Patrick Hynes has this to add to the debate over the relationship between conservatives and libertarians: “If we are all agreed that the libertarians need the conservatives a whole lot more than the conservatives need the libertarians, the question then becomes, and I mean this with all respect: Shouldn’t the libertarians just sit down and shut up?”
Well, because some of us actually care about our political principles more than the Republican Party’s electoral success, I’d say the answer is no.
Now, Hynes could argue that this is foolish, that since the Republican Party’s success is most likely to bring about policies in line with our principles we should — yes, sit down and shut up.
But the current direction of the Republican Party doesn’t give libertarians any reason to believe that their principles are best served by the GOP. In fact, by contributing to its continued political success, we may well be aiding and abetting Big Government Conservatism — a “God-and-gubmint” coalition — in taking over the country.
Now is not the time for silence, as the statist elements in the Republican Party work to consolidate power.
Also, both David Brooks and James Taranto make the point that the Republican Party is succeeding because it’s a big tent, whereas the Democrats want to purge undesirables. The point here seems to be that no one should worry about a “conservative crack up” because there have always been, should be, always will be tensions within the conservative coalition.
Again, fine. But no one’s arguing for a purge. People are arguing about the proper direction for the Republican Party to move in — and some of us are disturbed by what we see.
Does this mean libertarians should leave the party? I don’t know. I don’t think they’ve done all they can yet to try to exert influence from within the party. The existence of the Libertarian Party is a failure in this regard — the party’s a joke, and just drains resources away from our becoming a stronger wing of the GOP. I’ve also argued repeatedly that libertarians have brought discredit upon themselves by not seriously engaging the War on Terror, leaving themselves isolated along with the MoveOn left.
The libertarians are to blame for their own political impotence. But that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t now find a way to assert themselves.
I could never vote for a Dem, simply because they speak of “rights”. To a leftist, rights are positive rights, and emanate from government action. So my “right” is always someone else’s duty. The “right to free speech” as imagined by a liberal obligates me to pay for a printing press for (insert squeaky wheel group here).
The libertarian view is that rights are negative. They are the boundary beyond which the state may not cross, and the territory in which we cease to be superfluous.
I could never vote for anyone who believes in positive rights.
Maybe you should try changing the platform (i.e. SELLING YOUR IDEAS) instead of bitching, whining, being “disurbed” and threatening to leave.
- a libertarian Republican who wouldn’t mind seeing whiner doctrinaires like you hit the road
So libertarians are unhappy with the current direction of the Republican party, which I can understand. Social conservatives are definitely unhappy; for all this uproar about Big Government Conservatism, I sure don’t see any actual results that should make us happy. What exactly have social conservatives gotten aout of the Bush administration other than a lot of talk?
Who in the current Republican coalition is actually getting anything they want?
MattJ,
The issue of whether or not they are accomplishing anything in general can be discussed separately. I think the issue for some of us on the libertarian/economic conservative side is that, regardless of what’s _actually_ accomplished, all of the attention and energy seems to be going into on block’s social agenda. The key example for me being that emergency Sunday session where everyone flew back into Washington to vote on Terri Shiavo. Why aren’t there any such emergency sessions called by the President on Social Security or tax reform? You’d think that for every NCLB or prescription drug benefit that’s passed you at least might try and get rid of just one dinky little government program somewhere….
“But that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t now find a way to assert themselves.”
Two currently forming examples of such:
DailyPundit’s attempt at a “moveon.org” for the libertarian wing of the GOP: http://www.dailypundit.com/all/
and the second is the Neo-Libertarian Network:
http://www.neolibertarian.net/
I’m sure there are other examples, but those are the most recent ones. I’ve also been looking at bits of the Republican Liberty Caucus and Club for Growth. The RLC doesn’t seem to be doing much in terms of raising money and generating influence but it does have a more local presense so it affects the state legislatures as well. I can’t figure out the Club for Growth’s stance on civil liberties though so I’m still cautious.
I think our small-L libertarian voices need to be heard if we want to make any impact on the Republican party.
Ryan, you’re doing a great job on covering this topic. Keep it up. If we don’t out our frustrations, our concerns will be bulldozed.
I agree with you about the general condition of the Libertarian party- they’re not pragmatic, and tend towards zealousness. The Big-L Libertarians have been working for 30 years on creating their own party rather than influencing the Republicans- where they find a natural niche. If they focused on achieving pragmatic results they’d put their full support behind the Republicans, but as it is- they’re satisfied to act as spoilers in close elections.