Comments on The 7-10: Palmer on Politics: An Opportunity for Libertarian Conservatives

I agree with your post for the most part, Anthony....

2009-07-05T12:08:09.226-04:00

I agree with your post for the most part, Anthony. I think the religious right has weakened considerably over the last few years though. The old leadership is dying off or stepping down from their positions of influence. And as far as I can tell, no equivalent people are stepping up.

Personally if the GOP became more Barry Goldwater-like, that would be a party I could consider paying attention to. People forget that Goldwater was a proponent of gay rights for exactly the reason you described, Anthony - if people agreed on a relationship, why should he care?

Anything is possible, AP, but I strongly doubt lib...

2009-07-02T16:49:10.079-04:00

Anything is possible, AP, but I strongly doubt libertarian-type conservatives will take over the Republican Party anytime soon.

First, the mostly southern religious right harvests money and wields power through its involvement in politics. They're all about control. You've got entrenched interests there that aren't likely to give up their moneymaking franchise, their ability to wield power and their control. That's especially true if they're expected to step aside in favor of "live and let live" libertarian types who have no problem with what religious-right types consider sinful sexual behavior, abortion rights and so on.

You've also got Republicans who, while not all that sold on religious conservatism personally, appreciate the potential for political gain from pandering to the religious right, and sometimes the the broader public as well, by exploiting wedge issues.

The other thing about libertarian conservatives is their quirky notions about money and the economy. Going back on the gold standard is simply not feasible. While tempting right now, doing away with the Federal Reserve System makes about as much sense as doing away with the Air Force.

At any given time, it seems, libertarians always advance some interesting and appealing notions. It's when you look closer to see what they want to do that you realize they're out of the mainstream in significant ways.

The best chance for a libertarian ascent to political power, meaning the presidency, would be if another charismatic Barry Goldwater type were to come to the fore at a time when most of the electorate was thoroughly disgusted with most Democrats and Republicans — a not implausible scenario, unfortunately.

Even then, the prospect could well be one of four or eight years of gridlock. That's because a libertarian president likely would not have sufficient support in Congress to do much more than skirmish over one thing after another.

Libertarian conservatism does not rule out social ...

2009-06-29T17:37:56.267-04:00

Libertarian conservatism does not rule out social conservatism. That is a common mistake also made by many who call themselves libertarian.

"Primum non nocere" ("First, do no harm"). For government that means first do not violate the Supreme Law of the Land, the US Constitution.

We are set up as a republic. Unfortunately, the Federal government has effectively destroyed the separation of powers between the Federal and the state levels of government by ignoring the Constitution. Many of the true libertarian characteristics of our government have not been allowed to exist or have been greatly diminished. Otherwise, we'd have "fifty experiments in local government." Such competition would be healthy for our republic. People would have a more diverse choice of lifestyles by voting with their feet where and thus how to live.

Under a proper republic as outlined in the Constitution, a true libertarian will not condone the Federal government forbidding a state from implicitly promoting a socially conservative paradigm by punishing/outlawing certain behavior.

The stepping between state and citizen is not allowed under the Constitution except in certain very limited ways though the Federal court system has systematically been destroying those limits since the early 1900s.

Without those limits being reinstated, true "consent of the governed" cannot be pursued when people are not allowed to govern at the lowest possible level. States should decide for themselves such issues as abortion which have proved impossible to satisfactorily decide at the Federal level. Divisiveness in the country results from intolerance of other states' deciding for themselves through their representative governments what behaviors to allow and outlaw. Both major parties are more than guilty of such intolerance.

It is often difficult enough to decide certain issues at the state level as well but the state is the basic unit according to the Constitution and, according to the law, it is up to the states to decide on all matters not specifically assigned by the states to the central government.

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." --James Madison, Federalist No. 45

This post has been linked for the HOT5 Daily 6/28/...

2009-06-28T07:51:28.691-04:00

This post has been linked for the HOT5 Daily 6/28/2009, at The Unreligious Right

I would be careful with how you brand this, becaus...

2009-06-27T18:22:05.537-04:00

I would be careful with how you brand this, because it can fall into the same trap as the whole "Party of Reagan" nonsense, even though Reagan is dead and a good chunk of voters weren't alive when Reagan or Goldwater made their impact on the political landscape. It's not just Latinos the Republicans need to court, but young voters, as well.