The GOP Doesn’t Have a Libertarian Problem

[Taco John]

The GOP Doesn’t Have a Libertarian Problem

A friend shared this interesting post with me the other day. Basically, with Romney losing the election and the Republicans trying to blame everybody but themselves, the question of the party having a “libertarian problem” arises. The author makes a couple of points that are worth considering.

Mitt Romney ran against libertarian ideals.

There was almost literally nothing libertarian about the GOP’s presidential ticket. They ran on a platform of government a little smaller than the Democrats would prefer. Expand the war on drugs. Expand globally with aggressive (“preventative”) war. Expand spending. Balance the budget at some point in the distant future. None of that sounds libertarian because none of that is libertarian.

The GOP has to have libertarians before it can have a libertarian problem.

In the Senate, they’ve got Rand Paul. Mike Lee isn’t so bad, either. In the House, there are a handful of decent members, but only 1 that I’d trust to make the right stand, no matter what. (I’m looking at you, Justin Amash.) That’s not much of a libertarian presence in Congress.

In the presidential race, there were two libertarians. One, the Good Doctor, was mocked and ridiculed. Ironically, that was still a better than his treatment in the 2008 campaign. The other candidate, Gary Johnson, wasn’t just pushed to the side; he was shoved all the way into the Libertarian Party. He was a two-term Republican governor with a history of cutting government, balancing budgets, and vetoing stupid bills. And the GOP wanted nothing to do with him.

Truly, before they can have a libertarian problem, the GOP needs to have libertarians. Maybe they’ll come around for 2014 and 2016. Should we hold our breath while we wait?

http://www.unitedliberty.org/article...tarian-problem

[chiefzilla1501]

The libertarian movement is terrific for shaping the direction of the party. The problem comes when they go on crusades to speak their ideology. I know a lot of moderates who refused to vote Republican because of a few diehard libertarians who always insist on jamming their ideology down their throat.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

The libertarian movement is terrific for shaping the direction of the party. The problem comes when they go on crusades to speak their ideology. I know a lot of moderates who refused to vote Republican because of a few diehard libertarians who always insist on jamming their ideology down their throat.

...there were a ton of people who didn't vote Republican because that is exactly what the Republicans did.

[|Zach|]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

The libertarian movement is terrific for shaping the direction of the party. The problem comes when they go on crusades to speak their ideology. I know a lot of moderates who refused to vote Republican because of a few diehard libertarians who always insist on jamming their ideology down their throat.

Is this post ****ing real.

[DementedLogic]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

The libertarian movement is terrific for shaping the direction of the party. The problem comes when they go on crusades to speak their ideology. I know a lot of moderates who refused to vote Republican because of a few diehard libertarians who always insist on jamming their ideology down their throat.

I think you have it backwards. Libertarians insist that you not jam your idealogy down their throat through the use of government force.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by DementedLogic

I think you have it backwards. Libertarians insist that you not jam your idealogy down their throat through the use of government force.

And Ron Paul disciples will jam that down your throat even when you don't want to hear it. In my experience, they often have a habit of finding every opportunity to troll conversations and Facebook walls to jam their opinion in. Many of my even conservative and moderate friends block our libertarian friends. We don't even invite them to happy hours anymore.

Don't pretend this isn't part of the image problem. This part of the party has made the right seem horribly unsympathetic to the poor. And unappreciative of teachers and cops. And it helped raise a stink about public funding for birth control that should never have been an election issue.

Again, it is terrific to move the right in a fiscal conservative direction with liberal principles. But there is a reason this is a niche movement versus a mainstream one.

[Brainiac]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

And Ron Paul disciples will jam that down your throat even when you don't want to hear it. In my experience, they often have a habit of finding every opportunity to troll conversations and Facebook walls to jam their opinion in. Many of my even conservative and moderate friends block our libertarian friends. We don't even invite them to happy hours anymore.

Don't pretend this isn't part of the image problem. This part of the party has made the right seem horribly unsympathetic to the poor. And unappreciative of teachers and cops. And it helped raise a stink about public funding for birth control that should never have been an election issue.

Again, it is terrific to move the right in a fiscal conservative direction with liberal principles. But there is a reason this is a niche movement versus a mainstream one.

I'm sure no Ron Paul supporter on this forum would EVER do that.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by Brainiac

I'm sure no Ron Paul supporter on this forum would EVER do that.

I think what has helped the liberal cause more than anything is that their over zealousness has been targeted at the nut bags in the social right. That's a great populist message.

Minimalist government is an interesting direction, but absolute minimalism isn't populist and it never will be. I admire libertarians for their passion and sticking to their core beliefs. But it's not a formula that will ever win elections.

[KILLER_CLOWN]

That's fine, we can have endless versions of Obama because the GOP doesn't really stand far away from those positions. The Republican party has lost it's way, Mitt Romney really? He could have run as the Democrat and no one would have noticed.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

I think what has helped the liberal cause more than anything is that their over zealousness has been targeted at the nut bags in the social right. That's a great populist message.

Ron Paul's followers were not all libertarians. It was a coalition of conservatives, libertarians, Independents and even some Democrats. Walter Jones even allied with Paul later, once he found out he was lied to about Iraq. That was the Freedom Fries guy.

You also paint with a broad brush. I have a commie relative who jams her Facebook wall with bashing Republicans and hailing Obama. She even links Daily Kos and Move On.org articles and puts them on the Timeline of others. The ones that were Paul supporters did none to very little of that...and there were more than a few.

Minimalist government is an interesting direction, but absolute minimalism isn't populist and it never will be. I admire libertarians for their passion and sticking to their core beliefs. But it's not a formula that will ever win elections.

Oh really? 8 out of the 11 that Ron Paul endorsed Republican candidates were Ron Paul types, while it was moderate Republicans that lost their seats. The type of Democrats that won were more stridently leftist. Same with the Senate when Brown was replaced by Warren. This is not all bad, because the Paulies can form a coalition with these Democrats to ward off more military spending. That's the thing about having Paulies there.

In addition to that gains were made by Paul-type candidates at the state level too. The Ron Paul movement is in ascendency.

You also need to understand process. Such as the ability to form coalitions as I showed above. Then in terms of reducing the size of the govt—exactly why we have this "fiscal cliff" and deficit. Really, that's what you're supporting with your argument. More of the same. We didn't get into this massive burgeoning nanny and police state overnight, although the last ten years has dramatically sped things up. We are getting excessive law breaking by recent presidents, SC justices re-writing bills and even elsewhere. So libertarian views need to aired and considered if the direction of the country is just going to move back to a moderate amount again. Or we are finished. Process matters.

Other than that, including the gloating by the Democrats, who were far more united and excited about their candidate, the people voted for the status quo. They'd rather stick with the devil they know than choose a candidate that didn't offer much different and as seen as not having principles. In short, just your kind of guy.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Brainiac

I'm sure no Ron Paul supporter on this forum would EVER do that.

Seriously, Brainiac, this at least is a message board with a designated political forum. That's where it's supposed to be done. For some reason it's only okay when it's the mainstream candidates. Everyone here is jamming what they think down each other's throats, so why not let us. This tells me more is needed.

[BucEyedPea]

”Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.”

Martin Luther King

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Ron Paul's followers were not all libertarians. It was a coalition of conservatives, libertarians, Independents and even some Democrats. Walter Jones even allied with Paul later, once he found out he was lied to about Iraq. That was the Freedom Fries guy.

You also paint with a broad brush. I have a commie relative who jams her Facebook wall with bashing Republicans and hailing Obama. She even links Daily Kos and Move On.org articles and puts them on the Timeline of others. The ones that were Paul supporters did none to very little of that...and there were more than a few.

The foundation of the movement is centered around staunch fiscal conservatism. And it has led to many of his disciples creating an unbelievably naive view of what that means. They bitch about any new construction starts. They bitch about regulating small businesses. All in a rubber stamp way. They belittle every single person who relies on government, even those who legitimately need it. And yes, sarah palin has sabotaged your movement by stealing your momentum and hijacking the tea party. I don't lump you in there.

Oh really? 8 out of the 11 that Ron Paul endorsed Republican candidates were Ron Paul types, while it was moderate Republicans that lost their seats. The type of Democrats that won were more stridently leftist. Same with the Senate when Brown was replaced by Warren. This is not all bad, because the Paulies can form a coalition with these Democrats to ward off more military spending. That's the thing about having Paulies there.

In addition to that gains were made by Paul-type candidates at the state level too. The Ron Paul movement is in ascendency.

You also need to understand process. Such as the ability to form coalitions as I showed above. Then in terms of reducing the size of the govt—exactly why we have this "fiscal cliff" and deficit. Really, that's what you're supporting with your argument. More of the same. We didn't get into this massive burgeoning nanny and police state overnight, although the last ten years has dramatically sped things up. We are getting excessive law breaking by recent presidents, SC justices re-writing bills and even elsewhere. So libertarian views need to aired and considered if the direction of the country is just going to move back to a moderate amount again. Or we are finished. Process matters.

Other than that, including the gloating by the Democrats, who were far more united and excited about their candidate, the people voted for the status quo. They'd rather stick with the devil they know than choose a candidate that didn't offer much different and as seen as not having principles. In short, just your kind of guy.

You saw traction in the house. The senate was a swing and a miss. In a year where government is under scrutiny. The movement will peak. The economy will recover and people will care less about government spending. This is why moderate politics should win, but the system doesn't allow it to. People don't want to spend too much or too little. The moderates want to spend just enough. To appeal to that base, you aren't going to win with a staunch rubber stamp.

[SNR]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

The foundation of the movement is centered around staunch fiscal conservatism. And it has led to many of his disciples creating an unbelievably naive view of what that means. They bitch about any new construction starts. They bitch about regulating small businesses. All in a rubber stamp way. They belittle every single person who relies on government, even those who legitimately need it. And yes, sarah palin has sabotaged your movement by stealing your momentum and hijacking the tea party. I don't lump you in there.

Ron Paul got going from his comment to Rudy Guiliani during the first Republican primary in 2007, talking about terrorists attacking Western countries because they are entrenched on their lands.

If you mean prior to that, sure I can see.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

The foundation of the movement is centered around staunch fiscal conservatism. And it has led to many of his disciples creating an unbelievably naive view of what that means. They bitch about any new construction starts. They bitch about regulating small businesses. All in a rubber stamp way. They belittle every single person who relies on government, even those who legitimately need it. And yes, sarah palin has sabotaged your movement by stealing your momentum and hijacking the tea party. I don't lump you in there.

If you think that it's come to that, or that it's that black and white then you don't understand the movement. You're a dyed in the wool statist.

You saw traction in the house. The senate was a swing and a miss. In a year where government is under scrutiny. The movement will peak. The economy will recover and people will care less about government spending. This is why moderate politics should win, but the system doesn't allow it to. People don't want to spend too much or too little. The moderates want to spend just enough. To appeal to that base, you aren't going to win with a staunch rubber stamp.

Moderates are not winning. Not with Obama in the WH, more strident left-wing members in the house and at least one in the senate. The Moderates are not the answer—they are the problem in terms of reducing govt. Regardless, the status quo is what was voted back in.