly freaking us out about foreign influences. But isolationists? Judging from our conduct in the real world of economy, we’re anything but insular. So perhaps McCain simply meant noninterventionists—as in folks who have an unwavering ideological aversion to any and all overseas entanglement.

That can’t be it, either. Maybe, like many Americans, some in the GOP are simply grappling with wars that never end and a war that never started. And with plenty of troubles here at home, it’s not surprising that Americans have turned their attention inward.

Nearly three months after the United States joined NATO forces in bombing Libya and weeks after House Republicans effectively ceded any authority in dealing with the Obama Administration’s non-compliance with the War Powers Act, Speaker John Boehner is giving the president until Friday to justify our intervention…and he really means it this time:

House Speaker John Boehner on Tuesday warned President Obama that his administration would be in violation of the War Powers Resolution unless he seeks authorization from Congress for America’s military involvement in the NATO operations in Libya or the United States withdraws from those operations.

In a letter, Mr. Boehner requests that the president explain the legal grounds for failing to seek Congressional authorization in the 90 days since Mr. Obama informed Congress of the start of the mission in Libya; on Sunday, it will be 90 days since Congress was formally notified that the mission had begun.
[…]
“Since the mission began, the administration has provided tactical operational briefings to the House of Representatives, but the White House has systematically avoided requesting a formal authorization for its action,” the letter reads. Mr. Boehner further states, “I remain deeply concerned the Congress has not been provided answers from the executive branch to fundamental questions regarding the Libya mission necessary for us to fulfill our equally important constitutional responsibilities.”

In a recent video from Reason, Brian Doherty, author of Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement, discusses the history of anti-war right; which is embodied today by personalities like Ron Paul and Gary Johnson.

Doherty notes that conservatives shifted their views on foreign policy because of the threat of communism. It became reasonable in their view to invade countries that posed no real threat to us as long as the goal was to stop the growth of communism - a view that isn’t consistant with conservatives’ often claimed views of limited government:

Via Students for Liberty comes video of a great debate on “libertarianism versus conservatism.” The four participants are all interns at think-tanks in Washington, DC.

Debating the libertarian view is Liya Palagashvili (Institute for Justice) and Sara Scarlett (Cato Institute). On the conservative side is Daniel Anderson and Shannon Hale (Heritage Foundation).

Here is the debate:

Libertarianism v Conservatism Debate from Students For Liberty on Vimeo.

After years of fiscal incompetence by Republicans on spending, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-NV) shows us that they still don’t get it:

I want the Bush tax cuts extended, but you absolutely must have corresponding cuts in spending to balance them out. A tax cut without spending cuts is a tax increase in the long-term. Republicans still don’t get that fiscal improprieties during the years they had control of Congress, not only led to their defeat in 2006, placed a burden on future generations.

H/T: Outside the Beltway

David Boaz, Vice President of the Cato Institute, doesn’t seem to be encouraged by the state of conservatism by the sights and sounds from CPAC:

What did tell me something very disturbing about the state of conservatism was Mitt Romney’s speech at CPAC. It was a well-written and well-delivered speech, and I agreed with much of what I heard on C-SPAN Radio. But after all the talk about how Republicans have learned their lessons, how they know that they went badly awry during the Bush-Hastert-DeLay years, Romney drew cheers for saying, “I am convinced that history will judge President Bush far more kindly—he pulled us from a deepening recession following the attack of 9-11, he overcame teachers unions to test school children and evaluate schools, he took down the Taliban, waged a war against the jihadists and was not afraid to call it what it is—a war, and he kept us safe.” And then he drew wild, foot-stomping cheers for going on: “I respect his silence even in the face of the assaults on his record that come from this administration. But at the same time, I also respect the loyalty and indefatigable defense of truth that comes from our “I don’t give a damn” Vice President Dick Cheney!” (Text )

I am reminded that in February 2008, after seven disastrous years of overspending, federal intrusion, entitlement expansion, civil liberties abuses, and foundering wars, President Bush spoke at CPAC, and the assembled conservatives greeted him with chants of “Four More Years!”

Really? You wanted more of that? And you’re still cheering it in 2010?

Ed Crane says Republicans should purge neo-conservatives:

What happened to the Republicans? Well, the two Bush presidencies didn’t help. Neither did the supply-side movement, focused on tax cuts and economic growth. Supporters of those ideas didn’t talk about spending cuts, much less the proper role of government. They had the effect of replacing “liberty” as the motivating force behind the GOP with “growth,” a somewhat less-inspiring ideal.

But perhaps most pernicious has been the role played by the neoconservatives. The late William F. Buckley used his conservative flagship publication, National Review, to make anti-communism the litmus test for joining the conservative movement. Dealing with the Soviets during the Cold War was clearly an important task, but it should not have opened the door of the limited-government movement to the neoconservatives, who are now — and always have been — advocates of big government. With the neocon foot in the policymaking door after the Cold War ended, the drumbeat for war in Iraq began in earnest a decade before 9/11.

It is important to realize that neocons are not just nation-building, America-first advocates. They like big government across the board. No Child Left Behind, the thinly disguised effort to nationalize education in America, was principally a neocon initiative. Consider this comment from the late Irving Kristol, self-described “godfather” of the neoconservative movement: “Neocons do not feel that kind of alarm or anxiety about the growth of the state in the past century, seeing it as natural, indeed inevitable.” Indeed.

Susan Collins, a “Republican” Senator from Maine, is one of only a handful GOP Senators who might approve the massive spending bill the Democrats and Obama Administration has been pushing the past couple weeks.  My major question: Is she a Republican? After looking at her stances on issues, she seems to be in favor of big government.