United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Are libertarian Republicans misreading the political climate?
Source:
theweek.com
URL Source: https://theweek.com/articles/828943 ... s-misreading-political-climate
Published: Mar 17, 2019
Author: W. James Antle III
Post Date: 2019-03-17 20:36:54 by Gatlin
Keywords: None
Views: 4072
Comments: 60
All it took was a noncommittal response to generate a little 2020 buzz. "I would never rule anything out," Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) told CNN's Jake Tapper earlier this month when asked if he would run for president as a libertarian. "That's not on my radar right now, but I think that it is important that we have someone in there who is presenting a vision for America that is different from what these two parties are presenting." Far from a declaration of candidacy, this was not a Shermanesque statement, either. "Sounds like a platform," Tapper replied when Amash talked about the principles that unite Americans. Despite President Trump's tax cuts, deregulation, and even criminal justice reform, it's generally been a frustrating time for libertarian Republicans like Amash. But if Democrats take the White House in 2020, Democratic overreach — and the backlash it triggers — will once again present libertarians with an opportunity to lead the GOP. Can they convince the party to follow? Trump isn't a limited-government true believer, and organizations from the Tea Party (which helped elect Amash) to the House Freedom Caucus (to which Amash belongs) seem to be filled with people who are more interested in rallying behind the president than cutting the federal government down to its constitutional size. Entitlement reform is out; tariffs and trade wars are in. The discretionary spending cuts in Trump's budget are dead on arrival; the deficit — once again nearing $1 trillion, this time under the GOP and a growing economy — is very alive. The Trump era has been especially frustrating for Amash. He's not drawn to nationalism or populism, much less partisan tribalism. He didn't like the appointment of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court or either of Trump's attorneys general. He doesn't see Trump as having made much progress ending the country's wars. "When some libertarians talk about the great accomplishments we're seeing on foreign policy, I don't know what they're talking about," Amash told The Washington Post last year. "Reaching out to these guys is one thing, but you have to move down the court. [Trump] actually made it harder for us to have a good relationship with Russia." The Post story was about how Amash was "marooned" in Congress. A more recent piece on CNN's website called him "the loneliest Republican" in the legislative branch. Thus the speculation he'll leave to take a flier on the Libertarian Party nomination in 2020. As gloomy as things now seem, another "libertarian moment" — the last one was just four or five years ago — could be on the horizon. Democrats no longer believe that the era of big government is over, as Bill Clinton professed. They increasingly want to expand Medicare to Americans under the age of 65, return to tax rates unseen since Ronald Reagan came to Washington, disrupt private health insurance more than ObamaCare did, and grow government in ways that imposes costs on middle-class voters as well as offer them benefits. And the Green New Deal will legitimately require trillions of dollars in new federal expenditures at a time when it is not clear how to responsibly keep the promises made by our existing welfare state. If — when — the Democrats retake the White House, Republicans are sure to once again get tough on fiscal conservatism (even if their overall motivation is more complicated), as they did in 1994 and 2010. Deficits will matter. But the GOP's government-cutting zeal usually fizzles out by the presidential election. Sometimes the revival of Republican political fortunes has faded by that time, too. That's a problem for strong fiscal conservatives like Amash. Trying to avoid the same fate as the Tea Party, or Newt Gingrich's Congresses, is probably a more productive use of one's time than vying with John McAfee for Libertarian Party presidential bragging rights. As a libertarian, Gary Johnson was a useful safety valve for voters who found their 2016 and 2020 presidential options unpalatable. But as a Republican, he was the two-term governor of New Mexico. As a libertarian, Ron Paul finished a very distant third in the 1988 race for the White House. As a Republican, he served 12 terms in Congress and even his losing presidential campaigns had much more influence. Still, there are undeniable challenges. Republicans now depend on the votes of people collecting Social Security and Medicare, receiving farm subsidies, and benefiting from Pentagon spending. Even some veterans of the Ron Paul campaign are questioning whether limited government is adequate to address the country's problems. So rather than exhorting Republicans to be more principled and less partisan, libertarians and constitutional conservatives would perhaps do well to grapple with the shallowness of their political appeal.
Poster Comment: Repeating for Empasis:
Even some veterans of the Ron Paul campaign are questioning whether limited government is adequate to address the country's problems. So rather than exhorting Republicans to be more principled and less partisan, libertarians and constitutional conservatives would perhaps do well to grapple with the shallowness of their political appeal.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Gatlin (#0)
Gatlin's statement of absurdity. Gatlin's absurd conclusion. Tater, you are an idiot.
Yep - it's pretty obvious Tater is on a drunken libertarian-bashing jihad again. This is the second long-winded screed he's posted. Could be he caught one of his grand kids wearing a Ron Paul T-shirt. libertarians and constitutional conservatives would perhaps do well to grapple with the shallowness of their political appeal. Well lookie here - Tater's disdain is not just towards libertarians - he hates constitutional conservatives as well. Tater, you are an idiot. That's being generous.
Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. Those are not my words, I made no such statement. Those are the words of W. James Antle III – Editor of The American Conservative and author of Devouring Freedom: Can Big Government Ever Be Stopped? That is not my conclusion, I made no such conclusion. That the conclusion of W. James Antle III – Editor of The American Conservative and author of Devouring Freedom: Can Big Government Ever Be Stopped? To use of an offensive name directed towards me when you lack information of substance to rebut a thesis presented by the author as a attempt to induce rejection or condemnation without objective consideration and presentation of rebuttal facts is analytically and rhetorically disastrous while also showing a definite lack of knowledge.
You are a fucking fool.
Nice attempt at obfuscation you disingenuous prick! When have you EVER posted an anti-libertarian article and NOT agreed with it?
Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. tater is slimy POS and offers nothing in value on LF. Why he is allowed to post is beyond me.
Making an abusive remark on or relating to one's person instead of providing evidence when examining the author’s claims or comments shows you to be a person of “no substance. If you had “substance” then you can identify your “libertarian foundation” in thought and feeling to defend it against any and all claims in the article. Furthermore, a person of “substance” not only knows what they think, believe and feel, they can also give reasons for why they think and feel as they do. Since you are absent in discussing against an identifiable premise by the author– you are therefore a person to be thought of as someone simply floating upon the glimmering ocean of life with no anchor or definite purpose or any ability to tell others what is wrong in the article. Deckard, you post is shallow and you have no substance. Ergo, your personal attack is noted as an admitted failure by you. Now please respond to the article and stop your personal attack on me – Which again displays your lack of substance.
Lets remind you about what you stated: Either you are an airhead or goddamed liar
I simply stated the quotes that Bucky used were not mine. The quotes were those words used by the author. There was NO attempt at any obfuscation by me and neither was I being disingenuous in any way. Had you had asked me DIRECLY if I agreed with the author instead of AGAIN making a presumptive conclusion I would have answered you. Sonny boy, you need to stop using presumptive conclusions and start addressing things STRAIGHT on. Now, Please address the article and cease attacking me because you have “no substance” …
I did no “state” that – the author “stated” that. I merely and clearly identified what the AUTHOR stated to make especially sure he was carefully understood. Did you not understand him? If you failed to understand any of this, then it is your problem … Now, can you please address the article. The article is about a stupid libertarian which you CANNOT defend and therefore you can only personally attack me. Now, please address and discuss the article …
Is Amash right – Do some libertarians not know what they’re talking about? If yes, then why – If no, then why not?
You added your EMPHASIS about the author's article; your personal thoughts are contained in the article you posted. You are a dumb fuck.
Why would “President Trump's tax cuts, deregulation, and even criminal justice reform, [nr] generally […] a frustrating time for libertarian Republicans like Amash? Come on, “you big libertarians” –Answer the one you call and “idiot” and dispute the statement that Libertarian Republicans are becoming frustrated, if they are. And tell me, please, how does a frustrated “Libertarian Republican” feel?
As a libertarian, have you been ESPECIALLY frustrated? Come on, stop with the name calling and participate in discussing the article. You too, Deckard – or have you “no substance” and given up?
Hey, where are you? Let’s discuss the article….please.
Oh, no … Do you two think another “libertarian moment” could be on the horizon. By the way – how did the last “Ron Paul libertarian moment” work out for you?
What’s the matter? You two don’t want to discuss the article. You want to do as you always do – Which is to call names and hurl insults? Like libertarians are notoriously noted for doing. Shameful …
Is this really all you have to contribute …
Tater and GrandIsland are two of the biggest and most prodigious practitioners of this tactic. Then when someone fights back - Tater whines. The stench of his hypocrisy is nauseating. ...shows you to be a person of “no substance. He's also a master of Psychological projection, a defence mechanism in which the human ego defends itself against unconscious impulses or qualities by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others. For example, a person who is habitually rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude. It incorporates blame shifting.
Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. He's ready to crush Donnell & Beto O'Rourke too.
Is this really all you have to contribute? Discuss the ARTICLE, please ... Why can't you?
You unscrupulous ass! When have you EVER posted an anti-libertarian article and NOT agreed with it? You're not fooling anyone with your your tiny-fisted tantrums you fraudulent cow. The consensus here is that you are a pathetic, bleating sheep who deserves contempt and ridicule. Your egotistical self-aggrandizement and your lack of common courtesy and manners are simply disgusting.
Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. Is this really all you have to contribute? Discuss the ARTICLE, please ... Why can't you?
I am not interested in a “consensus here” … I am however interested in you discussing the article. Why can’t you?
I am trying to discuss this article. Can you please stop the personal attacks and discuss the article with me?
Bullshit!
Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. Now can we please discuss the article about Amash and libertarianism?
Bullshit! Test me….please….PLEASE. You can go first, or shall I? Let’s discuss the article. You have shown that you can make repeated personal attacks on me. Now show me how you can discuss this article …
And deservedly so. What a snowflake - you can dish it out, but when someone responds in kind, you whine like a little bitch.
Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen.
Is this really all you have to contribute? Discuss the ARTICLE, please ... Why can't you?
I am challenging you to do so. Why will you not?
I am begging. I am begging you to join me in discussing this artilc. Please….Please….Please.
Boring article. Boring discussion. Buckeroo misrepresenting what you said vs quoted. Buckeroo name calling Deckard doing some name calling from at the beginning. Offering opinions on Gatlin throughout.
Buckeroo name calling Deckard doing some name calling from at the beginning. Offering opinions on Gatlin throughout. Yes, I know. Thank you for your post. I am done here.
I have an interesting post coming up in 1 min
I will wait ..
He's posting another one of his tiresome anti-libertarian screeds and all I did was point that out to buckeroo. But what the heck - if you want to see him bash constitutional conservatives by agreeing with the author that they are "shallow' then that's your call. Guess you neo-cons gotta stick together. It's funny that you ignore Tater's perrsonal attacks on other threads - here he's pretending he wants a discussion when we all know his agenda.
Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. I had to come back after I see that you now attack Stone. Shame on you. There seems to be no end to your aggressive behavior. Angry forum posts are never a good idea. You should know that more often than not “posting your mind” can be a terrible thing. A study has shown that messages containing different emotions and spread across forums reveal that “anger is most detrimental and emotions like joy are most influential. Which indicates often that angry begets anger and it can spread quickly and broadly in a forum. The consequences of such angry posts can be dire. People have publicly disgraced themselves with embarrassment. Beware. You appear to have symptoms of the dreaded Libertarian Posting While Angry Syndrome [LPWAS] which is contagious to other libertarians and spreads quickly. Perhaps you should quarantine yourself for a lengthy period of time.
I didn't attack Stone you pompous ass. A study has shown... Yeah sure - once again you attempt to baffle with bullshit. Geesh - you really are full of yourself. People might like you more if you stopped your incessant, schoolmarm lecturing and talking down to others like you are king of the world. You appear to have symptoms of the dreaded Libertarian Posting While Angry Syndrome [LPWAS] which is contagious to other libertarians and spreads quickly. Perhaps you should quarantine yourself for a lengthy period of time. And once again your true agenda for posting this article comes shining through.
Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. Then you attacked Stone when you did your petty name-calling. You called him a neo-con. My God. Come on, Paultard. Learn to recognize your actions for what they are. Then stand up and take responsibility for them. It’s easy. If you don’t know how, then I will teach you. Then, there was this attack on Stone: And then…and then….you come up with this accusatory and unfounded charge against Stone: And hey, asshole, don’t you ever – EVER – try to classify you and Bucky as “constitutional conservatives” because you are not and probably never have been. You two are admittedly die-hard Ron Paul libertarians [aka Paultards] and everyone knows that. Furthermore, I was never bashing any “constitutional conservatives.” What was I doing? I was beating the holy hell out of two asshole Paultard libertarians. “And a fine job you were doing there kicking the shit out of them, Olllie.” Paraphrasing a Laurel and Hardy routine. And then you whined like a little baby when you said: What is it then? It’s a DEDICATED MISSION for me. You say “pretending?” Recall that I OPENELY CHALLENGED you on the occasions when you made that charge against me on the thread. I stated to you: “TEST ME.” That was a simple thing to do, but you cowardly ignored my CALL TO ARMS. I will close, saying: You are such a whiney little puke, Deckard. You need to mature and become a responsible person. Stop with the living in a make-believe world.
Comments (42 - 60) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Even some veterans of the Ron Paul campaign are questioning whether limited government is adequate to address the country's problems.
So rather than exhorting Republicans to be more principled and less partisan, libertarians and constitutional conservatives would perhaps do well to grapple with the shallowness of their political appeal.
#2. To: buckeroo (#1)
Gatlin's statement of absurdity.
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
#3. To: buckeroo (#1)
Gatlin's statement of absurdity.
Ahem … Even some veterans of the Ron Paul campaign are questioning whether limited government is adequate to address the country's problems.
Gatlin's absurd conclusion.
So rather than exhorting Republicans to be more principled and less partisan, libertarians and constitutional conservatives would perhaps do well to grapple with the shallowness of their political appeal.
Tater, you are an idiot.
#4. To: Gatlin (#3)
Repeating for Empasis [sic]:
#5. To: Gatlin, buckeroo (#3)
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
#6. To: Deckard (#5)
#7. To: Deckard (#2)
#8. To: Gatlin, Deckard (#7)
Making an abusive remark on or relating to one's person instead of providing evidence when examining the author’s claims or comments shows you to be a person of “no substance.
Repeating for Empasis [sic]: Even some veterans of the Ron Paul campaign are questioning whether limited government is adequate to address the country's problems. So rather than exhorting Republicans to be more principled and less partisan, libertarians and constitutional conservatives would perhaps do well to grapple with the shallowness of their political appeal.
#9. To: Deckard (#5)
Nice attempt at obfuscation you disingenuous prick! When have you EVER posted an anti-libertarian article and NOT agreed with it?
I never said that I did or did not agree with it.
#10. To: buckeroo (#8)
Lets remind you about what you stated …
… stated … Either you are an airhead or goddamed liar
I am neither – I am the person who recognizes that you have a problem with reading comprehension/
#11. To: Buckeroo, Deckard (#10)
"When some libertarians talk about the great accomplishments we're seeing on foreign policy, I don't know what they're talking about," Amash told The Washington Post last year.
#12. To: Gatlin (#10)
#13. To: buckero, Deckard (#12)
Despite President Trump's tax cuts, deregulation, and even criminal justice reform, it's generally been a frustrating time for libertarian Republicans like Amash.
#14. To: buckeroo, Deckard (#12)
The Trump era has been especially frustrating for Amash.
Do you feel the Trump era has been ESPECIALLY frustrating for a libertarian?
#15. To: Buckeroo, Deckard (#14)
Amash didn't like the appointment of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court or either of Trump's attorneys general.
Did either of you “fine and outstanding libertarians” have a problem with those appointments like the libertarian in the House did?
#16. To: Buckeroo, Deckard (#15)
As gloomy as things now seem, another "libertarian moment" — the last one was just four or five years ago — could be on the horizon.
… gasph …
#17. To: Buckeroo, Deckard (#16)
#18. To: buckeroo (#12)
… your personal thoughts are contained in the article you posted.
Nope. I was never quoted in the article I posted. The author did request an interview with me. You are a dumb fuck.
Why do you continue to call me names?
#19. To: buckeroo (#8)
Making an abusive remark on or relating to one's person instead of providing evidence when examining the author’s claims or comments
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
#20. To: Gatlin, *2020 The Likely Suspects* (#16)
Justin Amash 2020 !!!!!!!!!
#21. To: Deckard (#19)
(Edited)
#22. To: Gatlin, buckeroo (#9)
There was NO attempt at any obfuscation by me and neither was I being disingenuous in any way.
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
#23. To: Deckard (#22)
#24. To: Deckard (#22)
The consensus here ...
#25. To: Deckard (#22)
You're not fooling anyone …
I am not trying to fool anyone.
#26. To: Gatlin (#25)
I am trying to discuss this article.
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
#27. To: Deckard (#22)
… bleating sheep who deserves contempt and ridicule.
You have shown contempt and tried to ridicule me already.
#28. To: Deckard (#26)
am trying to discuss this article.
#29. To: Gatlin (#27)
(Edited)
You have shown contempt and tried to ridicule me already.
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
#30. To: Deckard (#22)
When have you EVER posted an anti-libertarian article and NOT agreed with it?
Irrelevant and immaterial….Let’s discuss this article.
#31. To: Deckard (#29)
#32. To: Deckard (#29)
… when someone responds in kind …
Please KINDLY respond to the article.
#33. To: Deckard (#29)
… you whine like a little bitch.
I am not whining now.
#34. To: Gatlin (#31)
#35. To: A K A Stone (#34)
Buckeroo misrepresenting what you said vs quoted.
#36. To: Gatlin (#35)
#37. To: A K A Stone (#36)
#38. To: A K A Stone (#34)
(Edited)
Deckard doing some name calling from at the beginning.
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
#39. To: Deckard (#38)
#40. To: Gatlin (#39)
(Edited)
I had to come back after I see that you now attack Stone.
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
#41. To: Deckard (#40)
I didn't attack Stone you pompous ass.
Sure you did. Many times you don’t know what you are doing, or what you did. This is just another one of those times. You attacked Stone when you blatantly accused him of showing partiality. I have never seen Stone do that anywhere. If you have, then please link to it. Guess you neo-cons gotta stick together.
You flipped that at him as if neo-con is slam when a neocon is someone who does agree politically with conservative ideas – and ahem – including free market capitalism. Libertarians tend to clash with neocons on issues of foreign policy. But then libertarians clash with everything except their own ideas. Why libertarians even clash with the ideas of other libertarians. True? Of course it is. Oh, faith in the free market is definitely one important belief of neocons. Even more important is their support of interventionism. Something you narrow- minded libertarians seem to hate for reasons you can’t explain. Neocons support actively promoting democracy around the world while you libertarians act like little children with your “Ha-Ha we have it, but you all can’t have it” with a selfish and baby-like attitude. … if you want to see him bash constitutional conservatives …
Stone didn’t “want to see” anything. He merely intervened – which he had the absolute right to do as owner of the forum – because he saw the thread going nowhere and decided to bring it to a close. Mommy, mommy, he's posting another one of his tiresome anti-libertarian screeds and all I did was point that out to buckeroo. [Okay, so I added the “mommy, mommy” because you made it sound like that was who you were crying out to].
And I know you are lots of things to Bucky, but when did you ever become Bucky’s “seeing eye dog?” I know that Bucky is blind to facts, but I never knew that you thought Bucky to be so blind that you had to point out an OBVIOUS ACTUALLY to Bucky. Nah, Deckard. Bucky needs no seeing eye dog. But you can continue to be his lap dog. I believe he likes that. It's funny that you ignore Tater's personal attacks on other threads –
Deckard, what’s funny is your mischaracterization of Stone. [And btw, that was a personal attack on Stone whether you can see it or not – and you obviously did not since you stated you never made one]. Stone wiped out perhaps 20 of my posts attacking you on another thread. Selective memory is another you’re your foul libertarian traits. … here he's pretending he wants a discussion when we all know his agenda.
Bashing libertarians and exposing the faults in the philosophy is not, and has never been, my “agenda.”
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]