[Jon Henke]
There's been a great deal of discussion over the past few weeks over the miserable state of the the Right, the Republican Party, and conservatism (a Venn diagram is probably in order here to show the relationships and intersections of those three groups). See George Packer, Fred Thompson, James Joyner, Andrew Sullivan, Ezra Klein, Stephen Bainbridge, Arnold Kling and Megan McArdle (twice).
I'm sure I'll have a great deal more to say on this subject at the new site I've launched with Patrick Ruffini and Soren Dayton, The Next Right. In the meantime, while I cannot identify a specific point of failure, I can pretty easily summarize the journey to failure in just two quotes.
From Ronald Reagan:
If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. ... The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.
To Rick Santorum:
One of the criticisms I make is to what I refer to as more of a libertarianish right. ... This whole idea of personal autonomy, well I don’t think most conservatives hold that point of view. Some do. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. You know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can’t go it alone. That there is no such society that I am aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture.
Are we talking about the same Saint Reagan who called for a bloodbath against student protestors? The same stupid bastard who didn't know what a deficit was? The same guy who invited the frigging fundies into the palace of power in the first place?
Give me a break. Reagan wasn't the end of the beginning of conservatism. He was the beginning of the end. Mostly he was the harbinger of the Age of Stupid. Reagan did more than anyone else did to make Dumbya Bush possible - and his little sheet-smear Santorum, too.
You contrast those quotes as if they were start and end points. They're not. Those are the two sides of the alliance that has been Republicanism since before Reagan. That's the essential tension that's now at the breaking point trying to tolerate McCain's candidacy.
The problem with the Republican party is (a) changing demographics and (b) the Democrats aren't that liberal anymore.
I don't think there actually are any libertarians. The ideology is too internally consistent, so you end up being unable to actually find anyone who really believes in it consistently. Conservatism itself has the virtue of being incoherent by nature, and thus more tolerant of the incoherency of its adherents.
There's an inherent problem with using a quote from Ricky Santorum to illustrate anything. Even people more conservative than Santorum could get away with claiming he isn't representative and therefore any stupidity in his comments doesn't reflect on the party.
But the bigger problem is taking Reagan's quote at face value, which requires accepting that someone who has spent their entire career striving for sharing in government power is going to be in favour of reducing government power. Which is ridiculously implausible. When someone wants to cut down a tree they don't start by climbing to the top of it.
If a politician says they are in favour of reducing their own power you can be almost certain they are lying. It's as likely as a business owner being in favour of low sales or an athlete being in favour of obesity.
I would say something here like "Your whole system is based on a lie". Perhaps it's too unfair. I suppose this whole organization of yours represents an attempt to live your ideals instead of plowing them under.
Then again... not really. If you were really serious about your system here, you'd be attempting to target the relationship between Republicans and the defense complex. You have looked at a budget, right? You do know that GWB's vaunted increase in discretionary spending is almost entirely defense-based?
I doubt you'll have the political courage to get anywhere near that. Your organization will suggest the Republicans spend less money on things Republicans hate anyway, thus "encouraging the cause of liberty".
But you'll be fuc*ed every time the voters want something *other* than liberty. Which they frequently do. Because your particular narrow prism of liberty in relation to government power has very little to do with the desires of human beings to be liberated from their basic sources of suffering and fear.
Well, I think eventually the Republican party will have to back away from social issues, regardless of what Rick "Man on Dog" Santorum wants. The problem with social issues is that the pools consistently show the younger generation is far more tolerant of things like gay marriage than the older people.
Something else I would recommend is fight against the Duncan Hunters of the party with all this "Juan McCain" and generally anti-hispanic panic. It is not only silly, but it actually undermines free markets and turns of a growing demographic from ever voting Republican.
Good luck with the project. A would count myself very happy if the culture warrios are anti-hispanic racists went the way of the dodo. I think you'll find your fight will be difficult, but I'm glad someone is starting to fight it.
Glasnost,
I think the new group can be given some time to establish itself. I have read a number of conservative writers who have attacked the defense budget spending, as its current spending is still focused on cold war style extravagancies. One step beyond would be to question the role the military plays, but if this new organization wants to be effective, the goals need to be realistic. As to the liberation of voters from their suffering and fears, I think there is room for those of a libertarian bent in the conversation. I myself don't have faith in the government to be such a liberator. I would prefer that the right wing arguments be focused on limiting government involvement and taxation and not on limiting scientific research and individual freedoms (a la Santorum).
Aaron
In the first presidential election I followed closely, Eisenhower vs Stevenson (1952 version), the Republicans were opposed to foreign wars, they favored high tariffs, and they were more favorable than Democrats to the hopes of African-Americans. A lot has changed since then, but two things have stayed constant: the Republicans represent the economic interests of the affluent and the emotional needs of cultural conservatives and radical American nationalists. People vote for the Republican party because they feel that Republican policies will help them economically or because they agree with the Republican line on social issues and foreign policy. Ideological libertarians represent 5% of the Republican vote, if that, and I think most of the posters in this thread are kidding themselves if they think that libertarianism is an important thread in the Republican fabric.
Religion poisons everything?
Also...
I'll be checking The New Right for some seriously 'new' conservative ideas. I hope you'll spend some time reviewing the UK's Tory resurgence, take a look at how a universal healthcare system is a boon to businesses small and large (and the arts), ask yourself if the current right wing coalition is in fact where you want conservatism to head, and if it's not please begin a conversation on how to tame some of the more repugnant parts of it.
As a UK immigrant to the US, I would say the Tories (tolerant, green, not responsible for Iraq) would likely get my vote, so far the Republicans wouldn't get my vote of they were offering 'stimulus packages' every month.
Your idea of turning Megan's blog into Craigslist, where guest bloggers can promote their latest projects, garage sales, escort services, etc. for free is brilliant.
Maybe the Atlantic can also turn Sully's blog into a personals site and Goldberg's blog into a fantasy war gamer forum.
Stan,
I agree that Libertarianism is very limited in the overall Republican thread count. But those of that bent are better off in trying to influence the GOP than they are in creating their own 3rd party. This group seems as though they're trying to be the FDL of the libertarian wing. It's the internet, where attention costs are pretty cheap. I think they should go for it. It'll at least generate some more flame wars to soak up the rage that drivers can't use on the road anymore, what with the limited driving and all.
Aaron
Right now it's morning in America and Jack Kemp and Rick Santorum are under the sheets, with blinding hangovers, staring at each other with bloodshot eyes and wondering what the hell happened last night.
Classical liberalism and traditional conservatism are thoroughly incompatible philosophical positions, and for many years they represented the opposite poles of the political spectrum. The former is premised on individual autonomy, and the latter is communitarian and radically opposed to the notion that people should be able to do whatever they want. The emergence of communism abroad, and the growing welfare state at home, drove them into bed with each other. And for a time they managed to convince themselves that deep in their hearts they shared the same values.
But now the magic is gone. There are fundamental and intractable divisions between the business community and the nativists, between the suburban libertarians and the rural evangelicals, and between the neocons and everyone with a functioning cerebral cortex.
Oh, they'll smile for the cameras and hold hands together chanting "USA! USA!" at the convention like the good old days. But as a majority coalition, they're dead meat... at least until the next time the Democrats drive people away from them in droves, be it in 2040 or next Tuesday.
While I carry no brief for the sad-sack state of the Republican coalition, I do marvel at the capacity of those on the left to persuade themselves that the electorate has on the whole moved left, as opposed to responding to the self-immolation on the right.
>between the neocons and everyone with a functioning cerebral cortex.
I would, in fact, argue that the much-reviled "neocons" have cortexes that function quite well, but aren't conservative at all (not theocon, not paleocon, not mainstream con). In fact, they are arguably the only truly progressive movement the USA has. (The "progressive" green left --- memorably called the "reactionary left" by the late lamented Michael Kelly of this magazine --- has become the ideological twin brother of the paleocons.)
LaFollette, that's excellent analysis.
The problem I have, personally, is that the two "brands" competing for my vote both represent what you call "traditional conservatism", i.e. "communitarian and radically opposed to the notion that people should be able to do whatever they want".
The difference between today's Democrats and Republicans often seems to be simply which set of rules they want to force other people to follow. And I, being a classical liberal, disagree with the fundamental premise of each.
Even gay marriage, which appears to be a pure libertarian issue, often appears to me to be more about forcing Americans to accept gay couples as being "married" than it is about freedom. I mean when I'm listening to debates from the "right" and the "left" about this, it seems that one side wants to enforce "family values" and the other side wants to enforce "gay acceptance". Nobody even brings up what I think this really illustrates: we'd be far better off just getting the government out of the marriage business, letting individuals do what they want, e.g. get married in whatever combination and through whatever ceremony they want, and use contract law instead of state-mandated marriages to organize inheritance, property ownership, child custody, etc.
Perhaps I'm reading too much into what I hear, but the assumption that it's good for government to force people to do things seems to drive a lot of the right/left debate. I hear way too much support for unbridled majoritarianism and the forcing of beliefs on other Americans, and far too little about individual freedom, from both sides.
If a politician says they are in favour of reducing their own power you can be almost certain they are lying. It's as likely as a business owner being in favour of low sales or an athlete being in favour of obesity.
Posted by Sam B
There's something in what you say but I think libertarians would claim that they're not politicians. They are, for instance, housewives or small businessmen and so their desire to reduce government power isn't inconsistent with their seeking office to achieve that end. Of course, talk's cheap.
PersonFromPorlock...
Well, I think it's pretty obvious that big-L Libertarians are not politicians. They don't win any elections.
Bush is, in many ways, the Jimmy Carter of the Republicans. Democrats will control the white house for the 8-12 years and congress for the next 4-8 years.
Republicans will change their image and adapt and probably become more liberal socailly (and more libertarian). The New Republican presidential candidates (after McCain) will eventually be able to admit Iraq was a mistake (unless something extaordinary happens over there) and will delcare they wield a different brand of conservative that that wielded by Bush. The pendulum will eventually swing the other way like it ALWAYS DOES and the swinging of the pendulum will either be speeded or slowed depending on how fast the democrats are corrupted by their new power (just as the republicans were).
Does anybody actually disagree with this analysis? Idealists.
As a quick aside on the matter of the actual number of libertarians in the Republican party,
This problem isn't how many people agree with the broad tenets of libertarianism but rather how many people are intellectually consistent.
My gut tells me that most are libertarians when it comes to themselves and authoritarians of various kinds when it comes to others.
It is the vanity of 'L'ibertarians that they are consistent throughout.
"there are fundamental and intractable divisions between the business community and the nativists..."
Regarding the idea that 'nativism' is opposed to long term business interests in the US:
Massive illegal immigration has had three main effects on the US economy:
Cheap Food (at least in the short run)
Extremely low wages for migrant laborers (What farm industries want is a glut of labor. This ensures the lowest possible wages for workers.)
A deep set-back progress in the mechanization of many farm products. (Farming techniques in the Dark Ages were actually more advanced than in Roman times because Europe, after the Roman empire, did not have a glut of slaves to do the grunt work and they were forced out of necessity to advance the technology. Nobody should spend 10 hours a day picking strawberries for a living even if they were paid better. Its a terrible way to live, and without the glut of migrant labor in the US, many industries would have already invested the considerable capital required to mechanize the process.)
"there are fundamental and intractable divisions between the business community and the nativists..."
Regarding the idea that 'nativism' is opposed to long term business interests in the US:
Massive illegal immigration has had three main effects on the US economy:
Cheap Food (at least in the short run)
Extremely low wages for migrant laborers (What farm industries want is a glut of labor. This ensures the lowest possible wages for workers.)
A deep set-back to progress in the mechanization of many farm products. (Farming techniques in the Dark Ages were actually more advanced than in Roman times because Europe, after the Roman empire, did not have a glut of slaves to do the grunt work and they were forced out of necessity to advance the technology. Nobody should spend 10 hours a day picking strawberries for a living even if they were paid better. Its a terrible way to live, and without the glut of migrant labor in the US, many industries would have already invested the considerable capital required to mechanize the process.)
The Republicans became to much like the Democrats.
I gave the Republicans 10 years to go down the wrong road and become more like Democrats and they just went down it faster. Bush is really not a conservative. More like a pro-life moderate.
To MoeLarry&jesus,
Go read the Constitution, the Congress is responsable for spending, taxes and deficits not the President. And since there is no line item veto it is not quite as convenient to blame (or give credit) to any President now is it!
A libertarian GOP would do much better than the current brand.
It doesn't require being radical. It simply requires a mainstream language cobbled together from Dem and GOP rhetoric with some clarifications on a few gaps.
All the candidates intermittently give flashes of libertarian-leaning stances...just never from the same person or at the same time.
Reagan's quote has to be taken contextually-- there is no way that he was close to a libertarian in the modern ayn-rand college student pure libertarianism that we see today. Just imagine his views on same sex marriage, for example. I see a better take on the future of conservatism as a form of extended federalism, where not only States have rights, but towns and local communities as well. Guiliani and Thompson were both talking about Federalism in their campaigns--- shame they both ran such poor ones.
I think Santorum is thinking of Fascism more than Conservatism.
The definition of cognitive dissonance: A libertarian blaming Bush for "limiting scientific research". I guess the new libertarian approach is to eschew the market and embrace big government when embryonic stem cells are involved.
Hey -- can some Libertarian out there please help me? When and how did BusHitler limit embryonic stem cell research?
A Berman,
Personally, I think people make "a more libertarian party" or a Libertarian GOP a far taller order than it needs to be.
It doesn't require a stringent Randian or Rothbardian.
It's Guiliani or Thompson without the hawkish Wilsonian views
If you simply had either one read modified cue cards from someone like Pat Buchanan or Obama when Foreign Policy issues came up and immigration cue cards from McCain and threw in a little anti-establishment rhetoric about "liberty" from Ron Paul, you'd be almost there.
Of course, that's very simplified, but I think you get my point.
Tinian,
I know what you mean but I think the debate there gets muddled.
I truly think people take Bush's position there to mean "outlawing". That's why it seems that way.
Personally, I've never read any libertarians pushing for public funding for more strands of embryonic stem cell research.
"I see a better take on the future of conservatism as a form of extended federalism, where not only States have rights, but towns and local communities as well."
I see several problems with the Federalism thing...
First off, I care a lot more about whether I have rights than whether my state or city has "rights." Our local and state governments don't necessarily represent us any better than DC does, and I have no problem whatsoever with the Bill of Right, or "emanations and penumbras" of individual freedoms, being applied to every level of government.
Second, most federalist fervor seems to be focused on increasing power of state and local governments to restrict the rights of private individuals and smaller groups. If there were the same focus on protecting the power or states and local governments to offer greater freedoms than DC wants (e.g. decriminalize marijuana, allow nontraditional marriage, liberalize the right to keep and bear arms, to name three libertarian positions with constituencies), then I could get much more excited about "federalism". The idea of states "experimenting" with different laws seems oriented in one direction: the wrong one.
Third, by and large, intricate philosophical debates don't attract constituencies unless they translate directly to some specific thing that at least some significant part of the electorate wants (eminent domain reform, bars and restaurants that do or do not allow smoking, gay marriage).
One more thing...
Fourth, "federalism" is nothing but a word. SCOTUS judges who espoused Federalism managed to rule in favor of the power of New London to take property and hand it to private developers, and also against the power of California residents to vote to legalize medical marijuana here. That doesn't sound like a consistent philosophy; it sounds more like "Federalism means whatever is convenient, and whatever results in government having the power to restrict the rights of individuals."
All this sounds like the Republican version of "what the meaning of is, is". Just as circular and self-defeating as the Democrat's kind, only without the sex. Every right-leaning person seems to have their own personal definition of what a "true conservative" is, and most every other right-leaning person disagrees with them. That doesn't matter much, because the only one who does seem to fit is the fanciful vision that he has of himself. To paraphrase General Eisenhower's Mommie. Shut up, deal, and play the cards you have to work with. Young Ike was bitching about the cards he had been dealt. Mom set him straight. He listened and then went on to do a damn fine job of winning a war. This presidential election cycle we have John McCain and Barak Obama. The choice is clear. Let's just get on with it.
My,my do you have a bunch of conservative/republican haters at this site. It is interesting to observe that the party that will regulate what we ingest, who we tax (married people), are the wealthiest in our congress, hold large stocks in the oil/coal industry, are close friends of the saudi's, want to dictate when our babies will be warehoused (if allowed to survive)in daycares, who will and will not be medically treated, and how they will be treated, are angry at republicans....what a laugh.
Rick thinks that individuals who want to be left alone by government are wrongheaded? You're kidding me. I'm a conservative, but I can see why liberals hate Rick with a philosophical grounding like that. Reagan told us, correctly, that government WAS the problem. Rick says we need government to enforce right and wrong. Yuck.
Reagan is right that libertarianism is the heart of conservatism... not the Republican Party, but conservatism. The founders did their utmost to infuse the emerging U.S. with restrictions on government and as few restrictions as possible on the citizenry. This is political conservatism.
Santorum is speaking from the social side of conservatism that seeks to preserve Judeo-Christian morals in a time when the Left is seeking to create their own moral structure. Santorum has a point that fighting against attacks on the old social/moral structure requires some intervention by government to reverse or prevent liberal legislation.
Political conservatism is more closely linked to libertarianism. Social conservatism in its present form is not. Since conservatives embrace both conservative flavors in varying degrees (a libertarian would be less likely to incorporate social conservative issues in their personal political framework)there is a built-in conflict within conservatism which may appear to some as somewhat chaotic.
As far as "rebranding" the Republican Party, the Establishment Republicans have pretty much gone off the political conservative framework and abandoned principle to a money/resource driven philosophy that embraces government solutions rather than market solutions.
‘A deep set-back to progress in the mechanization of many farm products.’
“Without addressing the truth of this statement, it is irrelevant. These are jobs for those with little or no education. It is more cost effective and beneficial (for them and for us) to employ them in labor than it is to invest in expensive equipment that does the same job. In addition, investment in farm mechanization is not necessarily the best possible use of investment resources.”
Give me a break Nelson, that is like saying that if the industrial revolution hadn’t put all those blacksmiths out of work, we would be better off (never mind that if it were not for the wealth generated by the industrial revolution, there would be no substantial middle class). Of course mechanization would reduce the cost of food in the long run. It has in every single farm industry where enough capital has been invested to develop a viable mechanical solution.
However, the tendency of human beings is to make a quick buck, not to invest in a solution that will dramatically increase efficiency 8 years down the road. The son’s and daughter’s of today’s current immigrants should be the ones building, running and maintaining these machines or providing high quality services those who do (that what the middle does), not picking strawberries in fields.
Furthermore, regardless of how much better off Latino immigrants are here then they are in Mexico, they would be even better off and make higher wages if illegal immigration were curtailed. You just can't get ahead in an industry where, at 40 years, you never get a raise because you are 100% replaceable by two young 18 year olds who are grateful to work for minimum wage (or less).
I would like to make more poor people in the US less poor (including immigrants), not to make really poor people in Mexico slightly better off.
Those quotes pretty much sum up the entire situation.
Ronald Reagan and Phil Gramm never left the Democratic party... The party left them.
Fast forward a few decades... The GOP moved right by them, too.
I wonder what will happen now? Does one of the parties get pulled back in a more libertarian direction? Do libertarians cease being relevant? Does a viable third party emerge?
I'd say these options are in approximate order of probability in the 10 year time horizon. I expect a GOP drubbing in 2008 followed by another Newt (if not Reagan) restructure the party's message a few cycles down the road.
The only thing that will prevent that is a PR disaster for the Democrats. Another Carter, Dinkins, Kerry... GOP may win votes by default in 2010 or 2012. Then they'll lose all taste for reform.
McCain may actually win in 2008. I wonder what message the GOP will infer from that? I suspect it will be the wrong one, both in terms of political calculus and philosophical coherence.
Bush is, in many ways, the Jimmy Carter of the Republicans. Democrats will control the white house for the 8-12 years
Not if they nominate Obama.
US of A - fighting jihadis since 1785.
LaFolette Progressive draws the lines in the right places when he points out that the tension is between classical liberalism and traditional conservatism. To that I would add: this coalition was a marriage of convenience, executed in reaction to the eviction of genuine liberalism from its own house by the Left -- and it cannot last.
So which is genuine conservatism? Well, here's what I can tell you: If Russell Kirk is any kind of authority on the roots of conservatism -- and every conservative I've asked about it so far, says yes -- it is Santorum, not Reagan, who is closer to the mark.
As for Reagan, the epitaph on his gravestone...
"I know in my heart that man is good. That what is right will always eventually triumph. And there is purpose and worth to each and every life."
... expressing as it does a profoundly liberal sentiment, runs directly counter to the Original Sin premise of "flawed human nature" which is fundamental to conservatism -- enough so that Charles R. Kesler found it necessary to engage in some attempted damage control.
Fourth, "federalism" is nothing but a word. SCOTUS judges who espoused Federalism managed to rule in favor of the power of New London to take property and hand it to private developers, and also against the power of California residents to vote to legalize medical marijuana here.
You are leaving out our most Federalist Judge. Clarence Thomas who was right on both issues. For the right reasons.
It was the liberals of the court who got it wrong.
The New Republican presidential candidates (after McCain) will eventually be able to admit Iraq was a mistake (unless something extaordinary happens over there)
Something extraordinary is happening. Violence is way down. The next round of elections is coming up in October.
American troop draw downs are expected to start later this year as the Iraqi Army performs better with every passing month.
The draw down plan is for 45 days to see what happens. If it goes OK further draw downs are expected.
I see that many are trying to fit Reagan and Santorum together under a big tent called Conservativism. It cannot be done. Reagan was a specific sort of Conservative, one that was strong enough to start his own branch....Reagan Conservatives. The problem is that every freaking Republican wants to be the next "Reagan" and it can't be done. However, Reagan's principles can be applied to today's problems. But, to do so, forces those wanna be Reagans into a hard position. To do what Reagan did, they would have to rise above the petty details and take chances. They need to lead. They need to apply their own solutions, based on his principles, if they want to succeed Reagan.
Unfortunately, I see no successors on the horizon. Bobby Jindal may grow into a Reagan, but, only time will tell. Reagan did have one advantage. He had one enemy, around which he could coalesce his arguments: Communism. If a politician does that today, he has to fight the tide of political correctness that has swamped our social discourse.
Both parties are mired by petty politics. Their short sightedness is the reason for the publics' disgust. But today's politicians are addicted to power. We will probably not see a politician of Reagan's stature for the next 30 years.
FxConde lectures me: "To MoeLarry&jesus,
Go read the Constitution, the Congress is responsable for spending, taxes and deficits not the President. And since there is no line item veto it is not quite as convenient to blame (or give credit) to any President now is it!"
Dear Scholar - Dumbya's budgets (and his dumbass war) were perfectly in synch with the Repiglican Congress during the first 6 years of his idiotic administration. He never vetoed a single bill until the Democrats took over.
You can absolve him of all responsibility if you wish, but I'm not stupid enough to do so.
Dumbya and the Repiglicans in Congress were wrapped in one big obscene borrow and spend daisy chain and "movement conservatives" applauded the whole mess, for the most part. Gradually a few "principled conservatives" drifted away but most of the movement is still with Dumbya.
Come off it. Reagan was not a libertarian, even if he made libertarianish noises at times to get the libertarian vote. Reagan was a small(er) government conservative who wanted to decentralize and cut red tape. That was the extent of his affinity with libertarians.
"You know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world "
That is not how Reagan viewed the world.
Why is that little sheet-smear MoeLarryAndJesus allowed to post on this site?
You do know that GWB's vaunted increase in discretionary spending is almost entirely defense-based?
I don't know it, because it is not true.
Something else I would recommend is fight against the Duncan Hunters of the party with all this "Juan McCain" and generally anti-hispanic panic. It is not only silly, but it actually undermines free markets and turns of a growing demographic from ever voting Republican.
Considering that Hispanics are the most anti-free market people on earth, I have trouble seeing how government making America a Hispanic country is going to advance free markets.
The people in government working hard to Hispander America are doing so in exactly the expectation that this will lead to a greater acceptance of big government. Only the faux libertarians are on board with this move.
Individualism does not lead to smaller government, but to bigger government. It's a sign of their blinkered obsession with their own ideology that libertarians never notice this.
Classical liberalism and traditional conservatism are thoroughly incompatible philosophical positions, and for many years they represented the opposite poles of the political spectrum. The former is premised on individual autonomy, and the latter is communitarian and radically opposed to the notion that people should be able to do whatever they want.
The funny thing about "classical liberalism" is that it is the newest of all the political philosophies out there. The actual "classical liberals", the liberals of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, most certainly did NOT believe that people should be able to do whatever they want. Madison and Jefferson definitely believed no such thing. The actual "classical liberals" were much closer to what is today called "traditional conservatism".
Reagan was right.
I'm appalled at the ad hominem and other intemperate venting in the comments. I haven't visited this site before...probably won't return if this is what you attract.
The problem with the Republican party is (a) changing demographics
The Republican party is working hard to bring about the very demographic change that is killing it as a small government party. Whether that is a deliberate move or simply stupidity I can't tell.
szr wrote: 'Well, I think eventually the Republican party will have to back away from social issues, regardless of what Rick "Man on Dog" Santorum wants. The problem with social issues is that the pools consistently show the younger generation is far more tolerant of things like gay marriage than the older people.'
The trouble with this theory is that it's 100% out of synch with the evidence. The social conservatives are the GOP's _strongest_ faction. They were the only pat of the party who did any good in the 2006 election, and their positions on things like border control are _popular_. The elites in both parties (i.e. Bush, McCain, and Kennedy) joined hands against the general public's wishes on that.
Likewise, the ballot initiatives backed by the social conservartives tended to pass even as the GOP was losing the election, and the libs had to mount expensive campaigns of lies to beat the ones they did beat (such as in Missouri Amendment 2 and the Arizona imigration initiative).
Polls are easily manipulated, and generally used to shape perception rather than monitor it. For example, the polls said consistantly for years that the majority of the public favored gun control efforts, yet this was almost never reflected at the real polls on E-day. There was a reason for that.
szr wrote: 'Something else I would recommend is fight against the Duncan Hunters of the party with all this "Juan McCain" and generally anti-hispanic panic. It is not only silly, but it actually undermines free markets and turns of a growing demographic from ever voting Republican.'
There is no anti-Hispanic panic. That's a media myth that's been spun up to cover distract attention from the real debate about border security and cultural and linguistic identity.
The bottom line is that the cultural conservatives _are_ the Republican Party majority, they turned the GOP from a permanent minority party (which is had been for decades) into a competitive force, and absent them it goes back to being a permanent minority. There just simply _aren't enough_ economic conservatives and libertarians to hold a majority.
The demographic realities of the country are that social conservatives have an edge in terms of future power, because they're having more children than social liberals by a considerable margin. That's part of why the Democratic Party's liberal faction is so desperate to keep the borders wide open, they hope to make up theri demographic deficit by importing new voters to make up for the ones who were not born.
'Santorum is speaking from the social side of conservatism that seeks to preserve Judeo-Christian morals in a time when the Left is seeking to create their own moral structure. Santorum has a point that fighting against attacks on the old social/moral structure requires some intervention by government to reverse or prevent liberal legislation.' --OWASM
There's not getting away from the central importance of culture, it underlies everything else. There can never be a libertarian society as long the underlying culture is not libertarian, no matter what laws are passed or repealed. Ditto every other agenda.
The key to the social conservative side of the equation is to force the Left to fight their cultural agenda in the legally and morally correct forum, i.e. the electorate, the State Legislatures, and Congress. That's where debates on issues like gay marriage, abortion, and the rest properly belong.
The cultural Left prefers the courts, because they can impose things that can't win legitimately by fiat. That's why there are no 'neutrals' in the culture war. If a politician tries to be neutral, in effect he's siding with the cultural libs, since the intelligensia, media, academic class, and legal world lean their way.
But there's no getting away from the core truth that if the Left wins the culture war, they win it ALL. The idea of a culture of economic conervatism and free markets combined with a liberal social culture is self-contradictory, with a liberalized (using the modern American meaning of that word) culture, socialism follows and not too far behind.
"The social conservatives are the GOP's _strongest_ faction. They were the only pat of the party who did any good in the 2006 election"
Do you think the fiscal conservatives abandoned the GOP, or do you think the GOP abandoned the fiscal conservatives?