Home › Blogs › chemjeff's blog ›

Response to Mr. Moran: GOP != LP

Submitted by chemjeff on Sat, 01/24/2009 - 22:51
in

In response to Mr. Moran's thoughtful essay: If you are so thoroughly disgusted with social conservatives that you wish to see them leave the party, I have good news for you: there is no need to actually do any purging.  Because a political party founded on libertarian ideals, free of the oogedy-boogedy SoCons, already exists.  It is the Libertarian Party.  But, if you think that there is some merit to some of the social conservative ideas, AND if you are willing to show social conservatives a bit of respect, then you should stay put and try to make the marriage work.

Here are my thoughts.  I see the Republican Party style of conservatism to be a more enlightened form of libertarianism than that which the Libertarian Party offers.  The Libertarians are big on individual liberty.  This is a good thing.  But the Republican Party goes beyond this; it tries to construct a moral framework that attempts to guarantee the future preservation of this individual liberty.  That is to say, it recognizes that individual liberty can only really prosper in an environment that is respectful towards liberty in general.  I believe this is the great value that social conservatism brings to the Republican Party.  It reminds us that libertarianism can quickly descend into libertine-ism if the people are not prepared to accept the responsibilities as well as enjoy the benefits of liberty.  So rather than viewing libertarianism and social conservatism as warring parties forcibly bound together by a Big Tent, I tend to view them as complementary parts of a larger whole.

So rather than having one side kick out the other, I believe a better strategy is to more tightly integrate the two; to more clearly demonstrate the complementarity.  So when it comes to abortion, for instance, we have to not only play up the immorality of it, but also persuade people that legal abortion really is not consistent with a society that values the dignity and worth of every individual.  That's not a religious argument, that is a secular libertarian-esque argument.  When it comes to something like sex education in schools, sure social conservatives will in general be opposed to anything but abstinence-only education, because anything else doesn't reflect their values.  That's not an unreasonable argument.  The libertarian angle might be to support devolution of power over education away from the federal government, and to support competition among schools so that parents have choice over what kind of values education they want their children to receive.  It's a win-win: the social conservatives get to have their desired form of sex education in their schools, and the libertarians get to have a free-market approach to education.

But, honest people can have honest disagreements over issues, and especially in a party that values individualism way more than the other party, those disagreements are going to tend to be larger.  We have to remember, though, that we are all on the same team.  So if a libertarian conservative can't find it within him/herself to oppose abortion, I'd expect social conservatives to be politely respectful of that fact.  However - and here's the important part - if a social conservative finds the greatest justification for his/her views in Scripture, I'd expect the libertarian conservative ALSO to be politely respectful.  From what I see currently, though, the respect is not a two-way street.  The wise and educated libertarian conservatives, with their enlightened views on abortion, are to be looked up to; while the social conservatives, with their crazy Biblical views, are to be looked down upon.  This has got to stop.  If libertarian conservatives do find some value in social conservatism at all, then libertarian conservatives shouldn't throw them under the bus whenever they get embarrassing.

But, if you can't stand doing that, if you really do think SoCons are a bunch of uneducated rubes, then you should join the Libertarian Party.

5
Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

Comments

The converse applies too.

Submitted by jesdynf on Sun, 01/25/2009 - 01:25.

If you *are* disgusted with the oogedy-boogedy, maybe it's time to jump ship.

The Protestant culture wars cost money and lives.

Chapter 6 of 1 Corinthians brought us three in only twenty ill-chosen verses -- both comings of Prohibition and the War on Hookers. All three represent government intrusion in the lives of consenting adults; all three have far-reaching consequences that are still playing out.

The Mafia and the coming collapse of Mexico are the prizes in the cereal box of the Wars on Drugs -- you can't operate a billion-dollar, regime-toppling criminal enterprise without money.

Even better than that, though, is what the laws about prostitution have brought us. Human trafficking -- in this day and age! It's hard to imagine. It seems that the big money is in young girls. It enrages me. The industry could self-regulate that crap out of existence in about a week if regular old prostitution -- the kind that doesn't involve fourteen-year-old girls -- was legal and the brothels could cooperate with the cops.

But our taxes pay to keep demand low and supply high. It's like finding the worst, most evil men in the world, and writing them enormous checks. Every day.

Wave your hands and talk about being scared of "oogedy-boogedy" all you like. THIS is social conservatism -- it has nothing to do with limited government. It is the direct, literal opposite. It's entire focus and thrust is to enshrine into law the book of Leviticus. It must be stopped, and it will be stopped.

The only question is whether or not it's going to take any effective, fiscally conservative voice -- whether it's going to take *your* voice -- down with it.

(A postscript: You want to talk about abortion? I've observed that abortion doesn't fall under the mental category of "murder" -- sucks, but it doesn't. Abortion seems to fall under "sex, life, and reproductive rights". So when you tell somebody your views on abortion, no matter if you say it's evil or it's murder or whatever, the worth of your words is evaluated in the context of your other words on sex, and life, and reproductive rights.

In other words, if you (a general "you", chemjeff, not necessarily including you) are spouting abstinence-only oh-no-teh-gays whargarbl, nobody's going to be convinced any of your other words are worth something. More to the point, maybe it's time to make some sacrifices. Do you want to be taken seriously about abortion? Or do you want to be scared of sixteen-year-old girls who know where to buy condoms?

It's awful hard for a Libertarian to worry too much about the latter scenario. Wouldn't it be nice to devote all your energy to convincing people that a pile of dead babies is a bad thing? ESPECIALLY IF THIS PILE WAS SIGNIFICANTLY SMALLER BECAUSE YOU STOPPED SCREWING AROUND WITH THE FLOW OF INFORMATION AND RESOURCES TO THE PEOPLE WHO DESPERATELY DON'T WANT TO BE PREGNANT IN THE FIRST PLACE?

Sorry. Got carried away there.)

two points about social conservatism

Submitted by chemjeff on Sun, 01/25/2009 - 16:17.

Wave your hands and talk about being scared of "oogedy-boogedy" all you like. THIS is social conservatism -- it has nothing to do with limited government. It is the direct, literal opposite. It's entire focus and thrust is to enshrine into law the book of Leviticus. It must be stopped, and it will be stopped.

Two points for you to ponder.

1. Can an ideal libertarian, limited-government world sustainably exist in the absence of strong moral values by the people?  I submit that the answer is no, and here's why.  If you have a system in which the government is only minimally involved in the lives of its citizens, but a great number of citizens opportunistically take advantage of that liberty by infringing upon the rights of everyone around them, then it's only a matter of time before those citizens who do respect rights demand that their government "do something about it", if for no other reason than for self-defense and defense of their rights.  This can only lead to growth of the state and a greater amount of government interference in our lives, farther and farther away from the libertarian ideal.  By contrast, if only a few individuals behave in such an odious manner, then calls for government action won't enjoy the same level of support as the number of incidents are relatively few.  So IMO it behooves libertarian-minded individuals to support strong moral values among the population.

2. It is quite unfair to characterize social conservatives as wanting nothing more than to impose Leviticus on everyone.  That is the Democrats' and MSM's characterization of the oogedy-boogedy SoCons.  I implore you to consider a much broader view of social conservatism, as appealing to traditional, time-honored ways of doing things.  It is, essentially, a type of traditionalist conservatism or reactionary conservatism.

There. Right there.

Submitted by jesdynf on Sun, 01/25/2009 - 20:13.

It does indeed behoove libertarians to support strong morals. We're all in this together, after all.

But what does this have to do with social conservatives? Are you saying that the Protestant splinter of the Catholic Church — and they alone — have the strong moral sense necessary for society?

You don't need God to know right from wrong. You can be guided by God, if you like. But the entire thrust of my response was that when you use God to tell *me* what right and wrong is, you start screwing up pretty badly.

The abortion issue has reached a point of social irrelevance.

Submitted by artigiano on Sun, 01/25/2009 - 08:56.

I'm not going to argue for or against abortion rights. I just want to point out some indisputable chronological facts. Roe v. Wade is nearly 40 years old. That means that two generations have now lived and grown to sexual maturity in a country and culture where abortions are safe and legal. Even those who consider themselves staunchly pro-life have lived their entire lives knowing that abortion was an available option.

Due to biology, at around 45-50 years of age pregnancy ceases to become a real concern for all women. My point being that we are damn near, already at, or slightly past, the point where every person who could conceivably have an abortion has never lived a day in a culture where it was not available.

We are at a point where pro-life arguments are simply irrelevant. Continuing to beat a dead horse already makes conservatives look silly and out of touch with reality. And it will only get worse if they keep fighting as the years go by. If it were 1979, I'd say go ahead and admirably fight the good fight with all your gusto. But it is 2009, and right or wrong Roe is still the law. At some point one has to recognize a futile effort becomes an image problem in terms of priorities.

Roe was reaffirmed as precedent in Casey v. Planned Parenthood. And Roe itself calls upon Griswold v. Conneticut as a prior precedent. My point is Roe is esconsced firmly within the entirity of case law in this area. Control of all branches of government by conservative Republicans could not easily remove it at this point. In fact, many strategists  and politicians will freely admit, off the record, in private, that Roe will never be overturned and the issue only exists today as an easy way to fire up a large segment of gullible voters.

I have noticed that any thread on this board about abortion quickly rises to triple digits in comments. While other far more productive avenues languish without much notice. I don't know why I'm even bothering to point all this out. Because, as a liberal the last thing I should do when my conservative friends are digging a hole is offer to hold the shovel for a while. So just ignore the above, and remain as you were. Sorry for the intrusion. Nothing to see here. Please move along.

Only 10% of Americans want an all out ban on abortion

Submitted by NextRightNando on Sun, 01/25/2009 - 10:39.

/www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

Much truth in what you write

Submitted by Rick Moran on Sun, 01/25/2009 - 14:22.

I would like to correct a misperception you might have had with my article - that I support kicking the socons - even the splenetic variety - out of the party.

A short quote:

Ridding ourselves of these meddlesome and problematic screamers is not the issue. Opening their minds to the possibilities of compromise is a useless exercise - not when they see compromise as apostasy deserving of excommunication. Attempting to marginalize them would be playing their game. Besides, cutting off one's legs as a way to heal the body is a strange way of reforming the movement. There must be a place for them at the conservative table - even if they have to be strapped down and force fed some hard truths about the exigencies of power and how futile their campaign to purify the movement when it comes to the raw exercise of democracy at the ballot box.

I may not have been as clear as I should have been but my point is that there should be room for everybody.

But first, everyone - libertarians included - have to respect the right of others to have divergent opinions. With exceptions, I find this is much more true from where I sit than where the splenetic conservatives live. Those libertarians who want to "cut off the legs" of the party to save the whole are just as wrongheaded as those who think a series of litmus tests for membership in the conservative club is necessary.

Sorry if I didn't make that more clear. And thanks for your civil response.

Thanks

Submitted by chemjeff on Sun, 01/25/2009 - 16:44.

And I'm sorry for any confusion as well.  Thanks for the acknowledgement.  I think we need a lot more of these types of conversations, as IMO it does the conservative cause no good if we continue to think of each other as individual fragments only.  We are on the same team and the more we can find commonality the better.

Compromise is no sin.

Submitted by artigiano on Sun, 01/25/2009 - 19:14.

It seems Mr. Moran is onto something when he calls for strapping the socons down and waterboarding them into reality. The Socons, and so many others in the GOP have an all or nothing attitude when it comes to legislation. And in our republic that attitude results in you getting nothing.

Liberals and moderates are not going away. In fact, there are more and more of them every year according to recent polls. Their views are just as valid, and just as "Real American" as any Socons. Any legislation is by definition going to be a compromise where we all walk away with half a loaf, and feel grateful to have accomplished that much.

No planks in the vaunted 1994 Contract With America are current law. The reason is Newt and company saw compromise as surrender. As much as the current GOP venerates the memory of Saint Ronnie, they never seem to see his overarching pragmatism as a virtue. Reagan worked with Tip O'Neil to accomplish goals they could both live with and be proud of.

The modern GOP would do well to emulate that example if they ever want to sniff power again.

 

Compromise with the guys in charge now

Submitted by Ironman on Sun, 01/25/2009 - 20:20.

Has all the upside of caddying for some swells at some famous club, and then being told the honor of walking the course and lugging the bags is reward enough.  Meanwhile, they play their rounds without any lifting or parting with anything of value. Indeed, if they do have a poor round, now they have a caddy to blame.  

Folks like that can usually find someone pathetic enough to sign up to do this. I, for one, have too much respect to get played.     

Pathetic?

Submitted by artigiano on Sun, 01/25/2009 - 22:00.

Let's take it in reverse. Your buddy who is a regular part of your weekend foursome never breaks 80. He skips a weekend and comes back the next and shoots a 78. You figure it's a fluke. The next week he comes in and shoots a 76. The following week he posts a 77.

Finally, you ask him about his recent hot streak. He tells you about his "pathetic" experience of four Saturdays ago when he got to caddy a round for a top PGA pro. Your buddy having no experience caddying at this level of play was essentially along for the ride. The pro has to play the round and act as his own caddy. Your buddy is nothing more than a human bag cart.

But he gets an upclose intensive master class. And gets enough out of humbling himself to come back to the foursome and kick ass on you and your proud buddies who would never debase themselves in a similar fashion. In fact, I'll bet your buddy would be on a waiting list to repeat the pathetic experience as soon as possible.

If you want a similar story about humbling yourself, to improve yourself, read the chapter of Audacity of Hope where Obama talks about his early days in the US Senate.

really!!?!

Submitted by Ironman on Sun, 01/25/2009 - 22:08.

No, this guy wasn;t told jack about the strategy used, and when the touring pro lost the event, he called out his caddy  to the press and blamed him for poor club selections as the reason for the defeat.

I haven;t read Obama's book, but considering he started running for President as soon as he got to Washington, I'm sure the chapter about the U.S. Senate is really, really short.

 The Republican party would be well advised to stay as far away from the impending economic train wreck as possible. I'm sure Obama's successful track record reviving the declining economy of his south side Chicago district will be brought fully to bear on our national problems, and will prove to be just as effective. So, he really doesn;t need our advice, now does he?