Calling All Libertarians and True Republicans

Forums: Philosophy, Philosophy Of Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Now that Obama has won the U.S. election, as all reasonable people have long assumed he would, by landslide nonetheless, what will be the future of the conservative movement? I myself am almost as opposed to republican policy as democratic, both because of the Right's reliance on 'values voters' and because of the complete betrayal of the libertarian principles of the party, which have been degrading since the reign of FDR. Personally, I think the republican party should be allowed to die; we need a new party and a new name. That is unlikely to happen however, so I think the Rep. will have two choice; to become more similiar to the left, as they have done gradually in recent decades, losing their identity altogether, or to thoroughly dissososciate themselves from those policies and build a platform based on libertarian principles. The current model cannot last and cannot be successful any longer it would seem. If there are any true republicans left (no pun intended), I reccomend that they reform themselves, eject the corrupting influences, centrists, neocons, evangelicals, etc, accept a minority role for a party that truly deserves the name republican, and gradually rebuild their image. Inviting the libertarians, constitutionalists and others of similiar bent to a party meeting, to discuss merger of some kind, might not be a bad idea either.

I think this is the last chance for we libertarians or republicans; if the party ressumes its bad habits after this election, which, though ugly for us, is a great opportunity, I say our day is done. The libertarians and other fringe parties can't do anything themselves; they need to join in a larger movement that can only begin with what remains of the true republican party.

Any thoughts? Any hope?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,843 • Replies: 23

No top replies

@BrightNoon,

Hopefully the GOP will realise that it needs to rethink its dependence upon a base that is becoming more and more irrelevant to modern thought, and cease to alienate Blacks, Hispanics, gays, and youth. If it doesn't, its hundred members will end up holding its conventions in the central hall of the Creationist Museum.

1 Reply

@jgweed,

The Republican party has never represented libertarians. Ever.

That said, the GOP is in trouble. If they plan to run Palin in '12, the party is doomed. BrightNoon, you're absolutely right to be worried about the party killing itself by over attachment to social conservatism. Palin, an extreme social conservative, would be a giant set back for the GOP.

Hopefully the party will move closer to Ron Paul. I'd like to see the GOP actually begin to represent some libertarian notions for once, instead of just making the claim. I like Paul for the GOP because he brings in so many young voters, much like Obama has done for the DNC.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Yea, I worry about Palin too. If you watched McCain's concession speach he made some comments about her continuing to serve 'not only Alaska but the nation:' very troubling. Ron Paul has indeed been unique amoung GOP candidates in his appeal to the young and his use of the internet. Early in the race, before Obama aqcuired his divinity, Paul had actually raised more money and organized more volunteers online than any candidate ever. However, I disagree that republicans have never represented libertarian principles, at least the economic, though that is now a distant memory. Herbert Hoover was probably the first to break decisively with the old laizze faire tradition, though Roosevelt did somewhat in his anti-trust activities. I think the rise, unspectacular as its been, of the libertarian and constitutionalists at alia has been the direct result of the corruption of the party in which they were once included and by which they were once represented. Of course, as we've debated in other threads, your right in the sense that an ideal libertarian system has never existed of been the platform of the GOP, but at one time, they were pretty close.

I wonder though, considering the demographics of the country, the media and the culture of progressivism, the principles of which are apparently no longer able to seriously criticized, if a republican party based on libertarian princples, and without the religious right or the hard core neocons, could even gather a sizable minority. When the house republicans turned down the first 'rescue package,' I thought I saw a glimmer of hope. But really, I think they acted because of the angry calls of constituents, who mostly were angry because they weren't getting the same kind of help as wallstreet!

Anyway, I guess we'll never know what potential this movement has until it can be disassociated from the GOP, which consumes all its energy, but fails to achieve anything in its interest.

1 Reply

@BrightNoon,

I think it is quite clear that at the national level, both the Democratic and Republican parties are for big government. They might as well just merge at this point and become the "new federalist party"; they can quibble over non-issues like abortion, gay marriage, who to tax more, and in what way to spend massive amounts of money. But a reform of the republican party will not help anything.

I do not think we will ever see real change in this country until one of the current big parties collapses altogether and a new one comes in, or until a third party (like the libertarian) can actually gain ground. This of course will probably not ever happen because the democratic and republican parties are in bed with corporate america, and there will never be enough funds to support a campaign for something like the libertarian movement, which fundamentally represents a decrease in the power of government, and thus a decrease in power of the politicians, interest groups, and corporations who gain from maintaining that power (and who will not financially support a political philosophy that works to the contrary).

I personally am an independent and don't give a damn about the republican party. I would say that I am generally libertarian/conservative on political issues, but in saying this I do not identify with most of the current values that are held by the republican party.

1 Reply

@BrightNoon,

There are two possibilities as I see it.

1. People become increasingly dissatisfied with the present parties and begin to flock towards alternate choices. Technology today has made grassroots and startup political movements more possible than ever, so I could see this happening. This causes either the parties to become more representative or alternative parties to become more prominent. In this case I welcome the ineptitude of the current political parties.

2. People become increasingly dissatisfied with the current state of affairs, but also become more and more terrified of the opposing candidates. I can see this in the republican party this year. Few really liked McCain, but thanks to conservative talking points, they also saw Obama as a socialistic anti-Christ. In this case it might be time to abandon this country and let them suffer under the bull**** system that it has earned.

1 Reply

@Pangloss,

Pangloss, we are in total agreement. Let me clarify; I despise the current GOP as much as the democratic party, perhaps more, as at least the democrats are honest about their goals. The only reason that I even suggest reforming the GOP, as opposed to creating a new party entirely, is that the GOP already has the needed fame and credibility (in terms of being able to actually win elections, unlike the libertarians). I think a new name might be in order though; could be as simple as The New Republican Party, just to make it known that change is come, but to retain some link with the 'heroic past.' I think this is unlikely of course. I hope that Obama is extremely liberal and passes all kinds of New New Deal legislation and that the GOP offers Sara Palin as their 2012 candidate, only because, hopefully, there will then be a rebelllion in the party, maybe a rival candidate, maybe Ron Paul...:sarcastic:

1 Reply

@Mr Fight the Power,

Mr. Fight the Power;31681 wrote:

In this case it might be time to abandon this country and let them suffer under the bull**** system that it has earned.

Unfortunately, the politicians at this level and the wealthy elite will prosper while everyone else suffers. There will not be a time to abandon this country, but I fear there may be a time not long off where the people will have to fall back on their 2nd amendment right to arm themselves and take back Washington in the only way that might be possible.

Then again, there was little outcry against the outright robbery that was the bailout bill...I wonder how many people have actually taken the time to read through it. If everyone in this country had done so, and had understood what they were reading, they might have taken to the streets in protest. But politics have become one of a million forms of entertainment for the masses, and people fail to notice what the man behind the curtain is doing as they stare in awe at the spectacle of it all.

2 Replies

@Pangloss,

I say the GOP never represented libertarian views because, even when the party was caught up in laissez faire ideas, instead of actually allowing the market to run it's course the GOP was nothing more than of paid lackeys representing bloated corporations. They were aggressive Social Darwinians more than anything else.

I do think a sizable minority can be organized under libertarian ideas. Those ideas would have to take on a progressive image, though. Libertarian populism, if that makes any sense. Paul, as you point out, was at one point far ahead of all other candidates as far as money and grassroots support is concerned. A large portion of his support coming from the youth shows that the future holds immense potential for libertarianism if marketed in the proper way.

Oh, and the Second Amendment is obsolete. The idea is that an armed population can rise up against the government - but how are shotguns and hunting rifles, or even automatic machine guns, going to stand up against tanks and modern aircraft. The Second Amendment no longer protects the people's ability to violently resist the government. It's a shame, too.

1 Reply

@BrightNoon,

BrightNoon wrote:

Pangloss, we are in total agreement. Let me clarify; I despise the current GOP as much as the democratic party, perhaps more, as at least the democrats are honest about their goals. The only reason that I even suggest reforming the GOP, as opposed to creating a new party entirely, is that the GOP already has the needed fame and credibility (in terms of being able to actually win elections, unlike the libertarians). I think a new name might be in order though; could be as simple as The New Republican Party, just to make it known that change is come, but to retain some link with the 'heroic past.' I think this is unlikely of course. I hope that Obama is extremely liberal and passes all kinds of New New Deal legislation and that the GOP offers Sara Palin as their 2012 candidate, only because, hopefully, there will then be a rebelllion in the party, maybe a rival candidate, maybe Ron Paul...:sarcastic:

You are only asking a sell-out party to sell-out again. A party of principle is needed, otherwise it will simply abandon libertarian principles when prudent. Unfortunately a party of principle can't exist.

0 Replies

@Pangloss,

Pangloss wrote:

Unfortunately, the politicians at this level and the wealthy elite will prosper while everyone else suffers. There will not be a time to abandon this country, but I fear there may be a time not long off where the people will have to fall back on their 2nd amendment right to arm themselves and take back Washington in the only way that might be possible.

What needs to happen is that people simply recognize that government is not the solution to their problems and resolve to fix them themselves. People have the capacity at this point to look out for themselves on an individual basis. They can simply start ignoring the government, and bootstrapping a society that makes government intervention exist only where actually necessary (if it is necessary at all). Unfortunately regulation and cartelization is self-perpetuating and it will take a great deal of hardship for people to finally give up on it.

0 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

Interestingly, Paul won 2% of the vote in Montana, and other somewhat significant percentages in other states (considering people would have had to write him in).

Didymos Thomas;31689 wrote:

Oh, and the Second Amendment is obsolete. The idea is that an armed population can rise up against the government - but how are shotguns and hunting rifles, or even automatic machine guns, going to stand up against tanks and modern aircraft. The Second Amendment no longer protects the people's ability to violently resist the government. It's a shame, too.

I disagree. There are millions of gun owners in this country, and as we have seen in conflicts like Vietnam, and now Iraq and Afghanistan, determined forces of light-armed guerrilla fighters can make one hell of a stand against modern technology. When it comes down to it, wars are won on the ground, and american gun owners already occupy the ground. I am not saying I support something like this, but we could reach this point again, and as long as civilians in this country are able to fire rifles, they can make a formidable stand against a corrupt government.

1 Reply

@Pangloss,

The people of America who own guns could resist a modern military, but they could not defeat it outright, drive it from the capital, capture its bases, etc. With few exceptions, the Vietnamese and Afghans, fighting aginst the U.S and U.S.S.R, were able to inflict losses on the the enemy only while the enemy was searching for them in the wilderness. Unless the strategy is to wear the U.S. military down so that it gives up and hands over the government, victory is not possible. In the process of a guerilla war like that, the country would be demolished no doubt and millions die. The days of marching on the capital with rifles are past. No doubt, such people would be named skin heads or radicals or something of the that sort and sent to guantanamo as enemy combatants.

0 Replies

@BrightNoon,

The days of marching on the capital with rifles are a mere 150 years in our past, and if you travel to the southern united states you will notice how "in the past" the people down there believe the notion to be...

Of course there is no point arguing something like this which is completely hypothetical. But the fact is, with the 2nd amendment right to bear arms in tact, Americans have power to inflict serious damage in rebellion if they should choose to do so. This in itself gives power to the citizens in negotiations or war against a corrupt federal government.

If the federal government were to do something so outrageous (as perceived by the states, like with the civil war), there could be entire states and their guard units to contend with. If the country were to enter another true depression or economic collapse, the state of chaos and anarchy inspired by events such as losing basic services (water, electricity, food supply at the grocery stores, etc), and subsequent military takeover could inspire a revolutionary movement with real power.

This is all just hypothetical, but I think you guys who doubt the power of a revolutionary force are thinking in that way because you/we have never experienced real crisis in our lives. If you look to history and see what has happened in response to real crises (economic collapse, military control of states, excess taxation and regulation), you can never discount the power of the rebellious spirit in a group of people who have decided enough is enough. To say that it is simply not possible or realistic for such a thing to happen you must have to ignore the many instances in history that have proven the opposite.

To tie this back in to the topic, I don't think it will be possible for some new or alternate political movement (ie libertarian) to gain ground in the power struggle in this country without some type of major crisis occurring first. This crisis would shatter the confidence in our political system and demand a real change.

1 Reply

@Pangloss,

Agreed. A revolution is possible, but it couldn't be a neat affair, like the French revolution: neat in the sense of overthrowing the monarchy, not the subsequent civil war or terror.

Fortunately, in one sense, I think just the sort of crisis you are talking about, which could stimulate the rise of a new party, is nearly upon us: hyperinflation or depression. However, historical incidents such as that have tended to lead to yet stricter government control, to the rise of a strong man, not to a democratic change. The Weimar Republic and Hitler come to mind.

0 Replies

@BrightNoon,

I am not hoping for a crisis or the need for a revolution-- I hope that some people in congress and the white house will say enough is enough at some point, and stop stoking the fire that is the federal government before it burns us all up.

Realistically, I don't see it happening. I remember this quote by Thomas Jefferson:

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."

Only time will tell, but in five years from now, I doubt the outlook will be improved.

0 Replies

@BrightNoon,

If the GOP takes a stand for minimal government, more individual freedom of choice and privacy, and its leaders act on these as consistently as conditions allow, it may once again be viable. Bush, for all his conservative "credentials" actually worked to diminish these rights ( "the nation in danger") and increase Presidential power, and enlarged the government apparatus, and utterly threw away fiscal responsibility. In this, he was supported by his Party as it is now constituted; one wonders whether, if McCain had repudiated these actions and called upon Republicans to return to the principles of their party even at the cost of splitting it, whether his honest voice would not have attracted a much larger constituency from both principled "conservatives" as well as independents. As it is, one is left with the feeling that he "sold out" to secure the nomination, and took uncharacteristic positions to secure his victory.
Practically, his age would have surely dictated a much stronger running mate than Palin, and allowed him to claim his ticket was the more experienced.

1 Reply

@jgweed,

... a few comments if I may:

I've always liked McCain and have watched him for a long, long time - as a senator (and fellow vet) from my birth-state. Truth be told, although I think this country needed the change that the obama camp represented, I wouldn't have lamented a single sigh, had he been elected. Further, I got the impression - throughout the campain - as he stumbled through it, the this was a man that struck me as almost "above the sillyness" that tends to epitomize our political infighting (so much so, that he "wasn't very good at it). Good guy - without a doubt.

Revolutional potential: Sure, always a potential. But the people of the united states, as a whole I think; we need an awful lot to spur us to such drastic measures. It's like a sleeping monstor that's hard to awaken. Like all people, insomuch as we have the "things" we need and want, we're relatively docile.

U.S. Military in a Revolution-scenario: In my experience, the people in our armed forces extole so much more their people than their government. It's very difficult for me to imagine any likely scenario where citizens are attacked, without massive numbers abandoning their posts and turning-coat. Even in my most militaristic, dedicated and gung-ho phases would I have ever obeyed any such order.

The republican party will be viable; sooner or later (more likely sooner). I disagree with fundemental republican ideology (steriotypical) more often than not; but that's not to say that I see it as useless or unnecessary (quite the contrary). Although a good number of good people have disagreed, I think that in this too (party-in-power) there needs to be offset and balance over time.

Thanks

1 Reply

@Khethil,

Khethil wrote:

we need an awful lot to spur us to such drastic measures. It's like a sleeping monstor that's hard to awaken. Like all people, insomuch as we have the "things" we need and want, we're relatively docile.

Do you think a hyperinflationairy depression, followed by price controls, rationing and quite possibly marshal law might do the trick? If so, I suspect that sleeping monster will soon, within a decade certainly, be roused.

Quote:

Even in my most militaristic, dedicated and gung-ho phases would I have ever obeyed any such order.Thanks

Well good sir, I hope you represent the majority. I used to think that American soldiers would never follow orders to fire on American citizens, but I've recently become aware of some of the tactics employed after hurricane katrina with regard to marshal law and also to the new stye of riot training that not only the police, but the national guard, has been engaged in since 9/11. Did you know that posse comitatus was repealed after 9/11, giving the government the legal right to deploy troops to patrol american cities? There's a rather disturbing video on Youtube showing a national guard patrol in New Orleans; its first task, to seize the guns of anyone remaining in the city. Apparently, they were given tacit orders to use force if neccessary, so one interveiwed soldier intimated. If I can find it, I'll post the link.

1 Reply

@BrightNoon,

BrightNoon wrote:

Do you think a hyperinflationairy depression, followed by price controls, rationing and quite possibly marshal law might do the trick? If so, I suspect that sleeping monster will soon, within a decade certainly, be roused.

I don't know. Were we to descend to such a condition, normally I'd think it likely. But I don't know. Not to paint too negative a picture here, I'd have to answer "no, as long as iPods, cellphones and Oprah's broadcast keeps coming" - we'd still just sit.

BrightNoon wrote:

... Did you know that posse comitatus was repealed after 9/11, giving the government the legal right to deploy troops to patrol american cities?...

No I didn't. I shouldn't be surprised, given the rather other knee-jerk/anti civil-liberty measures that were quickly passed through.

Ugh

0 Replies

Calling All Libertarians and True Republicans

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know