Primative Weapons
See other Primative Weapons Articles
Title: Libertarians Are Taking Over The Republican Party
Source:
The Daily Caller
URL Source: http://dailycaller.com/2015/01/15/l ... ing-over-the-republican-party/
Published: Jan 16, 2015
Author: W. James Antle III
Post Date: 2015-01-17 00:08:54 by Hondo68
Keywords: Libertarian Republicans, come to an accommodation, national aspirational message
Views: 106393
Comments: 144
Former Michigan Republican Rep. Thaddeus McCotter says his party’s future belongs to the libertarians.
It’s a message McCotter has been spreading in interviews and to anyone who’ll listen. He’s even laid out his case in a smart book, “Liberty Risen: The Ultimate Triumph of Libertarian-Republicans, where he claims libertarians even have something to say to the Budweiser-drinking, boxer-wearing, pro-life, Boston sheet metal worker.
Most Republicans who hype the libertarian moment are libertarians themselves. Not McCotter. He is a Russell Kirk-quoting social conservative. “I’m not a libertarian,” he jokes. “I just play one on TV.” But while fellow social conservatives like Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum slam libertarianism, McCotter believes the GOP will find a way to integrate libertarian activists who care about government surveillance the way it once assimilated evangelical Christians who cared about abortion.
“When I was still in Congress I noticed younger Republicans saying, ‘I am a conservative, but I’m libertarian on some issues,’” McCotter told The Daily Caller. “They hadn’t grown up with Reagan and seen how [conservatism] had worked. All they had seen was the decline of the Republican Party.”
“Now if you read your Russell Kirk, you can’t be both a libertarian and a conservative at the same time,” he added. “But America being what it is, you can be whatever you want.”
In the past, Republicans might have used “libertarian” as a codeword for moderate. Arlen Specter, for example, liked to describe himself as an “economic-fiscal conservative and a social libertarian.” But libertarian is no longer a Republican euphemism.
“Moderate Republicans would like Common Core,” McCotter told TheDC. “Libertarian Republicans wouldn’t like it.”
According to McCotter, the shift isn’t just political and generational. It’s mainly cultural. “The 21st century doesn’t operate top down,” he said. “You wouldn’t let someone else program your iPod. Why let a top-down bureaucracy choose your health care?” The consumer-driven, highly personalized economy will eventually have an impact on a bureaucracy mostly designed in the distant past. He quotes Andrew Breitbart as saying, “Politics is downstream from culture.”
The Libertarian Party won’t go away, he said, but libertarians who actually want to govern will do so as Republicans, like presidential candidate and former 12-term Texas Rep. Ron Paul, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul and Michigan Rep. Justin Amash.
Libertarian Republicans can come to an accommodation with social conservatives, McCotter said — note that all of the above libertarian GOPers are pro-life. Even when they disagree on the substance of a social issue, he argued they can agree federal judges shouldn’t be the final arbiters of morality. He also believes “the failure of the neoconservative movement and even some of the realist movement” and a “war-weary” country gives libertarians an opening on foreign policy by appealing to voters who want to “crush the terrorist threat there without creating a government threat here.”
That doesn’t necessarily mean Rand Paul will be the next Republican presidential nominee, however. “2016 may be too soon,” McCotter told TheDC. “In many ways, Senator Paul has an advantage in that his father was the pioneer, in other ways it’s a disadvantage.”
“Libertarian Republicans need a national aspirational message,” McCotter said. “That’s hard to do, because libertarians are so individualistic.” Purist libertarians will resist, but liberals and conservatives aren’t immune to infighting over ideological points themselves.
If Rand Paul did win the nomination, McCotter doubts many Republicans who disagree with him would sit out the race. He noted the tight 2008 Democratic contest in which Barack Obama upset Hillary Clinton, concluding, “They kept their eyes on the prize, which is the presidency.”
Poster Comment:
Mittards will be assimilated
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 52.
#7. To: hondo68, TEA Party Reveler, sneakypete, Dead Culture Watch (#0)
Great line, factual concept.
I love the way the alleged Republican/alleged conservative Party People rant and rave about "Libertarians" being anarchists,while claiming THEY follow the Founding Fathers. The Founding Fathers for the most part WERE Libertarians. Otherwise we would have never had a Bill of Rights or a Republic. They have no idea how hypocritical they sound ranting about "deys to mucha dat freedum stuff going on out dare wid dem dam Libertarians" while calling themselves conservatives. In THIS country to be a conservative means you ARE a Libertarian.
Hamilton and a few others were Big Gov advocates, to build things like the Erie Canal (failure) and the intercontinental railroad (to use Obola's term).
How does wanting to build efficient transport system that improve commerce and make Americans lives mean they weren't Libertarians?
The Canal was recognized as a failure less than a decade after it was built. An early Big Gov failure. Similarly, the transcontinental railroad project failed several times before it was finally complete. The process was as much accident as design and a lot of mistakes were made. Those with a more libertarian bent would have more doubts about these projects and would look for more ways to accomplish these same goals through the private sector. Another failure of the early era was the Pony Express. We are taught about these early projects but not of their failures. Generally, you would conclude from their treatment in standard histories as though these were all blazing successes when they were anything but.
It's still being used all these decades later. Doesn't sound like a failure to me. Similarly, the transcontinental railroad project failed several times before it was finally complete. Mostly or totally due to political corruption and selling favors for kickbacks. The people involved had no interest in finishing on budget or on time because that would cut their cash flow off. The process was as much accident as design and a lot of mistakes were made. See the above. Those with a more libertarian bent would have more doubts about these projects and would look for more ways to accomplish these same goals through the private sector. Is that a fancy way of saying there would have been even more corruption and pay-offs,and it would have NEVER gotten built? Fact it,you want to live in theoretical perfect Libertarian anarchist world where nobody is in charge and everything works. This world doesn't exist and will never exist,because like communism it goes against human nature.
That's ridiculous. The economic demand would have created it more efficiently but at a slower pace via the private market.
LReally? Who would have been in charge? I can answer that. It would have been the Railroad barons and they would have created a monopoly so they controlled all the traffic and collected all the money. The result would have been no small businessman would have been able to afford the shipping fees and the barons would have bought them out after they went bankrupt and created other monopolies. The result of that would have been higher prices for everything that traveled on the canal.
So you imagine, never taking account of how canal shippers used government largesse to dominate their own market, may have actually bought out competitors with their profits, as compared to you merely making up this scenario of the evil railroad barons who might have engaged in monopolistic practices if the Canal had not been built. Why are railroad barons so bad but canal barons are so good? You're doing a reverse-Willie here. The railroad barons benefited from heavy Big Gov subsidy exactly as the canal barons did.
#57. To: TooConservative, sneakypete (#52)
I'm afraid you pinged me too late to the discussion because I can't follow along with all the different points that you two have been batting back & forth. So regarding the topic of this thread about "Libertarians taking over the Republican Party": let me first say that "hijack" is a better word than "taking over". And unlike McCotter, I have no intention of sharing a Big Tent and sleeping bag with those morally and ethically bankrupt vermin. Now I'm not gonna get into a length discussion of the difference between a big "L" and small "l" libertarian, nor the difference between a left-leaning or a right-leaning libertarian. I AM however, refering to those who can be accurately described as neo-confederate Birchers. I'm afraid I simply find their extremist worldview to be morally objectionable and reprehensible.
I can't believe you can take a honest look at history and then write such nonsense. First off,it was a LACK of government control that allowed the robber barons to steal so much land from citizens and steal so much money from the government itself. Secondly,the corruption involved in the Erie Canal was a mud puddle compared to the ocean of corruption it would have been without the government getting involved. The disputes between the counties and states alone would have led to armed insurrection,and it would have never been completed in your dream anarchist world. NO theory of government is worth a damn that doesn't take human nature into consideration.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#9. To: Deckard, Y'ALL (#7)
Libertarians are diligently plotting to take over the world, (in order) to leave you alone.
#10. To: tpaine (#9)
#11. To: sneakypete (#10)
The Founding Fathers for the most part WERE Libertarians.
#16. To: TooConservative (#11)
Hamilton and a few others were Big Gov advocates, to build things like the Erie Canal (failure) and the intercontinental railroad (to use Obola's term).
#22. To: sneakypete (#16)
How does wanting to build efficient transport system that improve commerce and make Americans lives mean they weren't Libertarians?
#40. To: TooConservative (#22)
The Canal was recognized as a failure less than a decade after it was built. An early Big Gov failure.
#49. To: sneakypete (#40)
Is that a fancy way of saying there would have been even more corruption and pay-offs,and it would have NEVER gotten built?
#51. To: TooConservative (#49)
That's ridiculous. The economic demand would have created it more efficiently but at a slower pace via the private market.
#52. To: sneakypete, Willie Green (#51)
(Edited)
The result would have been no small businessman would have been able to afford the shipping fees and the barons would have bought them out after they went bankrupt and created other monopolies.
Replies to Comment # 52. You're doing a reverse-Willie here.
#60. To: TooConservative (#52)
Why are railroad barons so bad but canal barons are so good?
End Trace Mode for Comment # 52.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]